Commons Chamber

Tuesday 28th October 2025

(began 2 weeks, 6 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:34
11:35
None Portrait Oral questions: Foreign, Commonwealth and Development
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker. For a second. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And can I join you in the tribute and
11:35
11:36
Charlie Maynard Portrait Charlie Maynard MP (Witney, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
that the United Arab Emirates is arming the RSF in Sudan. The RSF is one of the two warring factions in Sudan, and was found by the UN to be responsible for crimes against humanity, including murder, torture, enslavement, rape and sexual violence. As per UK government export data, the UK exported nearly three quarters of £1 billion worth of arms to the UAE by a single export individual export licence between 2019 and 2023. If the UAE is indeed arming the RSF, the UK is breaching its arms export licensing criteria, specifically criteria one, two, four, six and seven.

Importantly, these criteria look beyond considering whether the UK exported weapons ultimately reached Sudan. They instead consider the UK's international obligations. Given this, what steps does the UK government taking to verify whether the UAE is indeed arming the RSF and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, please? It's a very important subject. As other members need to come in as well, they're need to come in as well, they're meant to be questions rather than statements. I recognise the importance. I'm sure you're going to come to the end of the question now, please.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now, please. Apologies, Mr. Speaker. Whether the UAE is arming the RSF, and will the UK cease all arms shipments to the UK cease all arms shipments to the UAE until it is proven that the UAE is not arming the RSF?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

UAE is not arming the RSF? Let me make two points in response to his question. First of all, as he will know, the UK has
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:42
11:42
None Portrait Q2. What steps her Department is taking to support the Gaza peace plan. (906037)
-

Jacob Collier two. Mr.
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:51
11:52
11:53
Yvette Cooper Portrait Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP, Foreign Secretary, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

UK Foreign Secretary. Well, as I have been clear, that the future of Palestine needs to include the West Bank, East include the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza. We have always strongly condemned any proposals around the annexation of the West Bank, but also illegal settlements in the West Bank, and it is significant that not only Secretary of State Rubio, but also President Trump and Vice President Vance have all made clear their condemnation of the proposals for the annexation of the West Bank in order to have security and peace for Israelis, alongside security of peace for Palestinians.

We need ultimately to work towards that two state

**** Possible New Speaker ****

solution, two states living side by side. Patrick Hurley.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question three Mr. Speaker. Foreign you. Mr. speaker, on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Foreign you. Mr. speaker, on Friday, I welcomed President Zelensky and the coalition of the willing to the Foreign Office to a meeting chaired by the Prime Minister to demonstrate our continued support for Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression. the face of Russian aggression. Since I set out in this House, new, stronger sanctions against the two largest oil producers, Rosneft and largest oil producers, Rosneft and Lukoil, I'm pleased to say the US has followed suit. The EU has also introduced further sanctions.

We introduced further sanctions. We need to tighten the economic vice

**** Possible New Speaker ****

need to tighten the economic vice on Russia to bring Putin to the table and get a pathway to peace. Early. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can I welcome the UK's
11:54
11:54
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:59
12:00
None Portrait Q4. What assessment she has made of the level of threat China poses to UK interests. (906039)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sir. From large. Or one second.
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:01
12:01
12:01
12:02
12:02
12:03
12:03
12:03
12:05
12:05
12:06
None Portrait Q6. What steps she is taking to promote a Palestinian State. (906042)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker. The UK's commitment. To a two. State solution.
12:06
12:06
12:07
12:07
12:08
12:09
12:09
12:10
12:10
12:11
12:12
None Portrait Q9. What diplomatic steps her Department is taking with international partners to help tackle organised immigration crime. (906045)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. And we know that, of course, people smuggling gangs work across borders
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:13
12:13
12:14
None Portrait Q10. What steps her Department is taking to provide sustainable funding for the BBC World Service. (906047)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. Speaker. Minister. Thank you. Mr. Speaker. The BBC World Service remains the world's most trusted international news source and
12:14
12:14
12:15
12:15
12:15
12:16
None Portrait Q11. What steps her Department is taking to help improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza. (906048)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

All of us. Mr. speaker. Mr.
12:16
12:17
12:18
12:18
12:19
12:19
None Portrait Q12. How much and what proportion of the funding due to be allocated to Mauritius as part of the agreement concerning the Chagos Archipelago will come from her Department’s budget. (906049)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Us Jack Rankin. Number 12, please, sir. Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. And we have secured a deal that
12:19
12:20
12:20
12:21
None Portrait Topical questions: Foreign, Commonwealth and Development
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. speaker. A mr. speaker, Hurricane Melissa
12:21
Yvette Cooper Portrait Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP, Foreign Secretary, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

A mr. speaker, Hurricane Melissa is expected to make landfall in Jamaica shortly. Potentially the Jamaica shortly. Potentially the most severe storm ever to hit the country. Sadly, seven people have already reportedly lost their lives across the region and thousands are in shelters now as they wait the storm's arrival. Many people will be thinking of family and friends in Jamaica and in the region. I spoke with the Jamaican foreign minister yesterday to offer the UK's full support and solidarity, and we are prepared to mobilise resources at their request, and the Fcdo stands ready to help British nationals 24 over seven.

We have set up the crisis centre in the Foreign Office, including with support from the Mod, and that also we are also positioning specialist rapid deployment teams to provide consular assistance to British nationals in the region. Any British nationals who are there should follow our travel advice and the advice of the Jamaican authorities. We are closely monitoring the hurricane's path. Melissa is forecast to impact Cuba next and potentially the Turks and Caicos Islands and the Bahamas. Ministers have spoken with the governors of the overseas territories in the region, and we hope that these islands are spared significant damage.

The UK government is also preparing to deliver humanitarian assistance to affected areas, with a focus on meeting the immediate needs of those who are most vulnerable. And we send the people of Jamaica our support and solidarity. Today.
12:23
12:23
12:24
12:24
12:25
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:29
12:29
12:29
12:30
12:30
12:30
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:33
12:34
12:35
12:35
12:36
12:36
12:36
12:37
12:37
12:39
12:39
12:39
12:39
12:39
12:39
12:40
12:40
12:41
12:41
12:41
12:42
12:43
12:43
12:43
12:44
12:44
12:45
12:45
12:46
12:46
12:46
12:47
12:47
12:47
12:48
12:48
12:50
None Portrait Opposition Day Debate: Opposition Day (11th allotted day). Debate on a Motion in the name of the Official Opposition. Subject to be announced
-

motion on stamp duty land tax. I inform the House that I have not selected the amendments. I now call Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride to move the motion.
12:50
Mel Stride Portrait Rt Hon Sir Mel Stride MP (Central Devon, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I beg to move the motion on the Order Paper. Mr. speaker, there comes a time in the careers of some in this House when they stand too close to the edge, when they play with fire, when they fly too close to the sun, and to continue in that astronomical metaphor. We have a Chancellor who has truly thrown herself headlong into a colossal black hole entirely of her making. The Chancellor, Mr.

Speaker, has trashed our economy, and she will blame anybody but herself. The OBR, the legacy, the Conservative Party, Donald Trump, Brexit, whatever it is, as long as it is not herself. And yet we on this side of the House know the clear truth. We know exactly what has happened to our economy. We know that we had a government that, when it was in opposition, said that there was no way they would be putting up taxes left, right and centre.

And yet within a few short months they had done precisely that, layering up taxes on businesses, destroying growth at the same time as talking down our economy. The fictitious £22 billion black hole, which, ironically, was debunked as not legitimised by the OBR at the behest of the party opposite themselves. We know that this party has borrowed, borrowed colossal amounts of money, is due to be spending around half £1 trillion more than the plans that they inherited. And what has been the consequence of that, Mr.

Speaker? It has been elevated inflation. We now have the highest inflation in the G7. The IMF tells us that next year we will once again have the highest inflation in the G7. And the consequences of that through monetary policy, of course, are that interest rates will be higher for longer, bearing down on those who have mortgages, businesses who wish to borrow. And critically, I will in a moment. Critically, when it comes to our burgeoning national debt, which is soaring under this government, the costs of servicing that debt are now running at 100 billion a year, rising to 130 billion across this Parliament.

That is twice what we spend on defence. Indeed, if government servicing of our debt was a a department of government, it would be the third largest in Whitehall. And none of that money, Mr. speaker, is going on public services. It is simply going to pay off the creditors who are owed money as a consequence of the profligacy of the party opposite. And I give way to the honourable lady.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable gentleman. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the honourable gentleman for giving way. honourable gentleman for giving way. And would he agree with me that Liz Truss's disastrous mini-budget impacted on working families up and down this country with astronomical down this country with astronomical mortgage interest rates that they're still struggling to fund at this point in time?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this point in time? I think, Mr. Speaker, we'll take no lessons from the party opposite when it comes to the mismanagement when it comes to the mismanagement of our economy. What I have just set out has led to a Chancellor that had a budget back in the that had a budget back in the October of last year, in which she blew all the headroom and more, rebuilt it in the spring, and is rebuilt it in the spring, and is now, as we all know, heading into this budget on the 26th of November, with a gaping black hole that she with a gaping black hole that she will have to fill.

That is due to economic incompetence and it is causing huge uncertainty. Mr. causing huge uncertainty. Mr. speaker, I speak to businesses up and down the country. None of them know what to expect. They're all know what to expect. They're all fearful about the tax rises that are yet to come, and that is down to this Chancellor. And what are the consequences? The consequences are that we have the highest level are that we have the highest level of unemployment in four years, and just with every other Labour government, we always know in history, they leave office with unemployment higher than that which it was when they came into office in the retail, hospitality and leisure sector alone, 90,000 jobs have been destroyed under this government.

Young people bearing the brunt of these policies under us. Mr. speaker, youth unemployment fell by around 45% under the last Labour government. It rose by around the same amount and this government is on course to do that. And young people are particularly I will in a moment. Young people are particularly affected, of course, because the National Insurance changes are not just an increase in the rate, they're a reduction in the threshold. And that affects young people desperate to get their first job.

That foot on the career ladder the most. And I give way to my right honourable friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I'm really grateful to my right honourable friend for giving way, and does he agree with me that in such a short period of me that in such a short period of time, what the opposite benches are showing out that it's they that cannot be trusted with the economy cannot be trusted with the economy and the future of this country? And it's time they woke up to the reality.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reality. Yeah, yeah. My right honourable friend is absolutely right, Mr. speaker. We see it in inflation. speaker. We see it in inflation. Inflation running at twice the Bank of England's target or thereabouts twice or thereabouts that they twice or thereabouts that they inherited under us on the day of the general election. And within that food inflation rocketing up at that food inflation rocketing up at over 4%, damaging and impoverishing the very people that that party the very people that that party opposite claims to want to stand up for, and can I, I will give way to my right hon.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

my right hon. Friend. Does he agree with me that we also see it in hypocrisy? For example, Cabinet ministers who For example, Cabinet ministers who say build, baby, build, whilst at the same time writing letters to the same time writing letters to the Mayor of London, trying to block homes in their own constituency. Yeah, very good point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

constituency. Yeah, very good point. Mel Stride. The right hon. Gentleman makes, as usual, a characteristically poignant point. characteristically poignant point. There is another act of damage that this government has created, and that is that some of the most successful, high net worth wealth creators in our country have simply gone. They've left. It's estimated 16,000 have gone over the time that this government has been in office. Socialists will say, who cares? Good riddance. But they should dwell on this.

The tax paid by that 16,000 is probably equivalent to between a third and half a million people on average earnings. Hard working people up and down our country, paying the price of Labour's policies. Mr. speaker, there are choices here. It does not have to be like this. We can actually reduce taxes if we get on top and control government spending. My party conference, we set out £47 billion of savings across government, including £23 billion and savings across the welfare budget.

What did the government do when they came to try to tackle the welfare budget? They showed us that this is a Dad's Army of a government, with a Captain Mainwaring of a Chancellor. No match, even for the rabble behind them. We know that we need to have responsible tax cuts, Mr. Speaker. That means they need to be funded and they need to lean into growth. And that is why we have announced that we in government, we would be abolishing stamp duty on primary residences.

This is one of the worst taxes in our tax system. The OBR states that a 1% increase in stamp duty will lead to between a 5 to 7% decrease in the number of transactions. And yet on this government's watch, the stamp duty due on a home valued at £300,000, will have doubled during their time in office. And I will certainly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way to I'll give way to the my right honourable friend. I'd like to thank the Shadow Chancellor for giving way, and he's Chancellor for giving way, and he's making a very powerful speech. And is he aware that recently in the Treasury Select Committee, we were Treasury Select Committee, we were given evidence by a range of tax specialists, all of whom endorsed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

abolishing stamp duty? Yes. And can I thank my right honourable friend, for the excellent work that she's been doing on the committee, particularly when she chaired that committee in the last Parliament. committee in the last Parliament. So, Mr. Speaker, I will give way to my I'm very grateful to my right honourable friend, for the way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

honourable friend, for the way. government. Is not only taxing young people's jobs. It's also taxing young. People's chances of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

People's chances of. Owning a home by increasing stamp duty. Its increase, rumoured

**** Possible New Speaker ****

stamp duty. Its increase, rumoured on the capital gains on principal private residences. My right honourable friend is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My right honourable friend is absolutely right. The reason why we need to abolish this tax, Mr. Speaker, includes the fact that it stands in the way of younger people getting onto the housing ladder. It gums up, to use the words of Paul gums up, to use the words of Paul Johnson, the entire system of House purchasing in our country. In fact, purchasing in our country. In fact, he said, and I quote, stamp duty may look like a taxation on wealthy people who move House, but it also acts to reduce effective supply for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

everyone. And that includes first time buyers. I give way to my honourable friend. I thank my Honourable friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my Honourable friend for making an excellent speech to agree with me that it also comes up mobility so that people are not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

able to move as they lose their job. Under this Labour government, it makes it more expensive for them to move House to find another. Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. My honourable friend makes exactly the right point. It does exactly that. It stops people moving to where the work is to get better jobs to further themselves. Who wants to move to one place, pay Who wants to move to one place, pay stamp duty, then move to another to pay more stamp duty, to move to another? To pay more stamp? It does

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not add up and I will give way to my hon. Friend, I'm. Grateful to the Shadow Chancellor for his point. Is he Chancellor for his point. Is he aware of the study done by Jackson-stops, who looked at people who are 55 and over to see how much abolishing stamp duty would help move the market along, and that in its estimate, within the first year, that would be 500,000 people, second year, 1.4 million people. So significantly, allowing people who significantly, allowing people who want to downsize to provide more homes for their families while freeing them up, this is a real blocker.

Does he agree with me that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

blocker. Does he agree with me that that study is really useful to show the power of this policy would have? My honourable friend is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My honourable friend is absolutely right. Look, this is a block of Mr. Speaker on the aspirations of families who are growing, their families, who simply want to find a home with more bedrooms within it. And they can't find those homes, often because empty nesters, those for whom the children have left home, are not prepared to face the huge, eye watering stamp duty that is involved. And the other I give way to the honourable gentleman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for giving way. But is the reality not that the the is the reality not that the the reason why people cannot find homes in England is because his government failed to build them when they were in power.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

when they were in power. Well, Mr. Speaker, we we built 2.8 million homes since 2010 and a 2.8 million homes since 2010 and a million in the last Parliament. It remains to be seen how many homes this government actually build. But this government actually build. But can I say, Mr. Speaker, another huge advantage of abolishing this huge advantage of abolishing this tax is it will generate more transactions, which means more plumbers, electricians, more builders, designers, more estate builders, designers, more estate agents, surveyors and conveyancing.

Us actually getting to benefit and Us actually getting to benefit and local economies thriving. Above all, Mr. speaker, abolishing this tax Mr. speaker, abolishing this tax increases the effective supply of housing, and that means a fairer

**** Possible New Speaker ****

society and a stronger economy. And I give way to the honourable gentleman. Very grateful to the honourable gentleman giving way. He talks gentleman giving way. He talks about the huge advantages. Is the Shadow Chancellor aware that if you own a home worth £2 million, under own a home worth £2 million, under his proposals, you will be benefiting to the tune of £150,000. This is a tax cut for millionaires,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is a tax cut for millionaires, wants? Well, I've already appraised the honourable gentleman the fact that on his watch, 16,000 high net worth people have left this country to the detriment of our economy. And you cannot tax your way to growth. And we have to abolish this tax right across the piece that is recognised, that is recognised by think tanks right across the political spectrum. Indeed the Institute I will momentarily the Institute of Economic Affairs says abolishing stamp duty is the single best reform that any government could make to Britain's tax system.

But the Resolution Foundation, which may be more to the taste of the the honourable gentlemen and women opposite, says of stamp duty it is, and I quote, one of the most economically harmful ways of raising revenue. That's a simple fact. And I give way to to my honourable friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I thank the Shadow Chancellor for giving way. Will you also accept the fact is, now that also accept the fact is, now that the housing market is virtually stagnant, moribund, and the houses and flats that we want to see built and flats that we want to see built in this country are not being built. But one of the barriers is because the cost of stamp duty is so high

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the cost of stamp duty is so high it. My honourable friend is absolutely right. I've already set absolutely right. I've already set out the figures from the OBR. The estimate that a 1% increase in stamp duty means a 5 to 7% stamp duty means a 5 to 7% reduction in transactions. It is a horrendous and terrible tax, and it remains to be seen later whether the members opposite choose to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the members opposite choose to hon. Friend the Shadow Chancellor has been extremely generous, allowing me to intervene. I was just me to intervene. I was just reflecting on the point made by the member opposite. He talks about millionaires getting a tax cut. We're talking about young families getting on. Does he agree with me that while they engage, while they engage in the politics of envy, we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

engage in the politics of envy, we will always engage in the politics of hope? Yes, absolutely. My honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, absolutely. My honourable friend is absolutely right. And as Paul Johnson, formerly of the IFS, Paul Johnson, formerly of the IFS, says, and I quoted it earlier, it's important and then in quotes that this will reduce the effective supply. It also acts to reduce this tax, the effective supply for everyone right across every age, right across every income section of the income scale. So if only Parliament, though, and the Secretary to the parliamentary Secretary who I see is not in his place, he's a former director of the Resolution Foundation, could show at least some backbone and at least agree with his former self.

And the quote that I read out from the Resolution Foundation, the facts are, Mr. Speaker, they're very clear that the government should support this motion today if it believes in growth, if it believes in a fairer society, and if it believes in a stronger economy. So, Mr. Speaker, as we approach this budget through a period of great uncertainty, The Chancellor faces a clear choice, a choice between still higher taxes or controlling spending and getting taxes down between continued anaemic growth or getting the size of the government under control.

Between continued anaemic growth and getting it under control, between jobs destroyed or getting people off benefits and into work. Between doing the right thing for our country or simply ducking the challenge, we on this side of the House know what must be done, even at this late stage, to save our economy. Perhaps even The Chancellor herself knows deep in her heart that we are right. Yet is it not the truth, Mr. Speaker, that faced with a serried ranks of obstinate delusion arrayed behind her, she is just too weak to act? No plan, no backbone.

No wonder under this government we are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

staring into the abyss. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. The question is on the Order Paper. I now call the Chief

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Secretary James Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And may I also thank the right honourable gentleman for Central honourable gentleman for Central Devon for opening this day's debate with characteristic theatricality in his remarks so far. Now, Mr. Speaker, I know that members opposite are desperate to forget their time in office. They are their time in office. They are desperate for all of us to forget the damage that they caused to the economy and to public services on economy and to public services on their watch.

But surely, Mr. Speaker, they cannot have forgotten how the budget process works. And how the budget process works. And so they will know that no Treasury ministers, particularly in the weeks immediately before a budget, weeks immediately before a budget, will speculate on tax changes. Any decisions on tax will be taken at the budget by The Chancellor in the usual way. I see surprised faces on the bench opposite, but I remind you this is how the budget process you this is how the budget process works.

As Honourable and Right Honourable members opposite will know, the OBR produces a forecast. The Chancellor will take decisions in the round based on that forecast. When she presents the budget to this House on November the 26th. this House on November the 26th. But, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding those limitations on what I or indeed any minister can say, I will
13:08
James Murray Portrait Rt Hon James Murray MP, The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Ealing North, Labour )
-
-
seek to address some of the ideas that this motion tries to raise. that this motion tries to raise. And so, first, let's be honest, stamp duty is hardly a popular tax. Moving House. Buying a home is a Moving House. Buying a home is a complex, often stressful process. Stamp duty has to be paid at a point when most people feel they point when most people feel they probably have enough to worry about already. If there was a cost free way to get rid of stamp duty, I way to get rid of stamp duty, I would not expect long queues of people lining up to keep it.

But there is of course no cost free way there is of course no cost free way of doing this. Figures show that it of doing this. Figures show that it raised £13.9 billion in 2425. And of course, at this government's first budget, we made changes to stamp duty to help give first home buyers duty to help give first home buyers and other people buying a home to live in an advantage over those buying second home, third homes and buying second home, third homes and more.

And so if an opposition party is going to propose getting rid of a tax that raises nearly £14 billion a tax that raises nearly £14 billion a year, they need to have a plan for doing so. Because being a for doing so. Because being a credible opposition means proposing things that could actually work. Mr. speaker, and frankly, this Mr. speaker, and frankly, this motion exposes the total lack of seriousness of the current Conservative Party. It exposes Conservative Party. It exposes their complete failure to learn any of the lessons of their time in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

office. I'll give way. I'll give way. To the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He indicated that if giving way. He indicated that if there was a plan to fund this, he would back it. The Shadow Chancellor has clearly set out. We

**** Possible New Speaker ****

do have a plan to fund it. So will we back it? Yeah. Get on with it. Mr. speaker. The Right Honourable lady is having an Honourable lady is having an attempt at humour in the chamber by pretending there is some kind of a plan from the party opposite for what they're proposing to do. I think to call it half baked is not really going far enough when talking about the motion that they talking about the motion that they put forward today.

And in fact, Mr. Speaker, what their motion put forward today shows the recklessness which the party recklessness which the party opposite has when they approach the economy. It may be Halloween on Friday, Mr. Speaker, but the ghost Friday, Mr. Speaker, but the ghost of Liz Truss is here today because the economic recklessness that the the economic recklessness that the former Prime Minister embodied is back in front of us in this chamber today. We have a half baked motion, today. We have a half baked motion, a half baked motion from the party opposite, built on the wholly unworkable premise of more unfunded unworkable premise of more unfunded tax cuts.

Three years on from their disastrous mini-budget. They have learned precisely nothing. I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

learned precisely nothing. I will be interested to see the gentleman's link. I'd be very interested, Mr. Speaker, in what the Minister Speaker, in what the Minister intends to do to UN gum the housing market. I think he'll accept it's an important part of our economy. He says he's very keen on growth. So what will he do to un gum it? And what does he say to those legions of trades electricians, plumbers, kitchen fitters who are all looking to the government to provide them with some relief in the months ahead? Yeah.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. speaker, I would say to everyone who works in building homes that we are the party who are getting on with building. We are getting on with building. We are the party who are making those changes to the planning system to get those homes built. And I get those homes built. And I noticed I noticed, Mr. Speaker, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite did not address, despite his attempt to make a link to my his attempt to make a link to my previous comments, the fact that this motion is entirely half baked.

And I must say, Mr. Speaker, it is a genuine shame for British politics that we have an opposition who thinks they can put forward a motion like this for serious debate motion like this for serious debate in the House of Commons, because the party opposite. To be fair, Mr. Speaker, is steeped in centuries of opposition and government, but they have become deeply unserious by putting forward motions like this today. Their motion, Mr. Speaker, today. Their motion, Mr. Speaker, their motion on the Order Paper today simply says that their plan to abolish stamp duty is to reduce

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to abolish stamp duty is to reduce public expenditure. That is it. That is the sum of their plan. I thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank. My right honourable friend for giving way. He's absolutely right to say that the opposition have not to say that the opposition have not been clear about how they would fund this tax cut, but there are fund this tax cut, but there are there are some clues. The shadow chief secretary to the Treasury told a fringe event at Tory party conference that we should look at the Australian system of state pension and, in his words, essentially a means tested state pension.

Does my right honourable friend share my concern that under the Tories, the state pension is under threat?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Done. Well, my honourable friend is absolutely right to point out the state pension is under threat. the state pension is under threat. If the party opposite were to win the next general election. And in fact, my honourable friend is also fact, my honourable friend is also right to draw the House's attention to comments that the party opposite made at their party conference, because they may think people are because they may think people are not watching what they say in those fringe meetings at their party conference, but we do get it reported.

So we know exactly what reported. So we know exactly what they've said, and we know that their recent party conference, they think they can find some £47 billion Indeed. The right hon. Gentleman, through cuts to public spending. Now, Mr. Speaker, let's look let's look at the detail. Let's look at the detail in this, shall we? Because at least half of these fantasy savings come from a welfare fantasy savings come from a welfare plan that amounts to a menu with no prices, a list of measures that they say would raise £23 billion in they say would raise £23 billion in total, but with no breakdown of how whatsoever.

Now, in June of this whatsoever. Now, in June of this year, just as they were on their way out of Downing Street, they said they could cut £12 billion from the welfare bill. Now they've doubled it without explanation. And frankly, Mr. Speaker, if the right frankly, Mr. Speaker, if the right hon. Member for Central Devon thinks he has any credibility on this matter at all, he is sadly mistaken. He is far from the best mistaken. He is far from the best person to be making this argument, given the fact that he personally oversaw the biggest increase in benefit spending in decades during his time as the Work and Pensions Secretary.

I'll give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving way, but I don't think he's in any position to lecture on reducing the position to lecture on reducing the size of the state, given that when Labour attempted to reduce the welfare Bill, they marched all of welfare Bill, they marched all of their MPs up the hill to march them down again when they buckled under the pressure coming from his own backbenchers. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

backbenchers. Yes. Mr. Speaker, as members on all sides of this House will know, we are determined to get people back into work because that is the way into work because that is the way to bring the welfare rolls down. That is the way to bring the benefits bill down, and that is the benefits bill down, and that is the way to make people better off. What is not the right thing to do for this country, Mr. Speaker, is to follow their plans of £47 billion of cuts for which they have no plan, and would represent nothing less than a return to austerity.

Mr. than a return to austerity. Mr. speaker, because their £47 billion of cuts, if they were to come from public services, if they were to public services, if they were to come from cuts to public services, that would mean 85,700 fewer nurses. It would mean cutting every police It would mean cutting every police officer in the country twice, and it would mean cutting the entire it would mean cutting the entire armed forces. Funnily enough, Mr. Speaker, none of that detail is in their motion today.

And this is a their motion today. And this is a shame for British politics. As I said, Mr. Speaker, because with their long history, they really their long history, they really should know better were it to be the Greens or applied or reform proposing policies with little regard for the consequences. I would not be surprised because they've never had a chance to implement them. But frankly, to see the party who were in charge for 14 years acting just as recklessly as they are, shows just how far they have fallen.

On that note.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the minister, who's always generous and always has a smile, which is a welcome has a smile, which is a welcome thing in this chamber. The government spending this year's government spending this year's approaching £1,300 billion, I think, and the party opposite couldn't save five because of the people sitting behind the minister. Is it his complete failure to make even his complete failure to make even the smallest savings on that monumental budget that makes him find it impossible to believe

**** Possible New Speaker ****

find it impossible to believe others would have the will to do so? Mr. speaker. Mr. speaker, what I find impossible to believe from the party opposite is we now have a shadow Chancellor claiming to have a plan for a £23 billion of welfare cuts when when he himself was the work and pensions secretary, he presided over the biggest increase presided over the biggest increase in welfare spending in decades. That is a record which gives him no credibility whatsoever in this debate.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in their motion, the conservatives also claim that they want to get Britain working, grow the economy and give people a stronger stake in their communities. And yet they spend communities. And yet they spend their whole time trying to claim that Britain is broken. They have joined the ranks of those trying to joined the ranks of those trying to co-opt our flag for their own ends by claiming it is in tatters. And I cannot believe that so many who claim to be proud of our country are so willing to talk it down.

Mr. speaker, our country is not broken. We are a great country filled with great people and great businesses, willing to roll up our sleeves and work together for a greater future. But it is clear, Mr. Speaker, that many people across our country feel stuck. Under the last government, our economy stalled, our public

**** Possible New Speaker ****

services were starved and opportunities dried up. way. He's always very.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He's always very. Generous with his time, and I'm always smiling in the chamber as the member opposite will know. There seems to be a collective amnesia from the benches opposite. Can he remind me whether the national debt went up or down under the last government?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the last government? Well, my hon. My honourable friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the record of the attention to the record of the party opposite. I think in 2010, the national debt was about 67% of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

GDP. It was about 100% by the time they left office. The two sideline conversations, I can't hear the minister and I can't hear the minister and everybody wants to hear the minister, but.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

minister, but. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was I was confirming what I think everyone in this chamber knows of how bad the previous government's how bad the previous government's record in office was when it comes to the economy, and we know why that record was so bad, and it was that record was so bad, and it was because the previous ministers failed to invest. When we know that investment is the fuel for our economic engine, and that is why we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

economic engine, and that is why we are taking a different approach. I'll give way. I thank the Minister for giving way. Just on helping ministers with amnesia. Does he acknowledge that there was a pandemic and that required huge amounts of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

required huge amounts of intervention, or is this is his claim that he would have not supported so many people during that period? He voted.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For it. Speaking of amnesia, a lot of people on that side forget Liz Truss, and they're not very Truss, and they're not very prepared to talk about the impact that she had. And we know, we know and we know.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and we know. Speaking of amnesia, speaking of amnesia, Mr. Speaker, would the amnesia, Mr. Speaker, would the right hon. Gentleman like to remind the House what the deficit was in 2010 when we first formed a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

2010 when we first formed a government? Mr. speaker, that's right.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. speaker, that's right. Were you born at that time?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Were you born at that time? Mr. speaker, I was. I was, I was I was definitely born at that time. I was definitely born at that time. Mr. speaker, I do my maths there very rapidly, but I can be confident in saying that. I think confident in saying that. I think I've quite lost my way now after that intervention from the speaker. Mr. speaker, but let me, let me, let me just return to the main thrust of the argument that I was making a few moments ago, which is making a few moments ago, which is to which is to which is to make the point that our approach as a government is a serious government government is a serious government who is a serious partner for the private sector.

And that is why we're investing in things that will get our country moving again. Now, get our country moving again. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is early days and the damage the Tories did will take time to unpick and there will, of course, be more difficult decisions ahead. But since we came to power, this government has announced £250 billion of new investment commitments, creating tens of thousands of jobs. The Bank of England has cut interest rates five times so that if you are on a tracker mortgage of just over £200,000, you are already around £10 a month better off.

We have cut red tape and changed planning regulations so that we can deliver 1.5 million new homes. Over the course of this Parliament, we have acted to accelerate the construction of nearly 100,000 new homes which have previously stuck. We were the fastest growing G7 economy in the first half of this year, and most telling of all since the general election. Real wages have risen by more than they did in the first ten years of the Conservative government. Mr. speaker, the answer to the nation's challenges from the conservatives are always the same, and they are austerity.

They want to cut spending, increase debt and accept decline. And in contrast, we will never accept austerity and we will never gamble with the public

**** Possible New Speaker ****

finances. I'm grateful to the Minister for giving way. Another term for giving way. Another term for austerity is living within your means. That's what the British public understand. That's the point we're trying to make here. And when difficult decisions need to be made difficult decisions need to be made by the other side, they fallen short. So could he explain why the government isn't living within its

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government isn't living within its means? Hear, hear! Mr. speaker, as the honourable gentleman will know, the Chancellor's fiscal rules say that day to day spending must be paid for through tax receipts. That is a definition of living within your definition of living within your means. And those fiscal rules were met at the first budget last year at the Spring Statement this year. And they are an ironclad commitment And they are an ironclad commitment that we will continue to meet those fiscal rules at the autumn budget coming up next month, Mr.

Speaker. coming up next month, Mr. Speaker. Those fiscal rules underpin our our approach to the economy and our approach to a stronger public approach to a stronger public finances because we know that fiscal responsibility, which the previous government abandoned, underpin a stable economy. We need underpin a stable economy. We need to secure our country's renewal through that public and private investment. We want to secure investment. We want to secure rising wages, support for businesses, more jobs, more homes and more opportunities in every and more opportunities in every corner of our country.

Mr. speaker, the motion brought before this House today simply is not serious. It is an admission from the members opposite that after years in power and countless opportunities to reflect and learn from their mistakes, all they can come up with is the same failed solution more unfunded tax cuts, more cuts to public services, more failure to invest, more austerity and more pain for the British people. And that is what will keep them on the opposite benches for a very long time.

On this side of the House, we reject their recklessness, we reject their lack of ambition for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our country, and we reject this motion today. Daisy Cooper, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Democrat spokesperson. Thank you. Mr. Speaker. Our tax system is. A mess. It's complicated and unfair.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's complicated and unfair. It's riddled with cliff edges that distort behaviours and create inequities. And there are exemptions that haven't been exemptions that haven't been reviewed for years. Council tax is outdated and hated. Inheritance Tax outdated and hated. Inheritance Tax and capital gains allow the super wealthy to exploit loopholes, whilst whilst the squeezed middle picks up the tab. Business rates are a tax on bricks and mortar which penalises our high streets, whilst online giants corner more whilst online giants corner more and more of the market.

Ir35 is a sledgehammer to crack a nut for contractors and R&D tax credits are in such a muddle it's triggering lots of disputes, even for legitimate claims. Madam Deputy legitimate claims. Madam Deputy Speaker, when any one of these is tweaked, it causes problems elsewhere. And what we see time and elsewhere. And what we see time and again is that when people want to do the right thing, they want to pay the right amount of tax and
13:22
Daisy Cooper Portrait Daisy Cooper MP (St Albans, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
pay the right amount of tax and query a tax issue. They call HMRC, only to have the call handler hang up or contact the VOA and have to spend money on expensive third party who specialises in disputes. Stamp duty too. Madam Deputy Speaker has all the hallmarks of a bad tax. It is a transaction tax. It is an extra cost that stops people from moving. They might want to move, to start a family, to take up a new job, or to take on caring responsibilities.

It stops people from getting on the housing ladder, from upsizing and sometimes downsizing to it gums up the housing market. In a country where we simply cannot afford for that to happen. It does disincentivise people from moving, and it holds

**** Possible New Speaker ****

back a dynamic economy. On that. Point, I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Be grateful to the Lib Dem spokesperson making some excellent points. Therefore, will she be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

supporting the motion today? No, for all the reasons I. Never stop. The garden.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The garden. So here's the rub. You are a fraction too early. It costs. It fraction too early. It costs. It raises a lot of money. And that, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is Madam Deputy Speaker, that is presumably why the conservatives didn't seek to scrap it at any point during all their years in point during all their years in power. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker for primary residences, stamp duty from primary residences in England from primary residences in England and Northern Ireland raises around £4 billion in 20 2324.

And it £4 billion in 20 2324. And it suggests that it will. There will be a cost of 9 billion. It will be a cost of 9 billion. It will raise 9,000,000,000 in 2029 2029 to 30. The IFS estimates that the cost 30. The IFS estimates that the cost in 20 2930 is around £11 billion, with the additional costs in Scotland and Wales taken into Scotland and Wales taken into account. That means, Madam Deputy Speaker, that abolishing stamp duty Speaker, that abolishing stamp duty on primary residences would cost in the region of 36 to £44 billion in total over the next five years.

For anybody who isn't keeping up, this is almost the cost of a mini-budget just in slow motion. Madam Deputy Speaker, the Conservative Party says that they want all of those cuts to come from public expenditure, but in this motion, they do not say where it would come from. Well, by my calculations, to make those savings, they could choose to scrap nearly the whole of the Ministry of Justice. Given revelations in recent days about prisoners being let out wrongly. It feels like they may already have done that.

Madam Deputy Speaker, they could instead decide to end all support for farmers by scrapping the entirety of the Defra budget, which should reach £7.4 billion in 2029, including capital. Maybe they would want to do. Well, it doesn't say so in the motion. Maybe they would want to do away with clearing the vast majority of the NHS maintenance backlog, the cost of which would reach it in a single year. Or maybe they would want to scrap the 12 billion a year send budget. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is not clear in the in the motion of the opposition party today where those cuts would come from.

Madam Deputy Speaker, there is a strong case for looking at reforming or scrapping stamp duty altogether alongside other property tax reforms and moving to a land value tax. Indeed, some commentators suggest that scrapping stamp duty and council tax together and phasing in land value over time could be one way to move ahead. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The average price of a property in St Albans is £642,000 a year. in St Albans is £642,000 a year. Under the proposals of her party. How does she think her constituents are going to face paying ever more are going to face paying ever more taxes, either through stamp duty, land tax or the council tax reforms

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that she and her colleagues are proposing now. Well, as the hon. Gentleman will understand, I'm not setting out understand, I'm not setting out proposals today. I am commenting on the proposals from his party.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So no, I, I. Madam Deputy Speaker, for the record, I outlined that there are some commentators who have been some commentators who have been talking about how to change this. This was not setting out Liberal Democrat policy. I was discussing Democrat policy. I was discussing what some commentators have been pointing towards. Well, I'm sure the next 2 or 3 years, as we get closer to the general election, there'll be very interested to read our tax plans, which are under active consideration.

Madam Deputy active consideration. Madam Deputy Speaker, even if people cannot agree on what should replace it, agree on what should replace it, they can agree on this. If you change one tax on its own in change one tax on its own in isolation, it has knock on negative effects. And far from giving more people the security of home people the security of home ownership, this measure in isolation would make it more out of reach. And how do we know that? Because during the temporary stamp duty holiday in 20 2021, there was a big surge in House prices that had a negative impact on on House buyers.

Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, if the Conservative Party is truly interested in growing the economy, indeed, if the government is surely they will agree that the best and most immediate way to do that is to reverse the damage of their terrible Brexit deal with Europe. Analysis shows analysis shows, Madam Deputy Speaker, that if the government did a better deal with the EU within their own red lines, well, I'll tell them again it would raise an additional £25 billion per year. Madam Deputy Speaker, £25 billion per year.

By unleashing the growth potential of our exporting British businesses. That is the way to grow our economy, to do away with the 2 billion pieces of paperwork that have come in since Brexit. Enough papers that can wrap around the world 15 times and yet they still groan. Madam Deputy Speaker, 15 months ago it seemed as though the conservatives were struggling to adjust to life in opposition. Now it seems to me that they are simply enjoying it far too much. That's precisely why this idea of abolishing stamp duty in isolation and funding it through cuts to public services alone, is fantasy economics and desperate politics.

This announcement at the Conservatives party conference had everything to do with the leader of the opposition keeping herself in post until after May's elections, and nothing to do with making a serious contribution to the debate on tax reform. Madam Deputy Speaker, this motion is unfunded, unserious and not worth the paper it is written on, and that is why we won't be supporting it. Jonathan

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hinder, please. Mr. Speaker, let's cut straight to the point. What we're discussing to the point. What we're discussing today is a Tory plan for tax. Cuts for the better off, with no plan to pay for it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pay for it. Yeah. That's what the Tories have chosen to spend their opposition chosen to spend their opposition day on. My constituents in Pendle and Clitheroe are frustrated at the stark regional inequality in our stark regional inequality in our country, which means London and the South East are now, economically speaking, another country speaking, another country altogether. And they lament the lack of public investment in transport, infrastructure and transport, infrastructure and skills that this Labour government is now seeking to put right.

So it's staggering that today the Tories have chosen to propose tax cuts for people buying expensive
13:29
Jonathan Hinder Portrait Jonathan Hinder MP (Pendle and Clitheroe, Labour)
-
-
cuts for people buying expensive homes in London and the South East, further entrenching that regional inequality in the North west. The average House price is about 200,000. In London it's over 550,000. That means that 95% of first time buyers in the North West of England do not pay stamp duty, whereas in London 80% of them do so. Mr. speaker, let's be clear, these are the priorities of the same old Conservative Party that we've always known, prioritising the protection of wealth in the South East above the concerns of constituents like mine.

Where would their proposed spending cuts fall? They don't actually tell us, so we can only assume they would fall on public services in areas like Pendle and Clitheroe. Mr. Madam Deputy Speaker, sorry. The funny thing is I'm a strong advocate of serious property tax reform, but the Tories aren't proposing to address the most unfair, regressive tax in Britain the council tax, a council tax system that punishes working class people in the North precisely because they live in a poorer area.

Can you believe, Madam Deputy Speaker, that someone living in £1 million London townhouse will pay £1,000 less per year in council tax than a constituent of mine living in a House worth 250,000. It bears repeating. £1,000 less if you live in £1 million London townhouse than if you live in a £250,000 House It is outrageous. And if the conservatives were still a serious party, then perhaps they would focus on the council tax, which is so emblematic of the regional inequalities I just mentioned, and these inequalities that have condemned once prosperous regions of the country to steady economic decline.

But they won't, now no long represent regions like mine. Chamber. I can't see a North west Conservative MP, but then that's not so difficult because there are now only three. There are rare species, just as they are in many other regions outside the South East. So the Conservative Party Conservative Party's answer remains the same as it has always been, that growth in the South East will lift up constituencies like mine, make those with wealth wealthier and everyone else will benefit, they say.

But that failed economic thinking has failed. Time and time again. So let me finish by saying I'm going to finish by saying that property taxes in this country do need radical reform, and in that, I hope I can find allies on all sides of this House. We need a more proportional property tax. Yes, but the Tories harebrained idea to scrap stamp duty, a big tax cut for the better off in the South east, with no plan to pay for it while leaving the regressive council tax untouched, is just not serious.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Kit Malthouse. Yes. Thank you, Madam Deputy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm very sorry to hear the honourable gentleman's antipathy towards the South East. I can. Assure him it's not reciprocated. Assure him it's not reciprocated. And no doubt the London members who are may or may not be present here will have something to say to him
13:33
Kit Malthouse Portrait Rt Hon Kit Malthouse MP (North West Hampshire, Conservative)
-
-
will have something to say to him about the wealth or welfare of their residents. Madam Deputy Speaker, since this government was elected, I have often called to mind the famous aphorism uttered by Ronald Reagan about the government's contemplation of the economy. He said they think if it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it, and if it stops moving, subsidise it. And it feels to me as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

if with housing in particular, we're moving into the third of those phases. And I'm.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I'm. Afraid, contemplating the fact that with some alarm in chasing their huge housing target, noble their huge housing target, noble though it is and shared by this party, we're about to see enormous subsidies in the budget pumped subsidies in the budget pumped towards the housing market, which is precisely the wrong thing to do, particularly for a government which particularly for a government which is struggling to create growth within the economy. What they seem within the economy. What they seem to have failed to realise is that if you allow capitalism to function, if you allow it to do what it's if you allow it to do what it's supposed to do, it is brilliant at creating abundance.

It has been the single greatest tool for single greatest tool for alleviating poverty across the world that humankind has ever known. And yet here in this country, not just this government, but to my alarm, previous governments over alarm, previous governments over the last 20 years or so have not appreciated the formula of incentives that is required for incentives that is required for capitalism to function, and particularly damaging for it to function or not function as it has function or not function as it has been within the housing market.

And that's particularly salient for the United Kingdom, whose economy is so closely tied to its domestic housing market. If you look at the correlation between the two, it's pretty much 1 to 1. If the housing market is doing well, our economy is doing well and vice versa. And that points to the problem that we face with this particular tax. I just wanted to raise, if I may, a few points, Madam Deputy Speaker, about this motion. I agree entirely with the Shadow Chancellor in his excellent opening speech.

First of all, this is not a tax on wealth or even on property. It's a tax on decision making. It skews people's ability to conduct their life as they wish to, and it deters decisions within the housing market and bungs it up in a way that means it doesn't work for anybody, wherever they sit in the in that market, paying stamp duty or not. Because for capitalism to work for a market to work, there need to be lots and lots of transactions.

There needs to be fluidity, liquidity. That's what achieves a steady price. That's what creates abundance, because people know they can take a risk in a market because they'll find a counterparty. Scarcity is what raises prices. And that's exactly the position we find ourselves in the moment. And penal rates of stamp duty do precisely to the housing market what none of us want them to do, which is that they reward scarcity. They push people into other forms of economic activity and means that they can't fulfil the wishes and aspirations

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of their family. By all means, I thank you for. Giving way. It's very generous with his time and I agree with him in the housing and I agree with him in the housing market on the importance of creating abundance. Does he therefore think it was wrong for his party and the Prime Minister at his party and the Prime Minister at the time, in the general election, to come to my constituency and to campaign against the new homes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

campaign against the new homes being built there, that we know needs. Hear, hear. Well, look, I was housing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, look, I was housing minister for 12 golden months, during which I'm pleased to say the United Kingdom achieved its highest United Kingdom achieved its highest starts and finishes of housing for ten years either side. And not that that was entirely due to my stewardship, but nevertheless, I'll take the credit. So I'm with him in take the credit. So I'm with him in wanting to encourage the building of a significant number of houses, and I'm very pleased that large numbers are to be built in my constituency, but they have to be built in the right place.

We have to protect our landscape. We have to protect our landscape. We have to protect our countryside and heritage, and we need at the same time to recognise that many of our time to recognise that many of our market towns need to grow and reach sustainable size, so we can have the houses, they just have to be in the right place. And also we have to. I think we'll be able to embrace more housing if somehow embrace more housing if somehow we're able to breach the conspiracy of crap.

Frankly. Excuse my language, Madam Deputy Speaker Chris Webb, but it's just a great way of summing up the fact that we're building terribly, badly designed houses. The conspiracy between planners and the development community to produce ersatz housing across the country, rather than building beautiful designed houses as generations of House builders did before us. It won't come as a surprise to the honourable gentleman that in his constituency, as in mine, the most valuable houses, irrespective of size, are often the oldest houses.

The Victorian houses and even earlier periods Georgian houses that command huge prices because they're seen as desirable because

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of their beauty. So we can have the houses as long as we put them in Yes. I'm very.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very. Grateful to my right hon. Friend for. Giving. Way. And this stamp duty. Policy will help.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

help. Lubricate the system. But he's talking about putting the houses in the right place and can. Can you agree with me that this government really does need to follow through on that and put the houses in the right place? They've got to prioritise brownfield sites, and prioritise brownfield sites, and they've got to stop bringing in policies that are going to rip up the green belt, which in in areas

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the green belt, which in in areas like mine in Epping Forest represent the heart and lungs of our area. I completely agree with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I completely agree with the honourable gentleman and the best people know the best people who can decide where houses should go are decide where houses should go are local people. And that's why for many years I've been a proponent, a strong proponent of neighbourhood strong proponent of neighbourhood planning. It has proven time and time again that neighbourhood planning actually produces more houses than other forms of planning, in particular local plans, something like 15 to 20% more. Because if you get the design right Because if you get the design right and you put power in the hands of local people, they will very often make the right choices, not just for their community, but also for the next generation as well.

The second point I wanted to make was a second point I wanted to make was a point made by the Shadow Chancellor very powerfully, which is that we should recognise that a gummed up housing market and it is stagnating at the moment, really suppresses the supply. And, sorry, the renovation and construction supply chain. When people move House, they invest in redecoration, they invest in extensions, they put a new roof on the House, they build on the side. They do all sorts of things to it that are good and valuable, productive economic activity, which

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we're missing out on at the moment. Yes. Can I commend. Honourable gentleman for what he's saying and commend the he's saying and commend the opposition for bringing forward this proposal? In Northern Ireland, the House prices have risen by 7.7%, the House prices have risen by 7.7%, the highest in all of the United Kingdom. What's happening in my constituency, I suspect in others, is that young people are coming by and saying, I can't get a mortgage, so they need help. I'm hoping that this proposal tonight, brought this proposal tonight, brought forward by the opposition, will be one that can give that hope.

The aspiration that the honourable aspiration that the honourable gentleman refers to, that I have as well. Every person wants to own their own House. This will be a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their own House. This will be a method of making sure that the young people have that opportunity. Well, I understand the the honourable gentleman has hope for honourable gentleman has hope for the next generation, and I completely agree with him. As somebody with with three children, somebody with with three children, I hope they get the same housing opportunities and economic opportunities that that I did. Sadly, unfortunately, the way the housing market has gone and is going, it doesn't look to me as if that's going to be the case.

But he makes the point that I made in the opening of my speech very neatly. We've we've come full circle to the extent that to get young people on extent that to get young people on the housing ladder now we want to have a subsidy scheme instead of thinking again about how we can have a market that functions for them, a deregulated free market that allows the houses to be built, that can accommodate young people. We're saying, well, actually what we should do is take tax off them and then give it back to them in the form of housing subsidy, which seems to me nonsensical.

So just back to my point on on supply chain, there are thousands and thousands of small builders around the country desperate for this kind of work and seeing the housing market stagnating and seeing the work reducing. But worse than that, in areas of high property value, what you find is that instead of moving those that do have capital decide to build down or up or out, and so we get a densification, particularly in areas like central London, which very often causes significant problems.

And then, Madam Deputy Speaker, I, I just wanted to move on to the fact why this tax actually doesn't work very well for government either. First of all, as members will know, it is procyclical. It crashes at a time when the government needs it most. So during the 2007 eight crash, stamp duty receipts fell by 60%. We saw a surge in stamp duty receipts during the window a year or so ago, but since then it's been falling very significantly. And The Chancellor, who's facing very significant fiscal problems, is going to see that fall even further.

So it doesn't work for government on that basis either. Secondly, it's a bad tax because of its salience. Economists have this idea that taxes have a salience, which is, frankly, how much people notice they're being taken. VAT has low salience because we don't really notice it. It goes in the price of what we pay. Income tax pay has low salience. This tax is enormously noticeable at a moment when people are making a huge decision about their lives. They're trying to progress their families.

Wow, there comes the government saying, we're going to have a slice of your

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wealth. Yeah. Extremely grateful. To my right honourable friend. He's obviously making a brilliant speech. But on that last point, does he acknowledge in terms of the salience, it has had a particularly pronounced effect in the capital, particularly for those that come to this country that invest in this this country that invest in this country, create jobs. And one of the prime reasons why we've seen such a significant, perhaps 16,000 people leave this country is because of the incidence of that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

because of the incidence of that tax in the capital. Well, he's completely right. And he makes a very powerful point, as he makes a very powerful point, as I say, anybody overseas or here who comes particularly to London and the South-East or frankly, anywhere in the country and wants to make a significant purchase, is immediately presented with a immediately presented with a massive bill, a huge bill that cannot be borrowed, that comes out of any equity that you may have of any equity that you may have spare lying around, or that you may have saved up for years to build towards your housing decision, and for the government to show up and take it at that moment of of significance in anybody's life, significance in anybody's life, seems to me to be extremely damaging, in the same way that when the government shows up on the the government shows up on the death of a relative and says, we'll take our slice, this tax has enormous salience and as a result, stamp duty along with Inheritance Tax are easily the two most

**** Possible New Speaker ****

unpopular taxes in the country. Yes. Thank the honourable gentleman for being so generous with his time and the interesting points that he's putting forward. It just he's putting forward. It just surprises me that nobody on the benches opposite brought these points forward in the last 14 years. Stamp duty. Land tax is not a new tax. It's a tax that went up over tax. It's a tax that went up over the last government. And yet there have been no proposals brought forward until this unfunded

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forward until this unfunded announcement made at the party conference a few weeks ago. What are you going to do it? Well, Madam Speaker, she

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, Madam Speaker, she shouldn't assume that from the outward utterances, there wasn't an outward utterances, there wasn't an internal conversation going in within the party about about what within the party about about what our tax strategy should be. And those in the chamber who will have those in the chamber who will have shared the Cabinet table with me will know that that was often a very vigorous conversation. So I'll very vigorous conversation. So I'll leave it, I'll leave it at that.

And then the other, the third point, I want, the third point I wanted to I want, the third point I wanted to make. I guess it's possibly the might be the one that appeals most to the to the opposite benches, which is that actually this is a very generationally unfair tax. Younger people move House more often. They are more exposed to this tax. The younger you are, the more likely you are to be building a family, require more space, be moving up the ladder.

Older people tend tend to sit still. They sit pretty on their capital. They sit pretty often on their on mortgaged houses. And because of the lack of a market, generally over under occupy the houses which they own. And so when looking at stamp duty, you have to look at it in terms of generational fairness as well. I know hundreds and hundreds in my own constituency, aspirational families who need more space, who would like to move up the ladder, who've worked hard and accumulated money and deposit that will allow them to do so, that want to spend that money on curtains and carpets and decoration and all the rest of it who are deterred from doing so because of this tax.

And so if we're going to be fair to the next generation, not only do we have to build the houses that they want to buy, we have to make it cheap for them to buy them too. And that means cancelling stamp duty as well. So for all these reasons, Madam Deputy Speaker, for fluidity and liquidity in a market that is skewed in a way that it produces artificially high prices for a market in which developers will take a risk and build more houses and landowners will put land forward.

But fundamentally, for a generation which has been denied access to housing, we need to take very seriously the idea that stamp duty sits at the heart of this problem and to abolish it entirely. And for those who say, like the Liberal Democrats, that this will raise prices, well, of course it will raise prices. If you tell people there's a window because you get a frantic activity by those who are desperate to buy, if it becomes a permanent abolition, then you get a liquid market that achieves a real price.

Notwithstanding this initial bump. And for those who say the savings can't be found, does. The honourable gentleman said on the budget of that size, if you can't find this amount of money. I had a look this morning. I could find 50% of it out of the Department of Transport, no problem. And if we add that to the half, the half of welfare reforms, the other half could come from the welfare reforms that the Labour Party bottled on. We could easily find the money and do the whole country and the economy an enormous favour.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Chris Curtis. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I'd like to thank the right hon. Member from North West Hampshire for his speech, and also for his for his speech, and also for his fight and campaign within his party in favour of abundance and against scarcity. I hope it is a fight that scarcity. I hope it is a fight that he can win, given the damage that was done by not having enough of that attitude and when the that attitude and when the conservatives were in power.

And I hope, given that this debate cannot happen in isolation from the supply of housing, the next election, I will not be facing leaflet after leaflet after leaflet from the Conservative Party campaigning
13:48
Chris Curtis Portrait Chris Curtis MP (Milton Keynes North, Labour)
-
-
Conservative Party campaigning against the building of new homes that this country so desperately needs. Yeah, and can I also start by thanking the opposition for securing this debate, and also want to start on a few points where I hope that we can we can agree stamp duty is a dreadful tax. It discourages the very behaviour we should want to encourage people moving homes that no longer suit them, and into properties that do. As an example, as has been mentioned by many others, it deters people from downsizing, which means fewer family homes become available for those who may need it.

And in much of London and the south east, where housing costs are already painfully high, it makes moving almost prohibitively expensive at a time when, for various reasons, the demand side of the housing market is struggling, it is also a barrier to building the homes that this country so desperately needs. So I think there was a lot to agree with on the drive in order to campaign against stamp duty, and I am in no doubt that we should find a path to removing it.

However, I can't support the motion today for two reasons. Firstly, because, as has been said, a tax cut of around £9 billion must come with an honest explanation of how it is going to be paid for. If there were apparently tens of billions of cuts that you could make to the state, then you can only conclude that it was pretty negligent for the previous government not to find them when they were in power for 14 years, when they were handing out redundancy notices to police officers.

Why were they not making those cuts instead? Unfunded tax cuts are either a return to Liz Truss or a return to Tory austerity. But there is the second and perhaps more important point that I would like to discuss the focus on stamp duty alone, I fear through the motion today is too narrow when we need, as was mentioned earlier, a wider conversation about property taxes in this country. The right hon. Member for North West Hertfordshire. Sorry, North west Hampshire. My apologies.

I think it was actually wrong. In one of the remarks that he made. I used to work in market research. So stamp duty is not actually an Inheritance Tax and not actually the most unpopular tax in this country. Council tax is consistently the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

most unpopular tax in this country. Of course I'll give way. Does he regret that his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does he regret that his government has not honoured its pre-election promise to reduce council tax.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To some comments about the unfairness of the council tax system in the moment? But the point about this we can have a about this we can have a conversation about tax and spend in this country, and there's a much wider conversation to have. But this debate today is focusing on a this debate today is focusing on a very specific tax cut to a very specific part of property taxation. And I think there is a problem, as And I think there is a problem, as I mentioned, with having that conversation in isolation and conversation in isolation and rather having the bigger, bolder, more politically brave conversation that I would like the opposition to start about wider reforms to our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

start about wider reforms to our property tax market. Of course I'll give way. I must say, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm really encouraged by the I'm really encouraged by the honourable gentleman's speech. For once, he's not purely dealing in the the sort of 14 years of failure the the sort of 14 years of failure rhetoric from the party opposite. He recognises that stamp duty is a bad tax, and he says that we need a proper, joined up and deeply thought through approach to getting rid of it.

Is he pledging to lead such an operation within the Labour Party? Because for the next four Party? Because for the next four years there are 400 plus Labour MPs? It's it's the debate within his party that's more important than the one within our own.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm glad he asked me to comment on the 14 years of Tory failure, which the 14 years of Tory failure, which failed to grow the British economy and created many of the problems that this country now faces. And I that this country now faces. And I do think that while there were many good remarks made in the opening speech from the shadow Chancellor, speech from the shadow Chancellor, there was a little bit of amnesia about just the state that was left to this government.

But we do need to this government. But we do need to have an honest conversation about tax reform, including two property taxes, council tax. Just property taxes, council tax. Just we've spoken a little bit about the IFS and what they've said. And they're right. The UK essentially they're right. The UK essentially relies on two big but fairly broken property taxes. Council tax does not create the distortions that stamp duty does, but it's regressive. Stamp duty creates these distortions. But at least these distortions.

But at least it's progressive and mitigates against some of those regressive elements of council tax. If you only look at one half of the equation and simply cut stamp duty, we will tilt that system further in favour of the wealthiest households, favour of the wealthiest households, many of them in London and the South East, while telling lower and middle income families elsewhere middle income families elsewhere that that that there is nothing in the system for them. And we should consider just how unfair council consider just how unfair council tax has become, given that the top band is capped so lightly.

A modest family home in the North or Midlands can face a similar bill to a multi-billion pound townhouse in London. We've quoted Paul Johnson, so I'm going to quote a tweet from Paul Johnson, formerly of the IFS, if that's OK. Buckingham Palace, valued at around £1 billion, sits as a band H property and is charged £1,828 by Westminster City Council, less than the average three bedroom semi in Blackpool. 46% of households in England will receive a bigger council tax bill than Buckingham Palace.

That is clearly a broken tax system and if we ignore that and just focus on stamp duty, then we're only going to make that broken system worse. And of course, because successive governments have not addressed, have not had the bravery to revalue those tax bands, they're still based on 1991 values. In 1991, Tim Berners-Lee had had just released a World Wide Web. Nirvana had released Never Mind. Will Smith was filming the first series of The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, and I was Not Born.

A lot has changed since then. And yet. And yet we still have not reformed the way we do council tax valuations. So yes, I will agree that we should set a path to reduce and ultimately reform the way we do stamp duty, but we should do it as part of a broader package that shifts tax away from transactions and towards ongoing occupation of higher value properties. Now that could include revaluation and rebuilding rebanding of council tax so that the bills reflect today's values.

It could include a higher rate of surcharge on the most expensive property and targeted reliefs to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support downsizers and first time buyers. Would you. Allow me? Yes. Go on. Last time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Allow me? Yes. Go on. Last time. The honourable gentleman. He's giving a brilliant speech, I must say. And it smells like Teen spirit say. And it smells like Teen spirit to me because of the energy that he's bringing to it. Would he recognise as well as council? And I recognise as well as council? And I agree with most of the points he's made about council tax. If you see what a small flat in Beverley, the what a small flat in Beverley, the council tax charge is compared to a multi-million pound apartment in in Westminster.

It's outrageous and I agree with him. But does he also see that the business property relief, this BPR is going to be bringing in huge costs on businesses like housebuilders? I met one last week if that business was worth £100 million, say on the death of the owner, it would be a £20 million tax. The the the person £20 million tax. The the the person who inherits it would have to extract 40 million from that business in order to do it. And as business in order to do it.

And as they told me, for every 40 million you take out of the business, that's 120 million of investment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that's 120 million of investment not made in housing. Would he Yeah. And I think I think with respect, Madam Deputy Speaker, I've already Madam Deputy Speaker, I've already stretched the debate a little bit far away from stamp duty, and I don't want to go into a wider tax don't want to go into a wider tax system. But I'll finish up. I'll finish off, I'll finish off, I'll finish off on, I won't. I think it's important to widen this debate out to a wider conversation about property taxes, as I've tried to do.

And if the opposition genuinely wants to remove stamp duty, I invite them to engage in that wider conversation in good faith. If you want to remove the costs at the point of transaction. For high value homes, the only fair route is to ask those homes to contribute more through day to day charges. That would be a system that was fairer, supported mobility and meets the objectives that I think members from across this House share a housing market that works more, building a tax system that is both pro-growth and fiscally

**** Possible New Speaker ****

responsible. Thank you. I call Blake Stephenson. Madam Deputy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy. Speaker, stamp duty is the worst kind of tax, and it feels like there's cross-party consensus on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

there's cross-party consensus on that point in this House today. It's a tax that stands in the. Way of the. Aspiring young couple.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Who want to buy their. First home, or when they want to. Move on. And bring up a family. It's a
13:57
Blake Stephenson Portrait Blake Stephenson MP (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

And bring up a family. It's a tax that punishes the older couple who want to downsize to a more suitable home once their family has suitable home once their family has flown the nest. It's a tax that stifles growth and it restricts mobility, and it's even attacked. That's become so complex that it confuses even deputy prime ministers. So I think it's in all of our interests to simplify this taxation. And we do that by abolishing it so that we can also get the housing market moving.

Once again, I know members from across the House have spoken about how the housing market is bunged up. It absolutely is bunged up. There are so many properties on the market for many, many, many months not selling at all levels within the housing chain, not just multi-million pound houses, but if those multi-million pound houses don't sell, then houses throughout the chain also don't sell, impacting young people, families and old people right throughout the country. We have a commitment to unshackling our housing market by abolishing stamp duty on primary residences, and I was really pleased to see that announcement in the Conservative Party conference a few weeks ago.

And I'm pleased also to hear the honesty from my right honourable friend from North West Hampshire when he says this debate has been ongoing in the party for some time. And I'm pleased, very pleased indeed that we've settled on this position. Madam Deputy Speaker, in my constituency in Mid Bedfordshire, the average House price is around £372,000. Purchasing that property would require stamp duty outlay if the online stamp duty calculators are accurate. Of £8,625. When the stamp duty land tax was introduced on land transactions by the then Labour government in December 2003, the average House price in my constituency was £169,000, with a stamp duty outlay of just £1,090.

Taken together with increasing House prices, that's a 224% increase in the cost of buying a home. By comparison, average earnings have risen by 190% in that same period. Now, abolishing stamp duty won't fix that overnight. We still need to do more to build warm, dry homes in the places people want to live. And I'm pleased that in this debate today that this debate has been broadened out slightly to discuss housebuilding. I think parties from across this House want to build good quality homes in the right places for young people to get on the housing ladder.

I think we are not at odds with that at all. They do need to be in the right places. And I agree with my honourable friend again from North West Hampshire in that the quality of those homes is incredibly important. If we improve the quality of new build homes, I think that our communities would be much more open to accepting housebuilding in our communities, which would increase supply and improve opportunities for young people. I think that's critical to all members across this House.

But places like London, Madam Deputy Speaker, where this government and their Labour mayor have utterly failed to tackle a severe housing crisis with lower targets and reduce aspiration, not ambition, building more houses will help to arrest the charging growth in House prices, but we know that just building is unlikely to bring prices down 20%. Fewer 25 to 34 year olds are homeowners today than in the year 2000. Average first time buyers are almost a decade older today than they were in the 1980s.

Our property market is failing our young people, so in this place, we must do more to make it more affordable for people to make that next move. The Chancellor, despite a desperate to raise more money following her economic vandalism, wants to drag more people into paying stamp duty or a higher rate of stamp duty by freezing thresholds. Reform reportedly about to scrap their half baked stamp duty plans are looking to concrete over our greenbelt, as they lack any credible plans to deliver homes at all.

The conservatives are the only party with a sensible plan to unlock our housing market, to give young people a stake in society and roots in their community. By abolishing stamp duty on primary residents, we can make it over 2% cheaper for families to buy the average House in my constituency overnight. We can save prospective first time buyers in London an average of £18,000, and I am sure members or I think at least one member on the other side representing a London seat, may wish to comment on the savings that she could deliver to her constituents by supporting this motion and pushing this policy through within her party.

That's the sort of real impact that people will feel in their pockets, and it's a real impact that they will feel while unboxing their prized possessions in the living room of their new family home, enabling a new generation of young people to achieve the dream of home ownership, enabling young people to move up the housing ladder into more suitable family homes, unlocking our housing market and knocking down a barrier to social mobility, stimulating our economy and abolishing the drag on growth.

That is what I got into politics to deliver. Madam Deputy Speaker, less government red tape, fewer taxes on aspiration and mobility, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

families in a home of their own. Thank you. Yes, Doctor Jeevun Sandher.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, it's a pleasure to speak in this debate on stamp duty, but there's a lot of agreement on both sides of lot of agreement on both sides of the House. I think that if we could just abolish stamp duty, we would. So the question is not about stamp So the question is not about stamp duty. Abolishing the question is how do you pay for it? And what we've seen from the benches we've seen from the benches opposite in their so-called costing is £23 billion of cuts to Social is £23 billion of cuts to Social Security.

Now these are £23 billion they couldn't deliver while they were in office, but £23 billion that were in office, but £23 billion that would lead to rising destitution, and not just for those who are out of work, not just for children, but of work, not just for children, but also of those who are in work as we speak. It's worth thinking about Speaker, about how the Social Security system has changed over time, what's happened in our economy and indeed high income economy and indeed high income nations across the world.

Technological change means that we've divided between high and low we've divided between high and low paid jobs. It means some jobs, mostly done by graduates, pay enough to live, and a lot more do
14:03
Jeevun Sandher Portrait Dr Jeevun Sandher MP (Loughborough, Labour)
-
-
enough to live, and a lot more do not pay enough to live at all. For a two parent household to just afford the basics, just the basics and have two kids is £35,000 each. They need to earn 40% of full time workers earn less than this. So in order to top up wages in order to people can't afford to live. We have used the social security system to top up wages. It's what we did with working tax credits. It's what the benches opposite did when they reformed it to become Universal Credit.

But of course, what did they build into that system? A huge amount of cuts. And what did those cuts mean? It meant food banks in our nation that we'd never known previously. It made kids going hungry. It made parents not be able to afford the basics. It meant that people across this country who worked hard, did the right thing, could not afford a decent living. And today we're sitting here and the party opposite is once again suggesting £23 billion of cuts to Social Security.

That's £23 billion out of the pockets of families and working families as well. It is shocking. It should mean something to them. It should mean something to all of us. Our nation does better when every single one of us can afford a decent life. It absolutely should be the case that people who work hard should also be able to have a decent life. And yet these cuts way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I thank the honourable member for giving way. He's making a very powerful argument, but I just wonder whether argument, but I just wonder whether he reflects on the size of the welfare budget. Now, is he making the argument that welfare spending

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the argument that welfare spending should not come down at all? At all? The argument I'm making,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

At all? The argument I'm making, the argument I'm making is how do you ensure that people live a decent life, that £23 billion of decent life, that £23 billion of Social Security spending with huge amounts of destitution and increasing unaffordability for increasing unaffordability for families? And also this debate is opposite as well. I worked at Treasury under George Osborne. Even he wouldn't have come up with something like this. And when he tried to do it, he did not get it passed this House.

I'll give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

passed this House. I'll give way. Reflect on the fact that 1 in 6. People in this country are on Universal Credit, are not British

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Universal Credit, are not British citizens, and how would it justify that to his constituents, the. People in this country who have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

People in this country who have the right to remain and the right to work, and people who have earned Social Security contributions can claim so? He'll also know that many claim so? He'll also know that many people in this country have no recourse to public funds at all. Which meant, for example, during the pandemic, despite paying into the pandemic, despite paying into the system, they couldn't claim back out. It's a shame to see where the party opposite has got to on the party opposite has got to on this stuff, to be honest with you.

Yeah, there was a time when the party opposite condemned Enoch Powell. There was a time when the party opposite joined us across this House in believing that every single person, regardless of the colour of their skin, if they're given a legal status to remain, have rights and responsibilities as a British citizen. It's such a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

shame to see where the party opposite has gotten to. Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. And the truth is, I think the party opposite feels ashamed as well. When they talk about things well. When they talk about things like cultural coherence, we can hear the dog whistle across this country. We hear it. And I'll tell country. We hear it. And I'll tell you why. Because British citizenship is not just about the colour of our skin or the way we look. It's our values and the way we act and the way we cohere together. Different communities across this nation who speak in different ways.

It's a deep, deep on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on. Thank him for giving way. I just call upon him to reflect on the fact that regardless of political fact that regardless of political difference, it's the Conservative Party that has delivered three female prime ministers, one Prime Minister, the first one from an ethnic minority background. Whilst his party has not managed to present a leader other than a white

**** Possible New Speaker ****

present a leader other than a white man from. Send a response. Let's try and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

keep this debate in scope, doctor Jeevun Sandher. And look how much the party opposite has changed since last opposite has changed since last July. That's where we are. I will come back, Madam Deputy Speaker, to come back, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the issue at hand here. 4.5 million children in poverty, 1 in 6 children in households have food insecurity. They're struggling to make ends meet, £23 billion of welfare cuts. That does mean that families can't afford and children can't afford to eat.

It does mean those who are most destitute becoming poorer. And it also means, of course, that working families, 40% of them on Universal Credit who are working families, will see cuts as well. That is the outcome here, making our nation poorer. That's not what we should want. It's not what we want. And the benches opposite. I'd hope it's not what they want either. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's an absolute joy to see the wonderful Chelsea pensioners in wonderful Chelsea pensioners in their glorious red uniforms, observing proceedings on behalf of Mr. Speaker. No doubt it will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. Speaker. No doubt it will Stuart. Yeah. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a pleasure to take part in this debate. And I think the quality of contributions from all sides has been excellent today. And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sides has been excellent today. And and that's not always the case. Over recent. Months.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Months. Madam Deputy Speaker, no one in Beverley and Holderness likes paying stamp duty. Not first time paying stamp duty. Not first time buyers and Beverly not grandparents seeking to downsize and headon. And of course, as we know, it's not of course, as we know, it's not very popular even with the Right Honourable member for Ashton-under-Lyne. Stamp duty was.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ashton-under-Lyne. Stamp duty was. First introduced in 1694 to fund our war against the French. And our war against the French. And while we may have our differences with our friends across the channel, when I checked this morning, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was pleased to Deputy Speaker, I was pleased to find that we're not currently at war with France and what began as a
14:09
Graham Stuart Portrait Rt Hon Graham Stuart MP (Beverley and Holderness, Conservative)
-
-
temporary wartime measure, raising £91,206, ten shillings and £0.04 in 1702 has become a permanent tax. But it's more than just a tax. It's a barrier to opportunity for young couples in my constituency. An impediment on aspiration in Aldeburgh and a block on families in Withernsea trying to climb the property ladder. And we, the Conservative Party, have always been the party of opportunity, of home ownership, of family aspiration. And that's why at the next election we will abolish this three century old tax.

While we welcome signs, I didn't expect to hear today from colleagues opposite who too often just slavishly repeat their speaking points. Today we've heard thoughtful speeches and recognition that this is a harmful tax. They may question our way of implementing it, but they recognise that. So we will abolish this three century old tax, unlock the housing market in Beverley and Holderness and beyond. And I encourage the current Chancellor and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

colleagues behind her to follow our lead. Andrew Lewin.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Let me start by saying that I welcome a debate on how we incentivise home ownership. I'm a Labour MP who wants more of my constituents in Welwyn Hatfield to have a secure home of their own, to build a life home of their own, to build a life in our community, and also for the ability to buy a home. Not to be so ability to buy a home. Not to be so dependent on your access to the bank of Mum and Dad.

The proposition we are discussing today from the benches opposite, is that from the benches opposite, is that the abolition of stamp duty is the answer. Before we assess that claim, answer. Before we assess that claim, let's look at how we got here today. Home ownership went backwards under 14 years of the last Conservative 14 years of the last Conservative government. There are 600,000 fewer homeowners in the UK than there homeowners in the UK than there would have been if home ownership rates had remained at the levels they were at in 2010.

That's more they were at in 2010. That's more than the population of Liverpool. 20 years ago, 50% of people aged 25
14:11
Andrew Lewin Portrait Andrew Lewin MP (Welwyn Hatfield, Labour)
-
-
20 years ago, 50% of people aged 25 to 34 own their own home. By 2022, this had fallen to fewer than four. In ten Madam Deputy Speaker members across the House will recognise that that is a record of failure. I think they will also agree that there is no panacea for increasing the levels of home ownership, and that it requires a range of policy solutions. That being said, there is one fundamental truth that we need to recognise. If you don't build more homes, you won't have more homeowners.

The last government dropped mandatory housing targets, and I've lost count of how many MPs on that side of the House have used departmental questions, statements and even today's debate to say, oh, I like the idea of homes in the right places, but it doesn't happen to be in my constituency. I have to say, the Liberal Democrats have been just as guilty as the Conservative Party on on that. So where the conservatives have failed, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Labour government is acting the return of housing targets for every local. Authority.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ambitious planning reform and a record 39 billion for affordable homes programme. Do we have further homes programme. Do we have further to go? Yes, absolutely. But new housing starts in the first quarter housing starts in the first quarter of 2025, were up by 17% on the same period in 2024, when the conservatives were still in power. conservatives were still in power. So let's look more closely at the proposition that abolishing stamp duty is the answer. First of all, duty is the answer.

First of all, who benefits most? If your home is who benefits most? If your home is worth £1.5 million, you will save £93,750 under this proposal. As I £93,750 under this proposal. As I intervened earlier, I said, if your home is worth £2 million, you'll home is worth £2 million, you'll save to the tune of £150,000. And it was cheered by the party opposite. And I think that's telling. Madam And I think that's telling. Madam Deputy Speaker, whereas if you buy a home that's worth under £300,000, then this proposal will save you no then this proposal will save you no money at all.

That's the threshold, by the way, that stamp duty cuts in by the way, that stamp duty cuts in at the moment, and 40% of first time buyers buy homes that are worth less than £300,000. So the worth less than £300,000. So the Conservative choice, the Conservative proposition, is to ask ordinary taxpayers to either accept, as my honourable friend said, deep cuts in Social Security or to pay more taxes to subsidise a tax cut for millionaires. That's the proposition today. Liz Truss would be proud.

We have no reform colleagues in the chamber today, but I suspect they would be pleased as well as of course, their leader famously said at the time of the mini-budget that it was the best one since 1986. Deputy Speaker, if we seriously want more homeowners, the real answer lies in building more homes of all tenures, in offering mortgage guarantees to help those who earn enough but can't raise the deposit to get on the ladder. In continuing to support low cost home ownership models like shared ownership in planning reform, and by embracing a new generation of new towns.

In the first 14 months of being in office, this government has done more to make progress on identifying sites for the next generation of new towns than the Conservative Party did in 14 years. If your objective is to give millionaires a tax cut, abolishing stamp duty in one sweep is a good way to do this policy. But if you're more serious about helping people onto the housing ladder, we should reject the Conservative motion today. Reject their failed approach over the last 14 years, and support a package of reforms to get Britain building

**** Possible New Speaker ****

again. Saqib Bhatti. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. And it's a it was very interesting to follow the the last speaker because the the last speaker because obviously I did an intervention earlier relate to him. He knows I fundamentally disagree with him. fundamentally disagree with him. This is a tax cut for everybody irrespective of the value of their House. And fundamentally what we know is that the housing market is gummed up. I have serious questions about whether the Labour government will be able to meet its housing will be able to meet its housing targets.

I'm not sure what those housing numbers are currently. Maybe he'll be able to enlighten me, but fundamentally, this is a tax but fundamentally, this is a tax cut that will apply to everybody. But my reflections, you know, my honourable friend earlier said honourable friend earlier said about the speeches coming from opposite there have been very interesting, but they are slightly siloed. They slightly miss out the
14:15
Saqib Bhatti Portrait Saqib Bhatti MP (Meriden and Solihull East, Conservative)
-
-
siloed. They slightly miss out the the context of what we're talking about currently in an economy that is stalling with, you know, the jobs tax, which is meant that there's unemployment has gone up. That means hard working families, more of them are now unemployed. More young people are now out of work as a result of this Labour government. And they can absolutely talk down this motion, as I'm sure they will, because, you know, the whips have told them to do so and all the other things.

But the reality is we are putting something on the table that is credible, that is funded and that will the housing market, but it will also contribute £1.2 billion worth of economic growth. And at a time when The Chancellor is scrambling to fill her own black hole, we put credible

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ideas on the table and they should take it more seriously. I will take the intervention, he said. That this tax.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Cut will. Benefit everybody. I wonder if you could tell me how will it benefit the people who how will it benefit the people who don't currently pay it because first?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

first? Well, two ways. First of all, first of all, increase mobility in the housing market. And also as my the housing market. And also as my my Right honourable friend Foyle North West Hampshire stated in a in an incredibly eloquent speech, it an incredibly eloquent speech, it will also mean that the construction industry and all the peripheral jobs will start to peripheral jobs will start to mobilise, it will create economic growth. And I suspect actually the 1.2 billion is probably a bit understated, actually, and it will understated, actually, and it will probably create more.

We're talking about creating jobs and making people wealthier, making people people wealthier, making people wealthier, being aspirational for the aspirational instead of what they're talking about, which is they're talking about, which is talking down a credible policy that will put money on the table for some of our poorest people. Ultimately, it means that more and Ultimately, it means that more and more people will be able to get onto the housing ladder, because, let's face it, and I posed a question earlier that the question earlier that the government is not going to meet its housing targets.

It's quite obvious already. They're massively way behind. It's not possible to do so. behind. It's not possible to do so. They're killing off aspiration and confidence in the economy and housing builders are not going to want to meet those unless of course, they're met with huge subsidies. And so the question really I have for the government benches is how many, how much representation have they made on the back of the current economic situation to The Chancellor about putting growth principles on there and cutting taxes so people have more money in their pockets, and the answer will be none, because that's not happening.

The member for Loughborough talked about, he said he wasn't making an argument for not cutting welfare. He didn't put a figure on the table how much welfare needs. We know the welfare bill is ballooning. It started ballooning post Covid. It was happening, right. We we did interventions during the pandemic. It had to happen. We saved £2 trillion economy. We saved businesses. We saved jobs. We did all of those things. Sometimes with the support of the opposition benches and sometimes not. Sad to say, but we did all that to to save the economy.

But of course, all of that comes with a cost. It is now right that we look forward and look forward to make sure that we are putting proposals on the table that help grow the economy. And by the way, help The Chancellor, help The Chancellor get out of this mess. Because actually, I want her to do better, because right now I've got constituents who are struggling, who are anxious, who are worried. She her policies, backed by the benches opposite, have contributed. Bless you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have contributed, have contributed to higher inflation and higher cost of living.

These are all consequences that they backed and they've walked through the voting lobbies. There is a budget coming. And and while they may be talking in silo, the government is already briefing out to papers about all the taxes. They're going to rise. And they're not talking seriously about they're talking about government. They're not talking about seriously about the cuts that they're going to have to put on the table because The Chancellor knows the moment she does that, it's going to be her backbenchers that stab her in the back.

And that's the fundamental conundrum she's got, because she's also now going to placate the bond market where we've got the highest bond yields. That's the I see shaking heads. That's the reality of what the backbenchers are dealing with. We are putting proposals on the table where people can. And by the way, good proposals which mean that young families who want to get on the housing ladder, I'm happy for the PPS to take it. I'll take an intervention for PBS if he wants to. Is no, it's OK.

Well, I was offering an opportunity, madam speaker. I was getting distracted by country. But the reality is, most serious economic economists, Dan Needle, the IFS have said that this is a bad tax. In fact, the the the Member of Parliament for Swansea West, who I hear is very instrumental in this budget, has talked about stamp duty being a bad tax. We all agree on that. So we put a policy on the table with cuts with with funding, which the Chancellor's going to need. Surely this is something we should all be taking seriously because the government is going to need those answers, and I suspect we will come back to that.

We we've also I know lots has made lots has been made about the fiscal rules of The Chancellor. I think they were named I think the Chief Secretary of Treasury said they were ironclad. I suspect they are until the next ones. We've got a golden rule. We we in the spirit of rules, we put a golden rule. The leader of the opposition put golden rule, and that's for every pound saved, half will go in cutting our national debt. Surely that is something we can all get behind that when the interest on our on our debt is something like £100 billion a year.

You know, surely that's something we can get behind when The Chancellor, month after month, is borrowing more to meet everyday spending? That is obviously happening and that is there. The other point I just wanted to make was there's an argument about the cliff edge. And, you know, we we had the window. I think my right honourable friend spoke about this, the window through Covid, and I was one of those who was on the receiving end of not being able to buy a House at that time.

I was looking at the time for my new family, and houses were going quickly because people were trying to beat the cliff edge at the end of the stamp duty. This is not the same thing, right? This gets rid of that window, and it means that more and more people will be able to do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

absolutely. Yeah. I'm grateful to him. I'm perplexed by the the argument that the Liberal Democrats advanced the Liberal Democrats advanced earlier that if you that abolishing stamp duty will raise taxes, stamp duty will raise taxes, presumably the quid pro quos if you raised it, that would lower taxes, that would lower prices. So why

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that would lower prices. So why aren't they proposing that policy? Well. I'm sure the Liberal Democrats. It's a good point he's making. And It's a good point he's making. And the Lib Dem spokesman will address that in there. But it speaks to their economic incoherence in what their economic incoherence in what they've presented already. But fundamentally, we believe in property rights. We believe in the ownership of property and the rights that derive from there the freedom, the fundamental freedoms freedom, the fundamental freedoms in this country.

And it is a moment of great pride when you take the first keys for your first House. And I'm sure there are for for And I'm sure there are for for others, cutting stamp duty is the right thing to do. And if we win the next election, that's exactly
14:22
Rachel Taylor Portrait Rachel Taylor MP (North Warwickshire and Bedworth, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

the next election, that's exactly what we'll be doing. Rachel Taylor. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. The Shadow Chancellor would have us believe that the party opposite have changed, that the days of Liz Truss and her disastrous mini-budget are behind them. But we can all see that nothing's changed. Once again, we see the same reckless attitude towards the public finances, cutting public expenditure to fund tax breaks for the wealthiest without actually being honest with the British public about who pays the price.

Shadow Chancellor tells us he can fund this Liz Truss style tax cutting bonanza by making £47 billion in spending cuts. Well, I'd simply ask him this if these fantasy savings are so easy to find, why didn't the conservatives make them in the 14 years that they were in government? No, not at this point. We've been here before with the Tories. They tell the public they can slash the state without any downsides. But the next thing you know, your local library is being shut down, your local swimming pool goes with it, and our vital services like the NHS and schools end up in crisis.

My constituents in North Warwickshire and Bedworth have suffered 14 years of austerity once, and they don't want to suffer it a second time. Let's look at some of the real facts about stamp duty. The Tories. Yeah, I'll give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

OK. Does she think stamp duty is a bad tax?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bad tax? Kenneth Stevenson I'm not saying whether stamp duty is a good or a bad tax. What I am saying is to bad tax. What I am saying is to simply to simply abolish it without any thought as to the impact that that is going to have on the poorest people in our society, is poorest people in our society, is not something that I will be supporting. Yes, the Tories have dressed up this fantasy tax cut as dressed up this fantasy tax cut as standing up for first time buyers.

But as a former property solicitor, I can tell you for a fact that that I can tell you for a fact that that argument is completely false. In my constituency of North Warwickshire and Bedworth, a first time buyer and Bedworth, a first time buyer purchasing an average price property pays no stamp duty. This property pays no stamp duty. This tax cut would be of no benefit to them whatsoever. Indeed, the them whatsoever. Indeed, the average property sale in my constituency would see buyers. I'll constituency would see buyers.

I'll make some more progress. The average property sale in my constituency would see buyers constituency would see buyers buying for the second or subsequent time, paying between 2000 and £3600. time, paying between 2000 and £3600. Not an insignificant amount of money for sure, but just a tiny fraction of the cost of buying an average home. Compare that to the kind of House being bought by, say, your average Tory party donor, perhaps a £2 million property in central London. That property sale or purchase would attract stamp duty of more than £150,000.

That's who this massive Tory tax cut is helping. Not first time buyers in my constituency, but London based millionaires. So let's be clear this whopping Tory tax cut will overwhelmingly be spent on the wealthiest in our society while sucking money out of our public services and local communities. It will do nothing to help young people to get a foot on the housing ladder, while giving a whopping tax break to some of the richest people in our society. Let us be absolutely clear this isn't a tax cut for working people.

It's a tax cut for the wealthy. It will take money out of our public services and our local communities, while doing nothing to help young people get a foot on the housing ladder. The conservatives claim that they've changed, but this latest plan shows they haven't learnt a thing. It's the same failed ideology, the same unfair priorities, austerity 2.0 and the same harm to my constituents in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

North Warwickshire and Bedworth and right across this country. Hear, hear. Office.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker. Stamp duty land tax is one of the most unfair and outdated.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the most unfair and outdated. Taxes in our system. It punishes aspiration, locks people out of home ownership and blocks up the home ownership and blocks up the housing market. I have heard from constituents who are first time buyers struggling to get a foothold on the housing ladder because of the amount of stamp duty they are
14:26
Liz Jarvis Portrait Liz Jarvis MP (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
expected to pay. Liberal Democrat run borough council has a strong record of building homes to meet local demand, but the average price of a House in Eastleigh is still 300 £313,000, according to the ONS, which is unaffordable for many. It is simply wrong that the dream of home ownership has drifted so far out of reach for so many people. My constituent, Tom and his wife are a young couple who spent the past two years desperately trying to buy their first home in the haste to get the purchase through before the end of the stamp duty holiday, they missed key checks and accepted extra costs just to complete the purchase.

As someone who grew up in rented accommodation with everything that goes with it, I find it so incredibly disappointing that at a time when we should be doing everything possible to make home ownership accessible, the system instead creates obstacles for those simply trying to put down roots and start a family in a home of their own. As we know there is a housing crisis. The private rental market is expensive and insecure. There are far too few homes available for social rent, and poor quality housing is damaging people's health.

The government must tackle the root causes by increasing the building of new homes to 380,000 a year, including 150,000 social homes a year, ensuring every community has access to secure and genuinely affordable housing. Madam Deputy Speaker, The entire system of property taxation, from council tax to stamp duty is wholly unfit for purpose. Reforms must be fair, comprehensive and forward looking. That means setting out a clear plan, not an uncosted headline or a short term Treasury grab. I hope the government will replace this outdated, unfair tax with a modern, more efficient system that supports social mobility, economic growth and reigniting the dream of home ownership for all generations.

But I'm afraid I won't be supporting this ill thought out and uncosted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

motion today. Thank you. Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker. And like many in this House and many of my constituents in Dartford, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Have had the dubious pleasure of paying stamp duty. And in doing so, when buying a home, I can testify when buying a home, I can testify to the fact that it isn't a pleasant experience. And that is one small reason why, as others one small reason why, as others have said, I'm sympathetic to the case for reform of property taxation in this country when taxation in this country when properly thought through. But this proposal from the party that brought us, the former member for brought us, the former member for South West Norfolk as Prime Minister is simply not a serious proposal.

In Manchester, the proposal. In Manchester, the Conservative Party conference, the leader of the opposition, who previously was going to spend three previously was going to spend three years thinking through what the new policy platform of her party should
14:29
Jim Dickson Portrait Jim Dickson MP (Dartford, Labour)
-
-
be, no doubt looking at all the alternatives and thinking through what the effects might be just produces like a rabbit out of a hat. A proposal to abolish stamp duty on the purchase of main homes. And that is a decision which if it if implemented after the 2029 general election, the Institute of Fiscal Studies reckons would cost the country the Exchequer around £11 billion a year in lost revenue. And surprisingly, or perhaps unsurprisingly, given the fiscal situation left by the party opposite in July last year, there is no serious proposal to replace this revenue.

Instead, we have a promise this would be paid for by taking the axe once more to spending on public services, with the promise of £47 billion in savings. A proposal to return this country to austerity that was so roundly rejected by our constituents a little more than a year ago, and indeed, the £47 billion includes a saving, as others have said, of £23 billion on welfare, a figure vastly in excess of anything the last government even approached during their 14 years in office.

And in fact, as we know, spending in this area went up during that time. So to attempt to make this sort of saving in the time scale that they're suggesting would inevitably mean a big increase in the number of families in our country living in poverty. And I wanted just to take a moment to remind the House of the state of the public services and public finances at the end of the 14 years of Conservative government, a plethora of unfunded spending commitments and departmental spending plans that were so out of touch with reality that they left.

As has been said many times, a huge black hole which this government has had to try to fill, and now they are proposing to cut public services even further. This isn't a serious plan to improve those public services, or invest in or grow our economy. Clearly, stamp duty is a far from perfect tax and we should have a sensible debate on property tax reform. This just isn't it. In the short term, for instance, you could increase the number of council tax bands to capture the higher value properties in some parts of the country and redistribute some of that income elsewhere.

In the longer term, a wider reform of council tax and other property taxes could provide a fairer way of taxing property, so that those with the broadest shoulders bear the greatest burden. Instead, as a former adviser to the party opposite in government, Tim Leunig said this would be a very, very big tax cut for rich people and would have the effect of pushing House prices further out of reach for first time buyers. So this is disappointing. Madam Deputy Speaker, it's fantasy economics from what used to be a serious political party, and I hope the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

today. The full. Yeah. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. his. Castle. The place he feels safe and he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The place he feels safe and he has control of with a sense of permanence. But in today's world, though, we have younger people though, we have younger people effectively stuck at the gate House in renting, unable to break through into property ownership. And we have older generations locked have older generations locked inside the castle towers and able to easily downsize and get out. And last winter, being cold with a last winter, being cold with a sudden changes in the winter fuel allowance.

But and they are also now facing a government armed with now facing a government armed with a trebuchet, flinging economic misery at the castle walls, destroying prospects and the destroying prospects and the foundations. Now, there is also a reason, I'm sure Madam Deputy Speaker appreciates why people like Speaker appreciates why people like programs like escape to the country and Homes Under the Hammer are the daytime programs are available, but they are really popular because they embody the aspiration of the British public to earn, to purchase British public to earn, to purchase and to create and to make a true home.

And this policy today really home. And this policy today really is there's so much to unlock the potential that we have. Abolishing stamp duty on primary residence can save young families, especially in London, up to £18,000 on their first home. And I'm really disappointed to hear the members opposite, particularly the member for Pendle and Clitheroe, not believing that it is fair to do that, and it's feeling more like a politics of envy, given that House prices are so much higher in London and in the South East, this is only a fair policy.

Now, if you combine this as well with our announcement of the first jobs bonus offer, where the first £5,000 of National Insurance will be paid by any British citizen, starting their first job will be placed into a personal savings account that would be earmarked for a first home deposit or a future savings. This would be transformational. Now stamp duty is, as has been echoed across the chamber, a terrible tax. And I'm sure again, certain members on the benches opposite agree. But it is an additional tax which distorts the markets and it often stops people moving.

As we all agree. It is complicated. It's calculations. The exemptions are as a form of commercial property lawyer. And I saw having to actually complete stamp duty forms and they are an absolute nightmare. They slow down and they stifle the market. And particularly for young couples and families, you find one finds that families, you find one finds that dream home that they want to move into, and the stamp duty alone is enough to stop them. And that enough to stop them. And that shouldn't be happening in this day and age.

We need to lock, unlock true aspiration and opportunity, true aspiration and opportunity, and I really fail to see how the opposition benches would reject such a policy that has been welcomed by so many, including their own constituents. Now the government make some more progress. Thank you. The government benches, Thank you. The government benches, however, sneer when we talk about living within their means. But that living within their means. But that is something that every single constituent of ours has to do. They have to make those tough decisions have to make those tough decisions not to spend at certain points, or to save or to work harder.

But this government does not even follow the government does not even follow the principles that it asks its own constituents to adhere to. This is a government that wants to, of course, give Wakefield and Rothwell.
14:35
Sarah Bool Portrait Sarah Bool MP (South Northamptonshire, Conservative)
-
-
I found my honourable friend for giving way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does she agree with me that it would be very helpful if the government were much more ambitious in finding savings in their budgets in order to deliver this ambitious policy that would support young

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people up and down our country? Yeah, absolutely. I think my honourable friend makes an incredibly important point, makes an incredibly important point, and I really wish that they would be able to find that. But unfortunately, judging on the current Chancellor, I don't think current Chancellor, I don't think that is going to be a possibility. In reality, the government really should be creating an environment in which for people to thrive. It in which for people to thrive. It shouldn't be fixing people in an environment.

And stamp duty is one of those taxes that literally locks of those taxes that literally locks people in place. We've got to learn that we need to be able to trust individuals, give them those opportunities and see true growth. opportunities and see true growth. So I fully support and I hope everyone was on Stamp duty land tax.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

everyone was on Stamp duty land tax. Connor Naismith. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to start by acknowledging I want to start by acknowledging the point that many members have made across the two sides of the made across the two sides of the House, that many of us would not defend the principle of stamp duty, and indeed, if it didn't exist and indeed, if it didn't exist already, it's hard to believe that we would invent it. But that is not the choice.

That is not the question that is in front of us today. If you're if we are going to decide to abolish stamp duty, we have to say how we're going to pay for it. And we have to justify that decision as a priority above all of the other decisions that we may

**** Possible New Speaker ****

make with with that money. Yes. Thank you. We Liberal Democrats accept that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We Liberal Democrats accept that the property tax system. Must be reformed. And arguably radically so. But I do struggle with the conservatives do struggle with the conservatives who govern for years without substantial reform, now promising to abolish stamp duty with no

**** Possible New Speaker ****

credible plan to pay. For it. Where is the money coming from?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is the magic money tree being rerouted? I thank the honourable member for that intervention, and I think she's absolutely right to point out that the conservatives had 14 years in government. Now they're in in government. Now they're in opposition. They want to talk about all these magical savings that they can come up with. Why didn't they can come up with. Why didn't they do it when they were in government? It's a little bit, you know, too little, too late. But but as I was little, too late.

But but as I was as I was saying, if you're going to decide to do this, you have to tell us how you're going to pay for it and justify that priority versus all of the other priorities that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

all of the other priorities that you might decide to do. My friend. Yes, I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, I will. I thank my honourable friend for giving way. And does he agree with me that what's locked young people me that what's locked young people out of the housing market over the last 14 years is not the existence of stamp duty, but the astronomical rise in House prices that have gone from being around three times, three times a first time buyers income to more like ten times in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

constituencies like mine and his. I would completely agree with my honourable friend, the most common honourable friend, the most common reason that I hear from my constituents about why they can't get on the housing ladder is get on the housing ladder is because of that astronomical rise in House prices. I think I'm going in House prices. I think I'm going to make some progress. I think this motion tells us everything we need motion tells us everything we need to know about the priorities of the Conservative Party today.

Conservative Party today. Regressive in the context of the the vast majority of options that we could choose to pursue. This is we could choose to pursue. This is a regressive tax cut, funded once again by cuts, cuts. They won't be brave enough to specify with any credibility, reckless with our credibility, reckless with our public finances, reckless with our public services, and utterly out of touch with the realities facing touch with the realities facing working families in constituencies like mine in Crewe and Nantwich.

I will give way. To the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will give way. To the. Member for giving way. He talks about reckless as he heard the news that the OBR has said the that the OBR has said the Chancellor's going to have to find another 7 to £9 billion due to the fall in productivity. Therefore, her black hole has just got bigger.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

her black hole has just got bigger. Harlow I thank the honourable member for that intervention and look, we'll await the budget to to see the obr's forecasts, but I'll just say I'll take no lessons from members opposite on economic credibility. They are the party of Liz Truss which dragged this country into the economic abyss. We know that Tory austerity and a lack of investment in our country's infrastructure is part of the story of why we have never recovered in terms of economic growth and productivity, from the financial
14:41
Connor Naismith Portrait Connor Naismith MP (Crewe and Nantwich, Labour)
-
-
crash in 2008. And it seems like the party opposite want to take us the party opposite want to take us back, right back to the beginning of that 14 years of chaos, failure of that 14 years of chaos, failure and decline. I think my constituents would say no, frankly. And what's worse, they can't even And what's worse, they can't even tell us with any credibility where those cuts will fall. And, Madam those cuts will fall. And, Madam Deputy Speaker, we've seen this playbook before.

No credible plan playbook before. No credible plan to pay for their promises, just vague talk of savings to the very services our communities rely on our schools, our NHS, our local infrastructure and the cheek, frankly, of the Tories to come here and talk about home ownership. They and talk about home ownership. They manifestly failed to build the homes our country needs because they presided over a broken they presided over a broken planning system that they did nothing to reform. And my constituents, as I mentioned earlier, haven't forgotten what Liz Truss's mini-budget did to their Truss's mini-budget did to their mortgage payments.

During the election campaign, I spoke directly with families in Crewe and Nantwich with families in Crewe and Nantwich who had seen their monthly costs soar overnight. I distinctly remember speaking to a man who told me his mortgage payments had risen by £1,000 a month, and he was forced to sell his home as a result. If you want to examine the reality beyond the rhetoric of the modern day Conservative Party's record on home ownership, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is that failure to deliver soaring prices and broken

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you. Mr. Speaker. The honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. Speaker. The honourable member talks about broken dreams, but I'm just really interested. None of the speakers this afternoon on those benches over there have on those benches over there have spoken about the hard working families in the middle, so not the ones who are struggling to buy ones who are struggling to buy their first home and not the so-called really, really rich people at the top who this is going to in their world benefit. But it's to in their world benefit.

But it's the hard working families that no doubt he has spoken to who are not able to buy the property with an able to buy the property with an additional bedroom for their growing family. Because that stamp duty, as my honourable friend here has referenced, is the difference between the price of the home they wish to buy and the the dream to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wish to buy and the the dream to be Excellent. The honourable member for that intervention. It was those families in the middle who suffered most at in the middle who suffered most at the hands of Liz Truss's mini-budget. So I would expect the benches opposite to apologise to benches opposite to apologise to those families in my constituency for their record of the management of the economy over the past 14 years. Now compare all of that to what Labour is delivering in government.

We are getting Britain building not just the homes, not building not just the homes, not just not just the homes that we need, but in Crewe and Nantwich, a new hospital at Leyton, the new youth zone in Crewe town centre, a new history centre and many, many more things that our community will benefit from. The choice ahead at the budget is clear. Stick with Labour's plan for national renewal, or return to the chaos and cuts of the past. Whatever shade of blue that comes in, Labour chooses a fairer economy, one that works for working people and rewards them.

That's what we're building in Crewe and Nantwich, and that's what we're building across Britain. The people of Crewe and Nantwich deserve better than unfunded tax cuts and economic instability. They deserve a government that invests in the future, protects their services, and builds a Britain for all Gregory Stafford. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. Today the state of our economy is laid bare. Growth has flatlined just 0.1% in August. Inflation remains almost twice the Bank of England's target, and long term borrowing costs are at their highest since 1998.

Now, when we left office back in July 2024, unemployment was at four. Was was we had the fastest growing economy in the G7. A year later, unemployment is up, debt is at its highest since the 1960s and the UK is sliding back backwards. It's hardly surprising from a government with more experience in government with more experience in the trade union movement than in business, and so only the conservatives are serious about the economy. economy.
14:44
Gregory Stafford Portrait Gregory Stafford MP (Farnham and Bordon, Conservative)
-
-
The government. bear with me for for a minute or two more. The government's inexperience shows in its policies that they pursue policies that make it harder for businesses, harder for homeowners, and harder for first time buyers to thrive. And now, just weeks before the Chancellor's budget comes the most destructive raid on homeowners in living memory. If we are to believe the leaked reports coming out of the Treasury, I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Under your. Under the. Conservatives watch you grew

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Conservatives watch you grew sorry. The conservatives party grew the national debt by nearly £1 trillion. You drove our economy trillion. You drove our economy through a hard Brexit into the ground and yet you are masquerading. Sorry. The Conservative Party is Sorry. The Conservative Party is masquerading as a party of good sense and the economy. I, I do not understand how that makes sense.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

understand how that makes sense. Please, can you explain. Covid foreign Ukraine? Yeah. I don't I mean, there's been a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I don't I mean, there's been a lot of comments about when people were born to what they remember, but I hope the honourable member doesn't take offence. I'm sure he doesn't take offence. I'm sure he was born during Covid and during the war in Ukraine, and so knows why. We had to increase the why. We had to increase the national debt to do it, and he is being entirely disingenuous if he believes that those things did not believes that those things did not have an impact on the economy.

And if he didn't, if he had been in power, what would he have done? Would he have not supported those Would he have not supported those small businesses? Would he have not supported employers? Would he have not supported the hard working

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people? Now, I think I've already heard enough of him from today so. Far. So I won't give way for the moment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

moment. Just to be. Clear, good language is appropriate. And we're not sure. That disingenuous is the best

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That disingenuous is the best language to use. I'm sure they'll find an alternative word. Mr. Stafford, are you finished wondering around the chamber? Are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you comfortable now? Fabulous. Mr. speaker. I misspoke and I withdraw that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I misspoke and I withdraw that comment, but I do find it very strange that members of the Liberal Democrat Party seem to have Democrat Party seem to have collective amnesia on what happened over the last few years. Now, returning to the substance of this, families across my constituency are bracing for new taxes on homes, Capital Gains Tax on family houses Capital Gains Tax on family houses and even potentially a land value tax. This is not reform. It's a sledgehammer aimed at aspiration, sledgehammer aimed at aspiration, mobility and stability.

And as I've said before, in Farnham, where the said before, in Farnham, where the average home now costs £660,000, families could face bills of 5000 a year on top of their mortgage and year on top of their mortgage and energy costs in Haslemere and Bordon, already stretched households will be hit again and households will be hit again and pensioners in Grayshott or Tilford face the grotesque prospect of a capital gains on the homes they worked a lifetime to own. Everyone pensioners, farmers, small business pensioners, farmers, small business owners is treated by this government as a cash cow.

A tax on the family home is a tax on aspiration. It traps people in their properties. It dries up supply and breaks housing chains. supply and breaks housing chains. The very people Labour claimed to champion. First time buyers will be frozen out altogether. The government claims this is about fairness. We've heard this from a number of government speakers this afternoon, but there's nothing fair about a pensioner in Greetham being forced to sell their home to pay the taxman, or a young family in Linford, choosing between childcare and a new annual levy.

That's not fairness. It's a regional punishment for those of us who just happen to live in the South and Southeast. So that is why I back our clear Conservative plan to abolish stamp duty on primary residences. Owning a home gives people a real stake in their community and their country. Our policy will make the economy stronger and help families achieve the dream of home ownership. Once

**** Possible New Speaker ****

again, I will. Honourable member for giving way. He says. That owning a home gives people

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That owning a home gives people a stake in in their community, and I agree with him. Why then does his party oppose this government's party oppose this government's moves to help build 1.5 million homes and reform the planning

**** Possible New Speaker ****

system? Well, the simple answer is we don't, so I can't I can't add more don't, so I can't I can't add more than that where we where we do have a problem as he's drawn me on this is one we don't think it's anywhere going to be deliverable. And because the government is not meeting any of its targets thus far, and where from a parochial point of and where from a parochial point of view, where in Waverly and East Sussex as East Surrey, Waverly and East Hampshire, my constituents are East Hampshire, my constituents are facing a doubling of the housing targets in London, where the infrastructure is already in place.

The targets are actually being reduced. That is not joined up thinking. That is a government that thinking. That is a government that is spraying its House targets all over the country without thinking about how it's actually going to deliver. So on stamp duty, as I said earlier, an average price of said earlier, an average price of of of a family home in Farnham is £660,000, which means that they would be paying £23,000 in stamp duty. That's an enormous cut if we can get this through and it's fully funded.

Most importantly, part of that £47 billion saving plan, consistent with our golden rule that every pound saved is split between reducing the deficit and growing the economy. The Institute for Fiscal Studies calls stamp duty the, quote, the most economically damaging tax in the UK. The London School of Economics found it and I quote cuts, mobility and investment. The centre for Policy Studies calls it. Again I quote a tax on aspiration. They are all right. Our plan will save first time buyers up to £18,000 in London, £4,000 in the South East.

And as my right honourable friend for South Northamptonshire said combined with our first jobs bonus, a young couple could save £28,000, enough to get on the ladder and build a future. Now, we've heard a number of honourable members on all sides of the House claiming that they support the principle of removing the stamp value. Stamp duty land tax. Notable exceptions being the members for Pendle and Clitheroe, Welwyn Hatfield and North Warwickshire. But the point that those those three members forget is that buying a House almost always is in a chain.

So just because someone at the top of the market might be buying, and I think they're being being being a little overreaching with £2 million. But even if it were a £2 million House, everybody else down that chain benefits because as soon as you can get that market moving, you will allow people to buy and to sell and to get the youngest people, those who are buying their first home or trying to upsize because they're starting a family, the ability to actually buy.

So it's not just those people who are technically covered by the tax, it's everybody within that whole chain. And by contrast, Madam Deputy Speaker, Labour froze the thresholds, dragging more families into higher bands. And even their housing secretary tried to block 237 homes in his own constituency. Bill maybe Bills I think not, Madam Deputy Speaker. Now, as I said, a number of members across the House, especially on the Labour benches, have expressed sympathy for the principle of the policy.

But they seem entirely unwilling to make the tough decisions to get there. And we saw that with their total inability to cut the welfare bill by a tiny amount earlier this year. But even if they were not willing to take those decisions, as every single member of this House knows, this motion is not binding on the government, so they could happily support it to show that in principle, they would like to see this tax cut. But I suspect that when their principles will be overridden by the decisions of the Whip's Office and the Liberal Democrats were characteristically fence sitting, I mean, so much so that I think the honourable member must have left to remove the splinters.

The reality is the Conservative Party, this opposition, is the only one with the serious thinking about how we can get the housing market moving again. Our alternative, Madam Deputy Speaker, is clear. We will abolish stamp duty on main homes, scrap business rates for hospitality, leisure and retail and give high streets the breathing space to grow again. That is the difference. We listen to people who build, who hire, who own and who aspire. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, the choice before the House is stark.

A Labour party that punishes aspiration, or a Conservative party that rewards it. A government that traps people where they are, or one that sets them free to move, work and grow. Only the conservatives have a serious plan to get Britain working, grow the economy and give every

**** Possible New Speaker ****

person a real stake in their community through the security of home ownership. Here, here, here, here, here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here, here, here, here, here. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And here we go again.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And here we go again. Always the promise of tax cuts to come. Never the proper plan to make sure it is affordable. This motion tells you everything you need to know about the modern
14:53
Antonia Bance Portrait Antonia Bance MP (Tipton and Wednesbury, Labour)
-
-
need to know about the modern Conservative Party. Once again, their first recourse is to reach for the austerity button. Instead of making a serious plan to invest, to grow the economy and to strengthen our public services reckless with the public finances, reckless with our public services, they are not a serious party. Now, I was going to make this point specifically for the member for Beverley and Holderness, but I see he's not in his place so everyone else can enjoy it instead.

Yes, it is time for the greatest hits of austerity, the 14 years that talked and did this country down when day to day public services spending fell by nearly 17%, stripping away nearly £46 billion every year from services our residents rely on. And remember that as I talk about this austerity, because they are funding this tax cut we're talking about today with £47 billion, a larger number than the austerity years. And look at the back of a packet plans that they have to make it add up.

So let us remember what austerity did to our country. It left our NHS with a £10 billion repairs backlog. It left 9 in 10 of our schools in urgent need of repair, including more than 230 schools with Swiss cheese for roofs, including rack in the roof of Woodgreen School in my constituency. Those pupils deserved so much better, a decent place to learn and we will make that happen. They didn't. When the pandemic struck our services, they were critically understaffed and underinvested in and the result, thanks to their austerity and their cuts, over 170,000 excess deaths amongst the worst in the developed world in that period.

Our precious public sector workers who give their all. Nurses, teachers, carers have their pay frozen or capped for years, leaving the average nurse over £4,000 worse off than in 2010. And they left 1 in 10 workers, 1 in 10 in insecure employment, including the best part of a million on zero hours contracts, cuts to Social Security pushed more families into poverty. And the end result just in my constituency is 50% of children living below the poverty line.

Every second kid, every second door. When I walk round the estates that I have the honour to represent, 117,000 people in temporary accommodation because of the amount of money they took out of the Affordable Housing Building Fund, that today they seem so very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pleased to speak in favour of. Of course I will. I wondered whether she had any views on stamp duty. Land tax?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

views on stamp duty. Land tax? Yeah. Speaking today about the other part of the motion laid in front of part of the motion laid in front of us, the one where unspecified cuts come to pay for it, and speaking about the implications of that, but as you would expect as a responsible member of my party, I am not going to speculate with am not going to speculate with plans about how we fund things for which there is no plan. Going back which there is no plan.

Going back to the record of austerity, remembering that austerity cost and remembering that austerity cost and took out of our economy more than they, less than they are planning to take out with their plans in to take out with their plans in front of us today, the bottom fifth of households, £517 poorer, while of households, £517 poorer, while the top fifth gained £174. Austerity the top fifth gained £174. Austerity didn't just deepen inequality, it entrenched it with the longest pay entrenched it with the longest pay squeeze in 200 years growth, anaemic productivity absolutely flatlined.

Public investment slashed. My friends at the TUC slashed. My friends at the TUC worked out if wages have risen. They are my friends and I was proud to represent millions of working people. You speak about those working people with disdain. It was an honour to represent those people in their workplace, to negotiate for better wages on their behalf. Good conservatives in the past used to understand about social partnership and the importance of responsibility, of working with workers and with bosses to get the best outcome.

And it is a shame those lessons have been forgotten, with the baying calls of the mob at the mention of trade unions. So my friends at the TUC worked out if wages have risen in the last decade by the amount by which they rose between 1997 and 2010, the average worker in my constituency will be £93 a week. Better off. That's nearly five grand a year more in people's pockets, but instead we got the longest pay squeeze in 200 years. I'll happily give way.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lady, for giving way. I'm just perplexed where this is going, because ultimately, those statistics that she's just quoted statistics that she's just quoted would have saved her constituents £5,000. But if she doesn't scrap stamp duty, anybody that aspires to stamp duty, anybody that aspires to buy a slightly bigger House with that increased income would have not been able to afford to do it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Honourable lady for our intervention to make it clear, the point that I'm making today is that the unspecified cuts named in the the unspecified cuts named in the motion, and we are talking about the motion with the unspecified cuts in it. I'm talking about the cuts in it. I'm talking about the implications of the last time there were cuts of that magnitude made by the party opposite. And whilst it the party opposite. And whilst it may be the case that stamp duty may save some money if it were got rid of for people in my constituency, of for people in my constituency, where there is an average House price of £190,000, it by no means will have the impact that it will will have the impact that it will have for people in richer constituencies in other parts of the country, but the cuts that they the country, but the cuts that they intend to make to pay for it, those will hit people in my ends.

And will hit people in my ends. And despite all of the pain of those years of austerity, it failed to reduce public debt in any reduce public debt in any meaningful way. This is why our public services were on their knees, and why we still face a mountain of and why we still face a mountain of debt built up over 14 long years. Compare that to our Labour government steadily, slowly delivering the change this country needs 5 million extra NHS appointments.

People in my area are waiting. People in my area waiting more than a year for the operation they need is down 45%, thanks to the investment from our health secretary. Crack teams going into Dudley, Wolverhampton and Samwell NHS trusts. Three major trade deals in the first ten months of our government, wages went up by more than in the first ten years of their government. Pride in place funding for communities hit the hardest, like Friar Park in my constituency.

£39 billion of affordable housing funding going to fund new social and affordable homes, the largest in a generation, and I hope 600 of them will come to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

my constituency. I will happily give way. The trade. Deals, so many more than were

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deals, so many more than were achieved, she says. Under the Conservative government, the reality is that this trade deals

**** Possible New Speaker ****

could not have been. Made had we. Not had. The Brexit. Deal that we achieved. And what's. More.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

More. The reality is that. We. Her party, opposed that we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Her party, opposed that we couldn't do those trade deals until. Post 2016. So. Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So. Well. The honourable member for his intervention. And it's good to see one of the it's good to see that one of the it's good to see that one of the key achievements of this first 15 months of a Labour government is starting to fix some government is starting to fix some of the mess of the dreadful agreement they made with the European Union that underplayed this country. We are filling some of the holes. We are making it easier to do trade with the European Union.

We are making it European Union. We are making it easier to sell brilliant British products abroad. I would have thought that would have been something that the benches opposite something that the benches opposite would have welcomed. Madam Deputy Speaker, in summation, we choose Speaker, in summation, we choose National Renewal, a Britain built for everyone. We choose a fairer economy that rewards working people, invests in our public services, restores dignity to work, rebuilds this brilliant country for every

**** Possible New Speaker ****

single one of our kids. Bobby Dean. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. If you ask any economist or indeed most members in here today. Stamp most members in here today. Stamp duty is a bad tax. It creates friction in the market. Whether you are in a one bedroom flat, trying to make that step up into a family home, and you found that your savings goal has got that much higher, or whether your kids have flown the nest and you're considering downsizing, but you considering downsizing, but you think that that bill is acting as a disincentive to you to do that? I disincentive to you to do that? I think it's important that we don't overstate what abolishing stamp duty would do.

There's been lots of claims about how it's going to help claims about how it's going to help millions of young people onto the ladder. And for most people, this
15:03
Bobby Dean Portrait Bobby Dean MP (Carshalton and Wallington, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
ladder. And for most people, this would not be the case. There is an exemption for first time buyers up to £300,000 and a further discount all the way up to half a million. So it's important that we recognise that that isn't going to make the difference for huge numbers like young people, and I appreciate the points that have been made by other members about the fluidity of the market as well. But these won't actually be the critical points. The central problem in the housing market is the disparity between people's wages and House prices.

And I have heard people say to me in the past that, you know, I have to save hard to get my home, and you should have seen the interest rates back in the day. And I have no doubt at all that it's always been hard and a struggle to save up and buy your property. But the extent to which it has become out of reach today, I don't think is properly understood. Around about the time that I was born, 1990. If any members are interested.

The difference between the difference between the average wage and the average House price was about three times somebody's income. OK, today in 2025, that average difference is eight times your income. And if you come to London and I represent a London constituency, that difference is 15 times the average income. That means that the top 10% of earners in the capital can't afford its average home. That is an absolute disgrace. We've allowed ourselves to get into this system

**** Possible New Speaker ****

here. And when you consider the fact, of course. The honourable gentleman is making a powerful point in support

**** Possible New Speaker ****

making a powerful point in support of our motion. Is he intending to support it this afternoon? No. Guess what? Surprise, surprise. I won't, but I will. Come surprise. I won't, but I will. Come on to the reasons why the given that mortgages will lend you around that mortgages will lend you around about four times your income, you can see how big of a problem this is. If you're in a couple, maybe is. If you're in a couple, maybe you stand a chance of getting a mortgage.

If you're on your own, no chance. The other problem with the chance. The other problem with the House prices accelerating away from wages so much is that that 10% deposit that you often need to deposit that you often need to raise is completely out of reach. And to put it back into context again, in 1990, the average wage again, in 1990, the average wage was around £8,000 a year, and you might need to save about £2,000 for a deposit. Well, today you'd have to be trying to save £28,000 on your average wage of £33,000.

You simply cannot do it unless you have the support of your mum or dad or other support of your mum or dad or other people in your family. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is the death of meritocracy in our country. We now meritocracy in our country. We now live in a society where your family's wealth, not your work or your talent that defines your your talent that defines your financial security. In the future. We're back to Victorian era levels of social mobility. This is absolutely abhorrent, and there is no amount of tinkering around the edges that will be sufficient to fix it.

And so scrapping stamp duty alone will not be a silver bullet. In fact, on its own, it might just represent a bit of a giveaway to those that are already faring better than most of society. If we're really serious about fixing the housing crisis as a country, we need a generational level of House building, and we need a holistic approach to redesigning the way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree with him heartily, and I think he's making an excellent speech. But I would gently say lots speech. But I would gently say lots of us in the shires who face liberal Democrats in our constituencies are often get leaflets from some of his colleagues which will oppose colleagues which will oppose building almost anywhere, ever. What would he comment to some of his colleagues, perhaps.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

his colleagues, perhaps. Across the country there'll be opposition politicians opposing developments. But where we're in control in Sutton Council, in my control in Sutton Council, in my borough, we are outstripping all of London in housebuilding. I'm very proud of that record. What we need proud of that record. What we need to see in order to fix this housing crisis is sustained wage growth up against the increase in prices of against the increase in prices of homes, and I do not hear that on offer from the Conservative Party today.

I'm sorry that we do have a trust proposal on the table. Yes, it is an unfunded tax cut that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it is an unfunded tax cut that lacks real credibility and I will give way. I'm grateful to the honourable gentleman for giving way. If he'd listened to the Shadow Chancellor, he would have heard him say that of the £47 billion worth of savings, half.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

half. Of. That will come from reducing welfare spend. Another significant.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Proportion will come from reducing the size of the civil service back to where it was in service back to where it was in 2016. So they are fully funded, and he does himself no favours by just inventing other facts.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Coming on to my next point early, because I do want to address this £47 billion proposal of public £47 billion proposal of public spending cuts. I think if you were to hand that over to the OBR in its current form, they would laugh you current form, they would laugh you out the front door. They are not credible at all. Over half that figure is based on welfare cuts. A Bill, by the way, that rose under Bill, by the way, that rose under the watch of the Conservative government, not least because of the defunding of the NHS that has caused people to be in ill health caused people to be in ill health in the first place.

You're also talking about the Conservative Party, also talking about reducing the size of civil service. Why is the civil service grown since 2016? Can anybody hazard a guess? It's because we've housed a lot of bureaucracy that they used to outsource to Brussels. Part of the primary reason the civil service

**** Possible New Speaker ****

primary reason the civil service has grown is because of the number of services we have to deliver in this country. I'm grateful.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful. To the honourable gentleman for giving away a. Second time. He hasn't mentioned. Covid in his.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speech, which. Is the largest single contributor to the increase in the size of the state. He also didn't mention the £5 billion reduction in welfare spending proposed by the welfare spending proposed by the government, which my party supported, and unfortunately, the government just gave in. So there

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government just gave in. So there is plenty of money to be saved. Refers to Covid. I think he's referring to the total debt levels that have increased, but we're talking specifically about why the size of the civil service increase. A lot of that can be attributed to the new functions that the UK government has had to take on on the welfare budget. Yes, the government has struggled to get through its welfare reforms, as did the Conservative government previously. And this is why these proposals that half of that £47 billion is going to come, welfare course.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

He's making a fantastic speech. But it really does irk me that the conservatives keep talking about the welfare bill going up when they blew a hole in public health budget, they eroded primary and community they eroded primary and community care. They did nothing to fix social care. And NHS dentistry has been hollowed out. Is it any wonder been hollowed out. Is it any wonder that when people can't get the care that they need, when they need it, we end up firefighting and spending

**** Possible New Speaker ****

loads of money on welfare and the NHS further down the line. We should be investing to save. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

How far do you agree with my honourable friend and this was a point I was making earlier on the welfare bill, went up on the watch welfare bill, went up on the watch of the Conservative government, and it is in no least down to the fact that they cut back the NHS funding. So in this chamber today, we may well agree on the analysis of stamp. I'm going to make some progress. I've been intervened on quite a few I've been intervened on quite a few times in the last so so we may agree on the analysis of the stamp duties failings, but we cannot duties failings, but we cannot support this notion because I don't believe it is a credible plan.

And also, if stamp duty cut was to come also, if stamp duty cut was to come in isolation, it may not deliver what people on these benches are saying it will. It may just gum up the housing market further for the next generation. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is high time that we had a serious debate about property tax reform in this country. I believe some of that has happened in this chamber today, but I don't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

believe that the motion reflects that serious debate, and so I will not support it today. R Rachel Blake.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

R Rachel Blake. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it's an honour to be able to and it's an honour to be able to speak in this debate and in the spirit of cross-party unity, I would like to congratulate Her would like to congratulate Her Majesty's opposition for their valiant and brave attempts to dress up a political tax cut as a up a political tax cut as a meaningful intervention in the housing market, and I've been looking at every single one of those opposition speakers and those opposition speakers and thinking about whether they really believe that this kind of tax cut is actually going to make a difference.

I think I'd like to develop my argument a little bit further, and then I look forward to hearing from you. So these are opposition proposals, and I have read them with interest. And I've read them with interest. And I've been really looking out to see exactly how they intend to fund
15:11
Rachel Blake Portrait Rachel Blake MP (Cities of London and Westminster, Labour )
-
-
this tax cut. And I'm struck that not not satisfied with the devastation of public services under their former attempts at austerity and not satisfied with crashing the economy, driving up mortgage costs, driving up rents, driving down the supply of new homes and driving down the overall rates of home ownership. They actually want to bring forward the proposals that are unfunded. Not satisfied with the botched Brexit deal that has wrecked the many chances of people to be able to buy their own homes because of the impact on the economy, they want to introduce yet more unthought through proposals on tax cuts.

So in the likely events that their ill thought through proposals for how to fund this tax cut are undeliverable, I just wonder whether they would be cutting £14 billion from Labour's £39 billion investment in genuinely affordable homes, or would they be cutting £14 billion from this government's £23 billion investment in the National wealth Fund to get our economy going? Or would they be taking money out of our 3.8 billion homelessness fund? Because the truth is under this, under the previous Conservative government's interventions in the housing market, we saw temporary accommodation go up, we saw rough sleeping go up, we saw mortgage rates go up, we saw rents go down, we saw homes, we saw rents go up and we saw home ownership go down.

The Tories pretend to be the party of home ownership, but it's Labour who is absolutely determined to get these homes built. It is Labour who is coming forward with proposals to get these homes built. And I believe it's Labour who's going to be delivering on that. I'll give way to the person at the back.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the. Last 30 years, the. Four highest. Years worth of delivery of new

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Years worth of delivery of new housing occurred since 2018 under Conservative governments. And she makes a point. She's trying to make makes a point. She's trying to make the point that this is a tax cut dressed up as an intervention in the housing market. What on earth

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the housing market. What on earth is wrong with giving a tax cut to aspirational people who work hard ladder? Well said.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well said. Over the last two hours has been presented as some kind of meaningful housing market intervention because of us, because intervention because of us, because of a supposed commitment to aspiration. It's the Labour Party that has always been the party of aspiration. It's the Labour Party aspiration. It's the Labour Party that's the that has been the driving force of social mobility throughout, throughout the last century. And, and the party opposite now. And that's why that's why they're chuntering along so much.

And look at the stark much. And look at the stark contrast of what this Labour government. So yes, I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government. So yes, I will give way. Thank you. I wanted to speak to social mobility earlier, and then Honourable lady just remembered it. If anybody wants to see what If anybody wants to see what happens under the conservatives in terms of social mobility, all they need to do is come to Minehead in my constituency, which is ranked 324th out of 324 in the entire country. After having a Conservative Member of Parliament for 23 years who did nothing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend the member for her intervention, which I think speaks for itself, and look I think speaks for itself, and look at the stark contrast of what this Labour government is doing as meaningful interventions in the in meaningful interventions in the in the housing market. We've got a renters' rights bill that's already had Royal Assent, which is had Royal Assent, which is stabilising life for renters, which is making sure that they no longer live in fear of of no fault live in fear of of no fault evictions.

We have defeated a judicial review against vested interests and freeholders so that we can move forward with our leasehold proposals, both significant interventions that the opposition failed to deliver after opposition failed to deliver after 14 years, five of which five of which were spent, five of which were spent even trying to deliver were spent even trying to deliver reform for renters and reform for leaseholders, which would have meaningfully stabilised the housing market. We don't hear anything market. We don't hear anything about all the people who are stuck in their homes because of the complete failure of the last government to actually tackle the government to actually tackle the cladding crisis or or tackle leasehold.

No, we don't hear anything from the opposition about their failures. They're just a political dressing up of this unfunded unfunded tax cut. I will unfunded unfunded tax cut. I will in a minute. But the other thing that this Labour government has done is made sure that we are done is made sure that we are stabilising this economy. And as my honourable friend from Carshalton and Wallington has told us, we know that if savers want to save up for that, for them to join the housing market, they need a stable economy.

We have seen interest rates come down five times, which is costing, we think mortgage payers £100, saving mortgage payers about £100 a month. They are better off because of the stability that our Chancellor, that this Labour government is absolutely beginning to deliver. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable lady for giving way and she has been generous with interventions, so I thank her for that. Just to bring thank her for that. Just to bring her back to stamp duty, land tax. The average House price in her constituency is over is over £1

**** Possible New Speaker ****

constituency is over is over £1 million. Does she? I haven't quite finished my. It doesn't. Work like that. It doesn't work like that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

like that. The average House price in her constituency. Constituency is over £1 million. Her constituents are the precise people who will be benefiting from this saving does.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does she not think that her constituents would welcome the abolition of this tax? How much? The honourable member

**** Possible New Speaker ****

How much? The honourable member on the other side knows about my constituency. He may also know that nearly half of them are private renters, and less than about 15% of anybody can afford to own their own anybody can afford to own their own home in my constituency, because of the record failures of the previous government to actually do something about the cladding crisis, about the supply of new, genuinely affordable homes, about the delivery of low cost home ownership, which would really make a difference.

And so it's this is this Westminster City Council under Labour leadership that's actually Labour leadership that's actually able to deliver more genuinely affordable homes. And it's this Labour government who takes the challenge seriously, not these ill thought through proposals. So today we have seen Her Majesty's opposition make a valiant attempt to dress up a political, a politically motivated tax cut as a meaningful housing intervention. But serious thinking. This is not. I'm pleased that I think that this chamber will be voting against this ill thought through proposal, and will be carrying on with delivering meaningful intervention within the housing market and making sure that our publicly funded, publicly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

funded services are stable into the future. OK. Rebecca Paul.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Rebecca Paul. Yeah. Speeches. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank you for the enthusiasm of my colleagues. And it is a great pleasure to contribute to today's pleasure to contribute to today's debate, which is a really important one. So many people, particularly one. So many people, particularly young people, are desperate to get their foot onto the housing ladder but feel that I would just gently but feel that I would just gently say, I haven't really got into the
15:18
Rebecca Paul Portrait Rebecca Paul MP (Reigate, Conservative)
-
-
flow of my. Speech either. Yes, yes, I will finish the first sentence before I take any interventions. A desperate to get their foot onto the housing ladder, but feel that that vital first rung is utterly out of their reach. Now. I remember when I first bought my first property, and it was the most amazing feeling in the world when I first walked through that door with those keys, and it was really hard to save the money, to save, to earn enough.

In order to secure the mortgage, I needed to save up the money for the stamp duty and the deposit. But I managed to do it, but I would have been able to do it sooner without that stamp duty cost. This is why I am delighted that the conservatives are coming forward with a clear, coherent and aspirational plan to abolish stamp duty land tax on the purchase of primary residences and open up the dream of home ownership to the next

**** Possible New Speaker ****

generation. I will, of course. I thank the honourable lady for giving way. I wonder if she can agree with me that when this policy agree with me that when this policy was announced at our party conference in October, it was the first solid piece of political idea that has come forward from any that has come forward from any political party since the last election that genuinely offers aspiration for hard working families. And we're not just families. And we're not just talking about hard working families who are in, you know, needing to get onto the housing ladder for the get onto the housing ladder for the first place.

Those hard working families in constituencies like hers and mine, where people are desperate to expand their family

**** Possible New Speaker ****

desperate to expand their family and to continue contributing to the society that we all live in. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I thank my honourable friend for making that very pertinent point. And this is proper Conservative And this is proper Conservative policy. This is the kind of thing everyone in this country is everyone in this country is clamouring for. And this party is delivering that under our new leadership.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

leadership. Yeah, yeah, yeah. For too long, stamp duty has been a dead weight on housing been a dead weight on housing market, a tax on aspiration and a barrier to the kind of home ownership that gives people a ownership that gives people a genuine stake in their community. It is time we abolished it on It is time we abolished it on primary residences. We can surely all agree that our housing market is not working as it should. Far too many young people feel locked out, priced out and increasingly disillusioned.

The average age of a first time buyer in England is now 34, up by nearly a decade from where it was 40 years ago. In London, it's even higher, and across the country, 20%. Fewer 25 to 34 year olds own a home today than they did in the year 2000. And I have skin in the game. I've got three children. I want them to be able to buy a House without them coming to Mummy and Daddy to help them out. Declare I should declare that interest.

This amounts, Madam Deputy Speaker, yes, to an economic failure, but also a social failure. Home ownership gives people stability, autonomy and long term security. It encourages saving. It strengthens families, and it fosters pride and a sense of genuine community in our towns and villages. Abolishing stamp duty will save families thousands of pounds and put the many benefits of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

home ownership back into reach for the next generation. Why would. She.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She. Give way? I will, of course, give way. I'm grateful to my honourable friend for giving way. Would you agree with me that cutting stamp agree with me that cutting stamp duty not only benefits young people aspiring for home ownership, but it will also act as an incentive for older people to downsize, freeing up those larger family homes and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

making those larger homes available for families that need to increase the size of the House that they own. I thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank. I thank my honourable friend for making that point, and I will be making that exact same point later making that exact same point later in my speech. I completely agree that that is a very relevant change that that is a very relevant change that will come about from this. I see clearly in my own constituency see clearly in my own constituency the way in which stamp duty chokes and distorts the market as it penalises those who move, creates a penalises those who move, creates a disincentive for older people to downsize and deters growing families from upsizing into more families from upsizing into more suitable family homes.

As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has Institute for Fiscal Studies has put it, stamp duty land tax is in a crowded field. The most economically damaging tax in the UK. economically damaging tax in the UK. I cannot disagree with that. My constituents feel this acutely. Stamp duty is all the more painful in an area where the average House price is now above £490,000. The young families I speak to, those who have made the move out of London and settle in towns like Redhill or Reigate, have been hit with eye watering upfront costs that made those moves extremely challenging.

Many more will have found it impossible. That's why our policy matters. We intend to strip away one of the fundamental barriers to family life in this country. Eliminating stamp duty will save the average first time buyer in the South East around £4,000, and as much as £18,000 in London. And unlike the party opposite, we will not punish those looking to move further up the ladder with frozen thresholds and stealth tax hikes. Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, you would expect me to paint a suitably positive view of this proposal.

But what do the experts think? Zoopla's Richard Donnell has rightly said that more home movers home moves will, and I quote, support economic growth and the ambition to build more homes. The IEA went further, calling this the single best reform any government could make to Britain's tax system. Indeed, the case seems so strong that one has to wonder why the government oppose us on this. The truth is that Labour has always been the party of higher taxes on homes.

They reversed the Conservative policy that raised the first home buyer threshold to £425,000. They are freezing stamp duty thresholds in real terms, dragging more and more people into paying this punitive tax each year. And while they talk endlessly about housebuilding, their actions tell a different story. Not only are they on track to miss their self-imposed housing targets, but the housing secretary himself tried to block 237 new homes in his own constituency. Despite promising to build baby build. By contrast, the conservatives have delivered 2.8 million homes over the past 14 years, including nearly 750,000 affordable homes.

And we are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

course. Thank you. As as someone who. Represents a rural constituency with villages where young people with villages where young people have constantly forced to move. Out where they grew up from, could you. Explain to me where in rural

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Explain to me where in rural Britain these affordable homes were located, where. Young people can. Move to, where. They can make a family life?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Because for 14 years they were shut out of the communities they grew up in. Thank you. I thank the honourable member for raising that point. And he for raising that point. And he raises a really important point. So we do have this situation where a lot of young people are forced to lot of young people are forced to go elsewhere. And indeed, the area where I live is very expensive, and I am worried that my children will be forced to look elsewhere. That's be forced to look elsewhere.

That's why it's so important that we focus on the future. Now we need. I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the future. Now we need. I will of course, give way. It isn't that the fundamental point why the comments made earlier about downsizing is so important? This tax is stopping people downsize, which means that people are not moving out, not freeing up those those houses that young into.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

into. I thank my friend for making that point. I think he makes the that point. I think he makes the point very, very well. And going back to the honourable member, this is something that we do need to is something that we do need to take really seriously, and we can look back the whole time, or we can look forward and think about what policies are right for the people of this country and deliver for the people of this country. I will, of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

course, give way. Thank you. Very much, my honourable friend, for giving way just on this point. for giving way just on this point. And I think it shows the complexity of the issue. And this whole painting, 14 years, this 14 years, that doesn't represent what that doesn't represent what actually is happening. So for example, in Fylde, it is the villages and the small towns where we have seen the largest amount of House building, because developers know that they can get planning permission there and sell the houses for a lot more than they could five, ten miles in a could five, ten miles in a different direction.

And therefore actually in some areas there has been a significant amount of been a significant amount of overdevelopment on the green belt, and we should not use individual examples as a reason to redefine examples as a reason to redefine vast chunks of the green belt as grey belt, simply to concrete over our countryside.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our countryside. I thank my honourable friend for making that. Excellent point and a very pertinent point to my very pertinent point to my constituency as well, which is full of amazing, beautiful green belts, of amazing, beautiful green belts, and we are really suffering with what this government has done around housing targets. So the housing targets and Reigate and Banstead have doubled, whereas they have gone down in London. So I can have gone down in London. So I can tell you what that means.

It means we are building more homes, but it's not for local people, it's not for the children. You mentioned that want to stay close to home. It's for people living in London

**** Possible New Speaker ****

who then move out to Reigate and Banstead and that can't. Well, of course. I'm grateful to my honourable friend for giving way. I wonder if friend for giving way. I wonder if she shares my concern that in the South west of England, the government has reduced the building government has reduced the building target for Bristol City Council, which has a lot of Labour members which has a lot of Labour members but has instead increased the building target for rural Somerset, where there are very few Labour where there are very few Labour members, by 40%.

And does she share my concern that Labour are fiddling

**** Possible New Speaker ****

those housing targets for political advantage? I thank my honourable friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend for yet another very relevant and important point, and I would urge important point, and I would urge the government to really think logically about what they're trying to achieve here. We all support the to achieve here. We all support the ambition to build more homes. We recognise the problem that is trying to be solved. However, the trying to be solved. However, the way we do it is really important and it is very important that we have those homes in the right have those homes in the right places and that we set the targets in a logical, meaningful way with in a logical, meaningful way with this policy and others like it.

Madam Deputy Speaker, we are offering the public a clear, a clear choice, a choice between a party that wants to unlock aspiration and reward the hard work of our young people, and a party that clings to economically damaging taxes because its own backbenchers refuse to make even the smallest concessions on out of control spending. Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are on this side of the House are clear that any significant change to tax policy must be properly costed. The public finances are in a challenging place, and reckless commitments only add to the prevailing sense of uncertainty.

That is why it is so important to emphasise that our intention to scrap stamp duty on primary residences is costed and fully funded, fully paid for through our 47 billion savings package. Our plan is clear, it is costed, and it is rooted in a belief that home ownership should be within reach for the next

**** Possible New Speaker ****

own. Thank you. Peter Bedford. Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker. This debate. Captures the. conservatives. And the Labour Party.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And the Labour Party. Because we on these. Benches believe. In people. We believe in their talent, their drive, their hopes talent, their drive, their hopes and their aspirations. And by contrast, the Labour Party like to box people in, to restrict, to box people in, to restrict, to regulate and let the state determine every aspect of their lives. We on this side of the House lives. We on this side of the House believe in setting people free, free to work hard, free to achieve, and free to build their own future.

and free to build their own future. Let's unleash the power of individual freedom. Let's unleash the energy of the Maker and the energy of the Maker and Enterprise. And above all, Madam Deputy Speaker, let's unleash the unstoppable force of aspiration

**** Possible New Speaker ****

unstoppable force of aspiration across every part of the UK. Thank you. The word aspiration runs through the very DNA of the Conservative Party. It's who we are. From delivering educational reforms to promoting social mobility to delivering a property owning
15:30
Peter Bedford Portrait Mr Peter Bedford MP (Mid Leicestershire, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

delivering a property owning democracy. Of course I'll give way. I would be very grateful if the honourable member would expand on honourable member would expand on how that driving value of aspiration came into the Conservative government, when they were completely failing to address the urgent need for leasehold reform over the last five years, when so many people have been suffering to sell their leasehold homes because of the cladding on their homes. Where was aspiration then?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. I thank the honourable member for her intervention. Aspiration. for her intervention. Aspiration. Conservative aspiration comes from a sense. I'll give you an example. In my family, they never owned their own homes. My grandparents didn't own their own homes. But Margaret Thatcher gave them the opportunity to do so. She gave many people, like my grandparents, the opportunity to aspire to achieve, to own their own homes. That's the aspiration we need to get back to aspiration we need to get back to as a country.

Every generation of Conservative conservatives have understood this ambition, and it's understood this ambition, and it's not your background that shapes your future. This is the equality of opportunity in action, not equality of outcome. That the Labour Party has so much desire. But we cannot talk about aspiration But we cannot talk about aspiration without celebrating the Prime Minister that understood it the best. Mrs. Thatcher gave people the best. Mrs. Thatcher gave people the freedom to own their own future. She rewarded hard work through lower taxes, turned millions of lower taxes, turned millions of people into shareholders through privatisation, and made dreams of privatisation, and made dreams of home ownership a reality for many across the country with her right to buy scheme, Mrs.

Thatcher just to buy scheme, Mrs. Thatcher just got it. She understood human nature. She understood people are ambitious and she knew that when you trust and she knew that when you trust individuals and not the state, Britain succeeds. Honourable friend give way. Of course I'll give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think going going back to what former fantastic, great Prime Minister did and comparing it to the policy on stamp duty. Both the policy on stamp duty. Both times it was hated by the people on the benches opposite, because what the benches opposite, because what it did was take away the role, the choking role of the state and free people up to have that aspiration people up to have that aspiration and that social mobility. And it proved that actually giving people their own homes, allowing them to buy them, and removing the state from their lives, created that social mobility in the same way here, removing that tax and allowing people that aspiration to be able to smash those ceilings is important.

And the the members important. And the the members opposite hate it because it reduces the state of the size of the state, the dependency on the state and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the dependency on the state and the hold they have over people's lives. I thank the my honourable friend for his intervention. He's absolutely right. Unfortunately, absolutely right. Unfortunately, the party opposite. They tend to have the mantra, what I can't have,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you shan't have. But we on this side want everyone to succeed. Of course I'll give way. I'm still smarting.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm still smarting. From my. Honourable friends. Reluctance to. Squash the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Honourable member. For Westminster. And the City of London, who alleged that there had been no alleged that there had been no leasehold reform. Such was the extent of leasehold reform under Conservative governments that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Duke of Westminster resigned from the party in indignation. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Well, I thank the honourable member for putting that on the record. But.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not confident that this Labour government understands aspiration government understands aspiration because they simply cannot comprehend the politics that people want to better themselves, their families and their communities. In fact, they actually fear aspiration, fact, they actually fear aspiration, sadly. And that is why this Labour government is the most anti aspirational government in living memory. They have strangled the memory. They have strangled the jobs market and they have sent unemployment rates soaring. The direct result of punishing national employer National Insurance hikes and their reckless unemployment rights bill is striking fear into rights bill is striking fear into businesses up and down the country as they question whether to take a punt on recruiting new people, punt on recruiting new people, particularly young people that have caved in to the hard left on much needed reforms to the welfare system, a system that should reward hard work and not entrench state hard work and not entrench state dependency.

As always, as is always the case with a Labour government, they invariably side with the they invariably side with the shirkers and not on the side of the strivers. And sadly, they have driven our economy into a full blown doom loop, a cycle of ever increasing taxes, rising inflation and net zero growth. Every hard working family in Mid Leicestershire is paying the price for this government's failure. But Madam Deputy Speaker, what is most damaging at all isn't just the economic damage, it's the lack of a can do attitude they have and they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are instilling in our young people. Well. I'll give way. On that can do attitude. What

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On that can do attitude. What surprised me about this debate, so far from the opposite benches, is that a number of honourable members on those benches seem to agree that this was a good thing to do. And indeed, as far as I can tell, any indeed, as far as I can tell, any commentator on the property market, and indeed the economics have said it's a good thing to do, and yet

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it's a good thing to do, and yet it. I think the honourable member puts the case very clearly, and puts the case very clearly, and he's absolutely right. But they talk about intergenerational unfairness, but they do not do unfairness, but they do not do anything about it. Indeed, encouraging young people to determine their own futures is what conservatives we believe in. And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

conservatives we believe in. And way. And my colleague speaks of intergenerational fairness. Does he intergenerational fairness. Does he agree with me that actually, if we keep the status quo, we are really hindering older, older householders hindering older, older householders who may be asset rich and cash poor? Because fortunately for them, the value of their property has increased, but not necessarily their income. And by stopping this policy in its tracks, we're policy in its tracks, we're actually stopping those older people who may be desperate to downsize, knowing that it would downsize, knowing that it would play their part in providing homes for other families, but just simply can't afford to, because the stamp duty on those more expensive

**** Possible New Speaker ****

properties is absolutely unpayable for them. I thank my honourable friend for making an excellent point, and I making an excellent point, and I have many people that come to my surgeries that make that point. Month in, month out. Now, that is Month in, month out. Now, that is why this Conservative motion matters. By abolishing stamp duty, we are empowering young people to we are empowering young people to aspire to own their own homes and to invest in their own futures. This is what a responsible This is what a responsible government does, giving people the tools to achieve their ambitions.

This policy will not just transform This policy will not just transform lives, but it will boost the economy, stimulate growth from the property market and add an property market and add an incredible 17 billion to our GDP over ten years. We saw the results when the last Conservative when the last Conservative government cut stamp duty in 2021. People took the opportunity to invest in their own futures. This, Madam Deputy Speaker, is the Conservative way. Lower taxes, greater ownership and rediscovered aspiration.

So to conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'll be voting for this aspirational motion put this aspirational motion put forward by the leader of the opposition. She understands that it is not just a question of economics, is not just a question of economics, economics, but it's a question of values. We should choose freedom over control, ambition over over control, ambition over dependency and aspiration over stagnation. This is the Conservative vision for Britain and one that I know my constituents in Mid Leicestershire, particularly the young people, will get behind.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gideon Amos. Thank you. Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Access to home ownership has never been harder. Fewer and fewer people can afford to buy a home of
15:38
Gideon Amos Portrait Gideon Amos MP (Taunton and Wellington, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
people can afford to buy a home of their own, and 12,000 households in my county of Somerset are languishing on the waiting list, unable to get a home at a decent rent under the conservatives. We've heard a lot about Mrs. Thatcher

**** Possible New Speaker ****

since the sell off began. Wait for it. Since the sell off began of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Since the sell off began of council houses, 2.3 million were never replaced. That promise was never replaced. That promise was broken by the conservatives over and over again, so that our population has increased five times that amount. We've had a massive loss of social and council rent homes because they were never replaced by several Conservative governments by taxing transactions. governments by taxing transactions. Stamp duty land tax is unfair on buyers. It needs to be reformed. buyers.

It needs to be reformed. But as part as my Honourable friend member, St Albans has said, as part of a full review of taxes on of a full review of taxes on property and of course, the vast majority of first time buyers would be completely unaffected by the proposals of the opposition party because they already pay no stamp because they already pay no stamp duty land tax, and by triggering a big increase in House prices, it big increase in House prices, it seems clear that their policy would mostly benefit those selling homes at high prices, and probably only at high prices, and probably only those right at the beginning of the chain in those instances, but more importantly, wiping out revenue importantly, wiping out revenue from tax without wider tax reform, without any serious proposals for the massive hole in public finances that would create is another Liz Truss budget in the making.

And perhaps she planted the magic money tree in this autumn. We're seeing the fruits of it in more mad Conservative tax proposals. As a result, it seems clear they've learned nothing from the rocketing of inflation. The increasing mortgage rates that that affected everyone in my constituency and around the country, from the Truss

**** Possible New Speaker ****

budget, of course, that will. Just just very quickly to make the point that the the interest rates on the bond market are now higher than they were after that mini-budget. And I think constantly harking back to that, when we're in a worse position now than we were then. Kind of makes the point. The Lib Dems are on everybody's side,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lib Dems are on everybody's side, but nobody's. I quite I quite understand why the members on those benches want the members on those benches want keep asking us to look forward and not look backwards. The experience of our of their own government in of our of their own government in the Truss budget, because it's an experience they don't want to remember. It's an experience they remember. It's an experience they would like, they would like to forget. But unfortunately, the effects of that Truss budget were effects of that Truss budget were long and far reaching and have had serious effects on all of our constituents in Taunton.

I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way. I'm very grateful to the when. I gave my maiden speech.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I gave my maiden speech. It's very good to see him. Doesn't it just say everything that we now have Conservative Party colleagues on the other side of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

colleagues on the other side of the House defending, defending the Truss budget and all the damage. It did to communities like mine. And his coalition?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And his coalition? Absolutely. They have no recollection of the past. They are recollection of the past. They are blind to the experience of their own government, and they are only asking us, urging us, pleading with us to look forward and not to look back at their own record in Taunton and Wellington. Madam speaker, there are countless examples of folk unable to afford a home of their own. Rosanna, a qualified solicitor living with adult living with her parents for over six years, unable to afford a new home.

What's needed, Madam Deputy Speaker, is a far bigger focus on building council and social rent homes needed by our country, up from the government's target of 20,000 a year to the 150 000 per year the Liberal Democrats propose, and less reliance on a few big House builder developers whose interest, perfectly reasonably, is on increasing profits in the value of their land, rather than on making their products cheaper. Why would they? Or necessarily on increasing the amount of housing supply, less reliance on the big developers and more homes delivered by public funding in terms of council and social rent homes, would mean there would be no need for the government to have cut the affordable housing requirements in London that it did last week.

Our manifesto provided 6 billion per year over five years to begin to reach that total, and not just the 90,000 social rent homes that Shelter and National Housing Federation say we need, but 150,000 in our manifesto, because a decent home shouldn't just be for the most vulnerable, the most excluded. It should be for all working people who should be able to have a home at a decent rent. Coupled with that, in a moment. Coupled with that, we need to see new routes available to get onto the housing ladder, the home ownership ladder and a new generation of rent to own homes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

where renters can gain ownership over 30 years. I will give way, to. Give way. I thank the honourable member for giving way and he's making a a powerful speech, as he always did. However, there's still a gaping hole in his argument this afternoon about the people who are not looking for a first time new home. They're looking for a bigger home, and that may be a new property, or it may be a property that's already in existence. But that's already in existence.

But what would he say to the constituents of Taunton who are in that middle bracket when he is going to vote this evening to say that he doesn't want to scrap the tax, the land tax, the stamp duty that is going to hinder them from that is going to hinder them from taking that step up the ladder, whether that's to buy one of the many new homes that he admirably

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wants delivered in his constituency or a home that already exists. I thank the honourable member for her intervention, and what I for her intervention, and what I would say to my constituents is, I point to Lucian Cook, head of research at Savills, who points out that this particular tax giveaway would simply pass straight through onto House prices so it would have onto House prices so it would have very little, if not no effect at all on the ability of people to buy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

all on the ability of people to buy homes, whether downsizing. Or again. Of course. I. Will be very generous. I may have misheard, so perhaps he can have misheard, so perhaps he can just clarify this for the benefit of the House. I thought at the beginning of his words he said that this was a very bad tax and it was harmful. And then, as only a Lib Dem could, he then proceeds to argue strongly in favour of it. Can he please help me out because I'm not following the line of his argument?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Clearly the honourable member from usually have respect was not listening to the speech I was giving. In fact, it is possible for there to be a. It's possible for there to be a. It's possible for there to be several features to a change in tax policy. And our argument, as my honourable friend the member for St Albans pointed the member for St Albans pointed out, is we need a comprehensive review of property taxes and the review of property taxes and the effect of the stamp duty holiday was to increase House prices.

It may nonetheless be a valuable may nonetheless be a valuable policy because it may free up transactions. And that may be something which my friend the something which my friend the member for Carshalton and Wallington argued for. My observation is that these are not the policies that are going to help the policies that are going to help people who are struggling to afford a home to rent and to get on the housing ladder in the first place. housing ladder in the first place. It may be valuable for other reasons, but it's not going to address that problem.

Coupled with address that problem. Coupled with that, as I say, we need a big investment in rent to own own housing. And since 2015, and this housing. And since 2015, and this is the the big point that will be unaffected by by the Conservative proposal, the multiple of income proposal, the multiple of income needed to get a mortgage, as my Honourable friends have pointed out, has risen, rose from four and a has risen, rose from four and a half times your income to six and a half times your income since 2015.

So without more genuinely affordable homes in significant numbers, without wider tax reform, this cut is unfunded. It will leave first time buyers with nothing new and and transfer funds from the wealthiest simply and simply not enough to help my constituents. What we need is a much more ambitious, ambitious renaissance in the building of council and social rent homes. We need new measures to help people get on the housing ladder. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable gentleman for. Giving way, and I'm. Glad that he's calling out the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Glad that he's calling out the. policies. country. Has. Suffered more from Thatcherite.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Policies than Wales? Well, my honourable friend is a fantastic champion whose fantastic champion whose constituency in Wales and experience the effects of the experience the effects of the remaining. The reduction, the dwindling of council and social rent homes around the country. In rent homes around the country. In Wales, as in other parts of the country, including in my own constituency, it used to have constituency, it used to have 30,000 council homes available, now only has 6000. That number's going down every year.

It's the broken down every year. It's the broken promise not of allowing people to buy their homes. It's a broken promise of not replacing those council and social rent homes. That has to be addressed and was never addressed by multiple Conservative governments. Without those changes, without that wider tax reform, without that wider investment in social and council rent homes, this policy on its own would do nothing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to help my constituents and I'm unable to support it. Jack Rankin. Thank you, Madam.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jack Rankin. Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. In preparing for this debate. Today. I was thinking. About my.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

History when it comes to stamp duty, and I recall quite. Vividly. Not quite sure the year it was,
15:47
Jack Rankin Portrait Jack Rankin MP (Windsor, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not quite sure the year it was, but perhaps in my late 20s, going to see a mortgage broker on the Dedworth Road in Windsor, and I'd been quite dutifully saving for some years in order to achieve my aspiration that lots of young people do, to have to get a foot on the property ladder. And I remember I dutifully took my payslips and I took my bank statements, and the mortgage. Broker turned to me and laughed. And he said, well, congratulations on saving that, Mr.

Rankin. You've now saved the stamp duty. We now just have to save up for a deposit.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And it. Was it was a joke, but it was kind of true. And one of the things kind of true. And one of the things that I was most heartened by what we did in office on these benches. There's been lots of criticism of There's been lots of criticism of record was removing first time buyers from stamp duty, and I think it's something that is incredibly it's something that is incredibly powerful for young people in this country. But it's not just a historic interest that I might have historic interest that I might have to declare.

Madam Deputy Speaker, if I think about today, I'm a if I think about today, I'm a father with a young family. We have two boys under four in my constituency in Windsor. Housing is incredibly expensive. The average House in my constituency is around

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House in my constituency is around three quarters of £1 million, and we're considering a third child. And just.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Like, just like families up and down the. Country. You know, we're discussing what that means. And for us, our family, particularly the limiting decision, despite us wanting a third child, despite us wanting a third child, is housing. We live in a wonderful home in the village of Sunninghill, but it's probably OK for three but it's probably OK for three babies and tots. But it wouldn't be for a growing family. And that's the kind of decisions, I think, that are being made up and down this country.

And one of the things that's made me proud this afternoon to sit on these benches is listening to some of the members opposite. I do say some of the members opposite, because from some, there's been this sneering assumption that stamp duty is a tax for the rich. But when I think about me in my early 20s and many young people in early 20s trying to put together their stamp duty, that's still a tax cut for the rich. When I think about families trying to, you know, get another bedroom in order to grow their families, that's not a tax cut for the rich.

And that's not going to any of the other dynamic effects at all. And I'm proud that on these benches, we stand up for aspirational people like that. And if we think about the crowded field of all the taxes, we might want to cut, Madam Deputy Speaker, to my mind, stamp duty is where we might start. We've heard from many members today who have quoted distinguished economists, much more distinguished than anything I might come out with. But it's been clear that stamp duty is one of those taxes that destroys almost as much wealth as it raises.

It's anti-growth, it's anti ambition, it's anti-free market. And as I've already articulated, I think it is anti-family. It is a significant part of the reason why we have such a lethargic housing market in this country and all that. When home ownership is not only key to our prosperity, but perhaps even more so, it's important to people's pride and frankly, their security of millions of families around this country. It is the foundation of this great property owning democracy. But it's about it's we're not in a great state as a nation when it comes to housing.

I must say, because for, for, for my generation and the generation behind me, it does look, I must say, quite impossible sometimes to fix this. Our focus must be on supply, supply, supply. And we need. But we also need a market that freely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

flows. And frankly, the housing market today is gummed up. And on that point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And on that point. Would you give way? I will happily give. I'm grateful to my honourable friend for giving way. And is he friend for giving way. And is he aware that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, the honourable member for Swansea West, honourable member for Swansea West, he, of course, used to be a part of the Resolution Foundation, a well-known right wing think tank, well-known right wing think tank, which itself called upon the abolition of stamp duty to free up the housing market that he's describing.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

describing. Well, I would say that I hope that the honourable member in question was closer to the budget. question was closer to the budget. But listening to some of his other utterances, I perhaps think most of us on this side of the House wouldn't think that was the case. wouldn't think that was the case. But never mind. So but the main criticism we have heard from the other side of, of of the the other side of, of of the the chamber, which I think is a fair criticism, is one of cost.

So there's been some constructive opposition from members opposite who've agreed that stamp duty is a bad tax, but then have said cost is the problem. And I think they should be a little bit self-aware about that, because one of the reasons we're in such a fiscally reasons we're in such a fiscally precarious place is some of the decisions that they made on that side of the House in their past side of the House in their past budget, putting us in something of a fiscal doom loop, which we don't seem to want to have any chance of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

escaping. Yes, I will. Whilst we're on the subject of paying for things and ownership of land and trying to find the funds to pay for a tax, to allow our citizens to be able to purchase their own home. Well, one absolute obvious solution would be not to give away territory to the would give away territory to the would not to give away territory that we already own and pay 36 billion over already own and pay 36 billion over the lifetime to give it away.

So maybe one way. My hon. My honourable friend could suggest to honourable friend could suggest to those benches that we could pay for. This is basically avoiding paying

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is basically avoiding paying to give away our own land, to take the tax off our own citizens wanting to buy their own land. Well, my hon. My honourable.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My honourable. Friend for Fylde is quite right, but the risk of picking apart the budget its entirety. But I would suggest to you that the the giving away your, the your sovereign land and then paying for the privilege might not be a great thing to do in might not be a great thing to do in any instance, but particularly if you're in a fiscally constrained environment. But despite having to environment. But despite having to have a reasonable answer on the cost, and I will get to that later on in my remarks.

I think in this on in my remarks. I think in this side of the chamber, we should also not be short shy of talking about some of the positive other fiscal some of the positive other fiscal benefits that such a policy will yield. I think one of the areas that we have not done as well as we Do they sound like the kind of people that could be described as the rich to you? We've heard that from members opposite. These are very real working people with decent jobs generating income for the Exchequer from that, from income tax, from National Insurance.

And we shouldn't be shy of saying that if we're also lucky, it might also bring a reduction in the welfare spending through job creation. Then there are also, Madam Deputy speakers gained gains that can't be recorded in a spreadsheet. That might be families like mine moving into homes of the right size. For them, that might be pensioners rightsizing. And some people have used the word downsizing. But I think the better word is right sizing to be closer to their grandchildren. That might provide childcare support for young families, but also the economic and social mobility, taking that promotion in a new area.

All of these things might not show up in a Treasury balance sheet, but are really important things for our society. So cutting stamp duty would generate extra revenue for the for the, for the Treasury in a myriad of new ways that we should be happy to talk about. But that said, we still do need to to cost this as a credible opposition, and that's why we've heard about it already in this debate. We found as a party, £47 billion of savings.

All all whilst being able to honour our golden economic rule, an economic rule that says a majority of the majority of public sector spending reductions that we identify must go on deficit reduction as a policy. The abolition of stamp duty aligns with many of the principles that those of us on this side of the House hold dear to our hearts. It rewards ambition, it unlocks free markets, and it lowers the tax burden on families. The reason Labour won't make any difference on housing is that they're just too conflicted.

Fixing the housing market needs holistic solutions. You can't talk about improving the housing market with the levels of migration that we currently have. We can't talk about improving the housing market whilst overseeing record low housebuilding numbers in London. As our developers are strangled in regulation. We need a holistic solution. We need to abolish stamp duty. We need to end mass migration. We do, I'm afraid to say, need to deport hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants. And I also look forward to seeing more ambitious reforms from this side of the House in reforming our planning system.

This is part of a vision for my party, and one that I'm proud to be a part of. But it's not just a new vision. Home ownership and supply side reforms have been at the centre of Conservative vision throughout our storeyed history. Whether that's Stanley Baldwin, Harold Macmillan or indeed, Mrs. Thatcher. It's a moral mission to support young aspirant people through these important gateways of life. Buying your own home. Starting a family. These are the building blocks of all our communities.

Abolishing stamp duty in this way will give people the keys to their own secure futures, country.
15:57
Ashley Fox Portrait Sir Ashley Fox MP (Bridgwater, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you very much,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sir Ashley Fox. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I believe that all of us here want to improve the lives of our to improve the lives of our constituents, though we often differ in how we might achieve that. As a Conservative, I believe we do this by working with the grain of human nature, by allowing people human nature, by allowing people the maximum amount of liberty to live their lives, by supporting live their lives, by supporting families, and by rewarding hard work, rather than penalising it, by work, rather than penalising it, by incentivising entrepreneurship and the creation of wealth.

As legislators, we do this by keeping legislators, we do this by keeping the size of the state under control, keeping borrowing low, and reducing keeping borrowing low, and reducing the burden on taxpayers wherever possible. It is with regret that I see this current Labour government increasing taxes, increasing borrowing, increasing the deficit and our national debt, and increasing the interest we pay on that debt. It saddens me that we that debt. It saddens me that we have a government that whatever the question, the answer always seems to be more public expenditure.

Yeah. So I'm pleased that not only will the Conservative Party reduce taxes when we form the next government, but that we will scrap one altogether. Stamp duty is a bad tax. The current stamp duty regime means that anyone seeking to buy their first home, or to move House, faces an additional burden at one of the most important moments in their lives. By eliminating this tax on main homes, the conservatives are removing a financial barrier which for many first time buyers or young families will make the difference between owning their first home or not.

And my honourable friend for Windsor alluded that to that in his excellent speech. It means the dream of home ownership is made more accessible now. While stamp duty has been around since 1694. The current regime was introduced by Gordon Brown in 2003, when it came into effect. It charged a fixed percentage rate depending on the value of your House. The so-called slab system, which meant if you went from £250,000 to £250,00 you faced an enormous increase in the tax paid.

The coalition government, to their credit, reformed the tax so as to remove those purchasing, remove the tax from those purchasing a property for under 125,000. And they eliminated the slabs in the model to a slice model. This made the tax better, but the core problems remain. It makes it harder to purchase a House. It dissuades people from upsizing or downsizing, and therefore prevents a whole host of other economic activity associated with moving House. Now, a vibrant housing market is vital to economic health.

When more people buy and move, transactions increase, new homes are built, tradespeople are employed, local economies benefit. The tax on each move discourages those transactions. People stay put because of the cost of moving, and that can lead to the housing market locking up. By scrapping stamp duty on primary homes, this policy will free up the market that has benefits not just for buyers and sellers, but for builders, developers, local services and the whole national economy.

There's a fairness argument to buying a home is one of the largest investments most people will ever make. To tax that moment feels not just counterintuitive, but perverse. Removing the tax on a main residence signals a commitment to giving people a chance to grow, to aspire to build their lives. These are Conservative principles. And the leader of the opposition's announcement in Manchester recognised this. I entirely agree with my right honourable friend, that this change would create a fairer and more aspirational

**** Possible New Speaker ****

society. I'm happy to give way. He's making an excellent speech. Would he also observe? The fact is that it allows us, when supply is tight, if we allow people to move tight, if we allow people to move more easily, we're going to have the right people in the right homes so that you don't have an elderly couple in a five bedroom House that couple in a five bedroom House that can downsize because they'll make that choice. But also the family can upsize into the right for that House.

So when supply is tight, it fits much better for us as a society to have the right people in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

society to have the right people in the right House for their time of life. Well, my honourable friend makes a valuable point that this tax cut benefits not just the first time buyer. The family moving up into a buyer. The family moving up into a larger home and the empty nesters. And I'm almost one seeking to move

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I'm almost one seeking to move to. Yes. Further to that, his point about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Further to that, his point about the sort of dynamic market we need when you think of people perhaps in the south east of England and they were looking to move to Beverley were looking to move to Beverley and Holderness, for instance, for a job, the costs involved in that are taking a risk, perhaps coming up to an area where they may only have that one job. There aren't other jobs to compete with it. They don't jobs to compete with it. They don't make that move.

We don't get their input into a business in Beverley and Holderness purely because of the dampening effects of this tax, and they stay in the South East when it they the country and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Beverley and Holderness would be better off if only they were chance. My honourable friend makes a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My honourable friend makes a valuable point that this tax cuts benefits not just the housing market, but the jobs market and market, but the jobs market and therefore the whole economy. Our politics ought to empower people, politics ought to empower people, not load them with additional burdens. And this is an important burdens. And this is an important measure for young people, because we acknowledge they face higher costs and more competition for housing than their parents did. Now, to be credible, we must explain how to be credible, we must explain how we will pay for the measure.

That is a valid question, and unlike is a valid question, and unlike some parties in this place, we will not make promises without a plan not make promises without a plan for delivery. This measure is possible as part of a wider package of economic reform, spending, of economic reform, spending, discipline and growth creation. Now, the current government was elected the current government was elected on a policy of going for growth. Yet everything it does seems Yet everything it does seems designed to do the opposite.

We've had a jobs tax that makes it more had a jobs tax that makes it more expensive to employ people. Increased business rates, which makes it more expensive to conduct business in a property. The changes to agricultural and business property relief, which increase Inheritance Tax. They reduce investment by family businesses, and the Employment Rights Act makes it more expensive, time consuming and difficult to employ people. The government has turned on the spending taps, levied records, amounts of tax and yet at the same time has implemented measures that increase unemployment and make Britain less competitive.

Every Labour government has led to higher unemployment, and it is a deep regret that in every month since the general election, unemployment has risen. Now, I don't think the party opposite are malevolent. They

**** Possible New Speaker ****

simply have no clue as to how business works. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. way. Will the hon. I thank the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will the hon. I thank the honourable member for giving way. His party's position now on the green economy is to take away some green economy is to take away some of the support for it. Figures show that the green economy is growing around 10%. It provides often around 10%. It provides often better paid jobs, and it's fuelling job creation. Given his party's position, does he believe that it's position, does he believe that it's in the interest of the economy to cut the legs out from underneath the green economy?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the green economy? Well, I'm amazed that to hear that the real economy is growing by that the real economy is growing by 10%, it must be a forecaster I haven't heard of. But of course we haven't heard of. But of course we we believe it is possible to cut welfare spending. In fact, a few welfare spending. In fact, a few months ago, his party believed it was possible and in fact, they put forward a very modest proposal to forward a very modest proposal to reduce welfare spending by £5 billion.

Had the support of this side of the House. And yet, side of the House. And yet, unfortunately, at the first whiff of rebellion, The Chancellor caved. of rebellion, The Chancellor caved. And that shows that they have no idea how finance works, how business works, how confidence works. They undermine their credibility by not being able to undertake even the smallest reform. Now we can announce the abolition of stamp duty, because we promise to put Britain on a different track. Our golden rule means that for every pound we make of savings, half will go on reducing the deficit and paying down our debts.

And we will reduce spending and have announced plans to do so by £47 billion a year. And about half of this will come from cutting the welfare bill, including stopping the ballooning bill for Motability cars. For those with mild mental health issues and £8 billion of savings will come from reducing the civil service to the size it was before the pandemic. We will save money by closing asylum hotels, reserving other benefits to UK nationals and coming to a more credible position on net zero by taking these tough choices.

We can cut taxes and help the economy. We estimate that abolishing stamp duty will cost £9 billion, set against the savings that we've outlined by removing it. We are signalling that we believe in growth in enterprise and in enabling every citizen to build their future.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wrexham Bradley Thomas. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a pleasure to speak in this debate on this very important topic, and it's one that I very passionately believe in. As someone who got involved in politics to
16:08
Bradley Thomas Portrait Bradley Thomas MP (Bromsgrove, Conservative)
-
-
who got involved in politics to make people's lives better, to be on the side of those who work hard, do the right thing, and, you know, who are aspirational for themselves and their families. And that's the fundamental point at the core of this argument. And I think my right, my honourable friend the member for Windsor, he made a great point when he said that this is a moral mission. This a moral mission to be on the side not just of those who are aspirational, but to unlock the hopes, the dreams of a generation which want to have that tangible stake in society, but who have great fears that they will never achieve that and stamp duty.

For many, it's it is a it's a tax on that dream home, that bridge between where they are today and where they want to go tomorrow, particularly for their families. We hear a lot in this debate about first time buyers, and it's right that we focus on first time buyers, but it's particularly shameful that one of the first acts of this Labour government was to lower the threshold at which stamp duty was imposed for their first time buyers, for those first time buyers. But once they've been in the House for a few years and they've got a child, maybe a second child and want to move on up the property ladder into a property that will better meet their needs.

That's where this tax really starts to bite. I've got constituents who've approached me because they've been able to afford a mortgage on their next home. They've they've even identified that next home that they want to move into. But it's the stamp duty that is preventing them from moving. And what particularly strikes me, Madam Deputy Speaker, in the argument that we've had between the two sides of the House, in fact, probably across, you know, both opposition sides of the House and members on this side of the chamber is that many are making the case that stamp duty is something.

Well, if we removed it, it's going to cause House prices to rise. If stamp duty was removed as a temporary measure, there's a chance that that would happen. But if it was removed in perpetuity, the housing market will regularise without a huge increase in House prices. This is the key to unlocking the aspiration that so many hold for themselves and their families. And I can only conclude that whilst I don't believe members on the benches opposite have particularly nefarious intent, that this really does demonstrate the politics of envy.

You know, it's it's a fact of life that there are some in society who will always have more wealth than others. The scale is always relative. But even if those at the upper end of the strata of wealth and society benefit from a tax cut, that this would impose, those further down the chain below them will also benefit from this. The great, the great reality of this proposal is that it's universal in its application. Everyone will benefit. And this is fundamentally about unlocking mobility and the aspirations of so many.

It's not just the first time buyers, it's not just those wanting to move up, but those who want to downsize that we've heard so much about today. There are plenty of constituents across Bromsgrove in the villages who are not cash rich but are asset poor, who I know are trapped in larger houses but would like to downsize should the fiscal incentive be there for them to do so, and stamp duty in the form of tens of thousands of pounds, is absolutely that key in so many

**** Possible New Speaker ****

cases? I will give way. And one of the really important points about that, especially for elderly people who are caught in a large home, is from the social care aspect in terms of making sure their health care and support is their health care and support is there as they get older. If they find themselves trapped in a large House, it has all the problems of House, it has all the problems of how do you make sure it's modified, that has an additional cost that is often lost.

So does he agree by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

often lost. So does he agree by freeing them up to be able to move, there's a benefit saving there. My honourable friend makes a very valid and important point, and very valid and important point, and that's one of the great peripheral sort of benefits of this policy. Should the government embrace it, I do encourage them to look seriously at it. I encourage the government to vote for this motion on the to vote for this motion on the basis of intent alone, even if they've got no intention of implementing it any time soon.

implementing it any time soon. We've heard, Madam Deputy Speaker, about the the stimulus effect, a typical spend from someone moving House or a family moving House is around £9,000. My honourable friend around £9,000. My honourable friend the member for Windsor pointed out that those who are employed in trades that would benefit from that trades that would benefit from that spend. These are people who aren't necessarily rich. They're the hard workers who set their alarms in the morning. They're the very people themselves who have aspirations for their family and want to be able to move up the property ladder.

But one of the fundamental ideological points that seems to be striking me in this debate, emanating from members on the opposite side, is one of sort of a denial of capitalism, if you like, and the role that capitalism plays in driving up prosperity in my right honourable friend the member for North North West Hampshire, he made this point so eloquently. Capitalism is not something that we should be afraid of. It's the biggest driver of prosperity that the Western world has known, and members on the benches opposite should embrace it with a little bit more vigour.

Madam Deputy Speaker, a point that I've got to touch upon because it affects my constituency so profoundly, is the government's increase in housing targets. Members on these benches, including myself, we are not anti housebuilding, but we do believe that housebuilding has to be proportionate. Now in my case, Bromsgrove in the villages is a 79% rural constituency. It really is the green buffer between Worcestershire and the urban sprawl of Birmingham. It is 89% greenbelt, yet our housing target has increased by a staggering 85%, whilst the housing target in adjacent Birmingham has decreased by over 30%.

Now I've given various ministers various opportunities to address this point. On the floor of the House of Commons. No one has been able to yet, so I can only assume, in the words of my honourable friend the member for Bridgwater, that the government is fiddling the figures for political reasons. So I would welcome it if the Minister, in his summing up, would address the huge disparity, the disproportionate burden being borne on rural areas, including Bromsgrove in the villages. As a result of the government's current housing targets.

But there is something that the government could do in order to make the bitter pill of more housing easy to swallow. But they abandoned it on day one and that is to have a high quality design as a central tenet of the planning system. The previous government opened the office for place, an advisory body, if you like that, advise the Secretary of State on the quality of the built environment and every single government, regardless of political colour, should embrace the principles of good design because they don't just lead to good houses, they lead to better communities.

And if you if you can convey to a community that new housing is not going to impose red brick monotony, that erodes a sense of identity and character, then the government will find much more openness from communities towards the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way. He makes an excellent point, and one of the biggest concerns I have one of the biggest concerns I have is that the government has taken away the funding for neighbourhood plans. Now neighbourhood plans, we know, gives villages their say of know, gives villages their say of where planning goes but more importantly delivers more housing. So is it short sighted? Does he So is it short sighted? Does he believe it's short sighted? Take that funding away. Compounding the problem he's talking about at Stalin Design to get communities to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Stalin Design to get communities to take on extra housing. He's spot on. It's incredibly short sighted and I think it will short sighted and I think it will prove to be a false economy. So I urge the the government, Madam Deputy Speaker, to embrace good Deputy Speaker, to embrace good design, to provide a justification to my constituents on why it's pursuing the current House targets pursuing the current House targets in such a disproportionate way across the country. And most of all, I implore the government to put at I implore the government to put at the centre of their fiscal plans.

To bear in mind the scale of To bear in mind the scale of ambition that hard working people have every single day. When they set their alarms, they go out to set their alarms, they go out to work. They want to do the right thing for their families. The government must realise that by pulling the right fiscal levers, cutting the right taxes, that will stimulate the very kind of activity

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that will drive the growth that they are so desperate to achieve. Shadow Minister James Cleverly.
16:17
James Cleverly Portrait Rt Hon Sir James Cleverly MP (Braintree, Conservative)
-
-
Yes. to I want to thank my my friend and colleague, the Right Honourable member for Central Devon, setting out the opening case for the opposition's position with regard to stamp duty. This is a policy that I feel particularly passionate about. It was one that I put forward when I was running for leadership of the Conservative Party. And like all good ideas, it has been embraced by my friend and colleague, the leader of the opposition.

But more than that, and this is a really key point. I am also particularly glad that my friend and colleague, the Shadow Chancellor and his shadow team, have worked hard to make sure that cutting stamp duty is not just a headline, it is a fully costed and set out policy, and the leader of the opposition has, I think, in a very magnanimous way, said that if the government wants to steal this idea and implement it now, they will actually get no opposition from us if they choose to do so.

And I think this is a typical generosity of spirit shown by the leader of the opposition. Because because clearly the party opposite are struggling to come up with credible economic plans of their own. So they are very, very welcome to steal the economic plans that we have put in place. And, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was struck by the nature of this debate in a positive way in many instances, and it has been mentioned by a number of my colleagues on the Conservative benches that the expected wall of thoughtless opposition to this proposal hasn't actually materialised at quite the scale that we expected.

I mean, it has materialised in some instances, but that is only to be expected. What we what we heard on a number of occasions in a number of speeches, and I'll make reference to some of the contributions in the debate today as I go through my speech. What we heard on a number of occasions from the benches opposite, was that they recognised that stamp duty was a bad tax. They recognised that stamp duty was a counterproductive tax. They recognised that stamp duty had a dampening drag actor, a drag anchor effect on the housing market.

But then they went on to say, but we need the money that they're desperate to have the tax revenues. And I think that that shows something which is a fundamental challenge, that, frankly, the party opposite is going to have to deal with in November of this month, which is it cannot agree that this damaging, counterproductive tax cannot be got rid of. Then what tax are they willing to reduce? And if they're going to sit in front of the House and basically just say, frankly, there is not a single tax in the British system that they are willing to cut, reduce or remove.

Then the mask has slipped. Madam Deputy Speaker, the mask has slipped under a Labour government. This country faces ever increasing taxes. This is basically what they are saying. Madam Deputy Speaker, they admit this tax is a bad tax, but they're saying they are not willing to vote for its removal because they want to see. They need to see. They're desperate to see taxes going up. That's fundamentally the argument put by many people on the benches opposite

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the position, the position I will. Does he agree with me that it's slightly further compounded by that? slightly further compounded by that? Because when it comes to making spending reductions, we've already seen on the floor of the House that seen on the floor of the House that the one attempt to do that was gutted. Mid Sussex when it was pulled, an amendment was pulled pulled, an amendment was pulled from the bill that dealt with welfare. So therefore they also won't take any spending cuts either, which doesn't leave much else for borrowing in my estimation.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My my honourable friend is absolutely spot on, and this was a point. This is a point I think very, point. This is a point I think very, very well highlighted by my good friend, the honourable member for friend, the honourable member for Bridgwater. He highlighted that on this side of the House, we felt that this damaging and that this damaging and counter-productive tax should be removed. And as I say, my good friend, the Right Honourable Member friend, the Right Honourable Member for Central Devon has set out how this was going to be paid for through a reduction in the welfare bill, something which I know has universal support on this side of universal support on this side of the House.

But my honourable friend the member for Bridgwater highlighted that not only is a highlighted that not only is a reduction of welfare, something that we think is a necessary and good idea, it was something that the Labour frontbench used to think was a necessary and good idea until, with great leadership, they were told by their backbenchers to stop thinking that it was a necessary and good idea and start thinking that it was a terrible idea. Such leadership from the backbenches is something that I admire from that party, and if only the Labour frontbench had anything like the spine of a Labour backbenchers, then actually the country might not be in quite such a dire economic

**** Possible New Speaker ****

state. Yes, that's true madam. Madam, Madam Deputy Speaker, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam, Madam Deputy Speaker, the the Labour Party, the the Labour benches, as I say, the Labour benches have basically said they benches have basically said they are unwilling to cut even the worst of the taxes because basically they want to see taxes going up the Lib want to see taxes going up the Lib Dem position. The Lib Dem position Dem position. The Lib Dem position is yoga like in its ability to bend, pretzel like, pretzel like, because one after another, the speakers from those benches stood up and said, we agree that this is a bad said, we agree that this is a bad tax.

We agree that this is a counterproductive tax. We agree that it's a tax that needs to go. And I, and I suspect others on my benches thought, here we come, here benches thought, here we come, here we go. The crescendo, the the the piece de resistance with those piece de resistance with those speeches saying, which is why you will see us in the lobbies with you, will see us in the lobbies with you, ensuring that this motion is passed. But that's not what we heard.

That is not what in a minute I've got a is not what in a minute I've got a punchline to get to. This is not. This is not. This is not what we heard. What we heard was that we think this is a bad tax that should be got rid of, but we are not going to vote to say it's a bad tax that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should be got rid of because. Which, Madam Deputy Speaker is always. That sums. It up, which is always the Lib

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It up, which is always the Lib Dems punchline. Yeah. It's always a Lib Dems punchline. I was waiting, I was waiting, I was I was waiting, I was waiting, I was waiting for that explosion of waiting for that explosion of political integrity, only to be presented with a political damp squib. And I will give. I will give way to the honourable gentlemen.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way to the honourable gentlemen. I thank the honourable gentleman for giving way after his fantastic enjoyed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

enjoyed. Where was it? He exactly? He obviously wasn't paying enough attention to the argument we enough attention to the argument we were making in his speeches. Yes, we did agree with the analysis of stamp duty being a poor tax, but we could not support your motion today could not support your motion today because we do not think it is a credible plan for abolishing it. What we'd like to see is a much What we'd like to see is a much more holistic review of property taxes, alongside alongside a credible plan.

And there was no credible plan. And there was no credible plan in it today. Was it not just the public spending cut proposals that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

proposals that. He's put forward that. Oh, Madam Deputy Speaker, you got to love him. You you I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

got to love him. You you I. Mean. Genuine you've got to love. Never seen a fence that they would Never seen a fence that they would not sit on. Never seen a position that they would not contort around. These are our principles. This is what they say. These are our principles. But so are these. And so are these other ones as well. It is that clarity, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that clarity that we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

really value from the from the party? And I will give way to the lady opposite. The right hon. Gentleman, for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The right hon. Gentleman, for giving way, and I'll be a little bit clearer on our principles. We won't be joining you in the voting won't be joining you in the voting lobby tonight, because we won't be voting for unfunded tax cuts that predominantly, predominantly serve the wealthy and do nothing to help first time buyers or ordinary

**** Possible New Speaker ****

first time buyers or ordinary working people up and down the country. Yeah, that's. How you do it. That's how you do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

How you do it. That's how you do it. That is how you actually have a it. That is how you actually have a position. It's the wrong position, but it's at least a position. And but it's at least a position. And the point is, the point is the honourable lady. The point is the honourable lady keeps talking about unfunded tax cuts, but she's getting her language back to front. getting her language back to front. You don't fund a tax cut because it is the British people that fund government spending.

So when you ease government spending, you are ease government spending, you are easing the burden on the British taxpayer. It is spending that needs taxpayer. It is spending that needs to be funded, not a reduction in spending. And the reason, and this is where I will this is where I'll make the point. This is where I will reinforce. This is where I'll reinforce a number of what I thought were very, very strong interventions in support of this motion. I was very struck by my honourable friend the member for Windsor, who spoke about his own experience trying to get on the housing ladder and how that enthusiasm was, was, was suppressed, was diminished by the realisation that stamp duty was going to make getting that first foot on the housing ladder even more difficult.

And I and I, and I recognise and the honourable member for Pendle and Clitheroe, I think, made a legitimate point that this is a tax which does affect different parts of the country very differently. And, and he I think it is a fair point that he has made, that there will be many parts of the country where it is not typical that people are paying stamp duty, land tax or or significant quantum, a significant scale of stamp duty, land tax.

But that is not a good reason to deny this reduction in cost to those people in the country that do. And although in his constituency there might not be many, I guarantee he will not have to travel very far before he starts to meet people who are being dissuaded from purchasing properties because of the stamp duty, land tax, and certainly for those members representing constituencies near big cities, wherever they are across the country, or certainly those who represent constituencies in the south of the country, there are significant numbers of people who are paying this tax, and it has been mentioned by members on my benches, too many to single out that it's not just the impact it has on people who are or may be paying the stamp duty land tax that that this proposal impacts positively because.

And I guarantee almost all of us can imagine a streetscape that I'm about to describe, perhaps houses in a Victorian or Edwardian part of our constituencies, perhaps semi-detached or detached houses on what used to be the periphery of those towns or cities. Perhaps those towns and cities have now expanded beyond that, but there will typically be a band of properties populated disproportionately by older couples or older people. They will often have been in those constituencies for many, many decades.

Their children have moved out and they are now under occupying those properties with perhaps 2 or 3, maybe even four bedrooms spare. But they are deterred from downsizing because of the fear of the stamp duty that they all have to pay. Estimates show that 2.8 million people would consider downsizing or right sizing. As my honourable friend said, if stamp duty were removed, what then happens is a ripple effect throughout the housing market, freeing up family houses for people who are currently in overcrowded accommodation.

Not only that, the London School of Economics estimates that for every housing transaction, an estimated £6,000 of economic activity is pumped into the local market. Local builders doing refurbishments, perhaps doing extensions, fitting new bathrooms, fitting new kitchens, soft furnishings, white goods. These are the things that people typically buy when they move. And what what type of business typically provides those goods and services? Local businesses, SMEs embedded in their communities. These are the people who are being denied economic activity because this tax is stifling the property market.

We need liquidity in the property market. We need people buying and selling. We need people spending money with local businesses, in local shops across the whole of the country. This is what reducing the tax burden on people does. This is what removing stamp duty land tax will achieve. And yet on that side of the House and on this side of the House, we are seeing people contorting themselves to find excuses to not reduce this burdensome tax. And I genuinely don't understand why.

I genuinely don't understand why 2.8 million homes could be released into the market, and if each of those homes had 2 or 3 spare bedrooms, that would immediately eclipse the 1.5 million homes that Labour desperately trying to convince the country are going to be built under their tenure. And it can be done with it can be done almost immediately without a brick being laid. And more importantly, Madam Deputy Speaker, without any government subsidy needed. This is what the House is saying no to, but not these benches.

These benches understand aspiration. The Conservative Party has always been the party of aspiration. This has always been the party that helped people get on the housing ladder and up the housing ladder, because that is a noble and normal aspiration and one that we support. Even if the other benches don't. I gentleman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For giving way. He he wonders why it might not have something to why it might not have something to do with the £14 billion that he hasn't worked out how the government are going to find. But if it was so easy, and all those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

if it was so easy, and all those days before Covid, why did his party never do it in 14 years? James Cleverly Madam Deputy Speaker, it was these benches that reduced the stamp duty burden, something that was reversed almost immediately when this party came into office. And the simple truth, the simple truth of the matter is the simple truth of the matter is this. This has always been the party. The Conservative Party has party. The Conservative Party has always been the party of home ownership, an aspiration, helping ownership, an aspiration, helping people have a stake in not just the country and the economy, but in country and the economy, but in their local communities, helping helping parents stay closer to their own parents so that their own parents so that grandparents can see their grandchildren creating flexibility.

So when job opportunities are So when job opportunities are created around the country, people can actually move to those jobs without having a financial penalty for doing so. Madam Deputy Speaker, that is what is at stake. That is that is what is at stake. That is what we are proposing. That is what these benches will continually fight to see, even in the face, even in the face of the opposition from a party that should be about aspiration, that used to be about aspiration that has lost its way, drifted from the path of righteousness, and is going to oppose, if they if they do as they claim to do, they're going to oppose the removal of what is being regularly described by economic experts as the single most damaging tax on our books.

And as I say, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will conclude and I will conclude with this point. I could go on if you want. But I can clear on this point, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'll conclude on this point. If the benches opposite and the benches to my left, both metaphorically and physically, are unwilling to countenance the removal of what is pretty much universally described as the single most counterproductive tax, what tax will they remove? And as I say, I think the market I think the mask has slipped.

They cannot they will not bring themselves to reduce any taxes. And that, Madam Deputy Speaker, is something that the British people will notice and so will the markets, because the unwillingness of the Labour Party to make any kind of difficult decisions with regard to public spending or the reduction of the tax burden on the British people, is not just painful for those taxpayers themselves, but it is going to be painful for our children and our grandchildren who are going to pay increased amounts of money to fund the spending, which can be, as my honourable friend said, it can be the only way that The Chancellor is going to try and dig yourself out of this hole.

And that is a burden on generations to come. So the choice, Madam Deputy Speaker, when we divide, and I suspect we will divide, the choice is between a party that seeks to support aspiration, support families, support small businesses, support the building trade or those parties that will oppose all those things, increase the tax burden on British people. Increase the tax burden on the children and grandchildren. And I indeed the great grandchildren of the people alive today. That is not what my party is about.

That is not what this country should be about. And I urge all those people who want to do right by small businesses and future generations to support this motion and scrap this deeply, deeply counterproductive tax. And I and I commend this motion to the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister Lucy Rigby. Thank you very. Much, Madam. well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

well. To all the honourable. And Right Honourable members who have contributed to. Today's debate and especially. To my. Right hon. Friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friend. The. Chief Secretary to the Treasury, for his. Speech at. The start of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The start of. Chancellor. The right hon. Member for Central Devon. For bringing this debate in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

chamber today, and to the Shadow honourable. Member for. Braintree, for concluding on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Braintree, for concluding on behalf of the opposition. And now. Madam Deputy Speaker, with those. Niceties over, I'll turn to the substance of the motion that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

substance of the motion that. We're. Debating today. Which is the Chief Secretary. Said in his comments. Is a. Fundamentally flawed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Fundamentally flawed. One because members opposite. Have. Despite the. Leader of the opposition, seemingly steadfast.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But now. Very much abandoned. Commitment to have no. Policy at all, members opposite. Have looked. Back at. Their own shockingly bad.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Their own shockingly bad. Economic record. And taken the rather extraordinary view that they are well placed. To offer.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To offer. Input and. Advice as. To the upcoming. Budget, which of course. Is entirely.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A. Matter entirely a matter for The Chancellor to decide once she's seen the obr's forecast, in which

**** Possible New Speaker ****

seen the obr's forecast, in which she will then share with. The. House at the end of next month. But they've looked at all this, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thought seemingly for quite a period of of time, and decided that now is the right moment to offer some policy. Madam Deputy Speaker, the solution seemingly to all the hardships that they inflicted on the country during their time in power, is it's more of the same, actually, it's more of the same.

So more unfunded

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tax cuts, more instability, more austerity, more harm to our public services. And dare.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And dare. I say it, Madam. Deputy Speaker. More of. The. Approach that meant their penultimate prime. Minister was penultimate prime. Minister was outlasted by a lettuce that is there, that is there. I'll make some progress, if I may. That is
16:39
Lucy Rigby Portrait Lucy Rigby KC MP, The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Northampton North, Labour)
-
-
some progress, if I may. That is their pitch to the British public, reckless with our public finances, reckless with our public services, and reckless with the future of this country. Deputy Speaker

**** Possible New Speaker ****

members opposite members opposite are competing to say how sad and. Angry they.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Angry they. Are about this tax. But they'll be absolutely furious, Madam Deputy Speaker, when they find. Out which party it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Out which party it. Was that gave us the highest tax

**** Possible New Speaker ****

burden since the Second World War. Today's motion, today's motion, today's motion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

today's motion. Madam Deputy Speaker, is a seemingly straight faced argument from the benches opposite that we should do the exact thing which brought their 14 years of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

brought their 14 years of government to its end. It is the proof that they have learned. Yes, it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, it. Is it an actual point of order? The minister. Was coming to a conclusion where

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Was coming to a conclusion where just preventing business going forward, Ministers or frontbenchers forward, Ministers or frontbenchers or members not taking interventions are not necessarily a point of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

order. Do you want to proceed? Graham Stuart point of order. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder if there's anything the Chair can do to help the Minister, because she appeared unaware that her own government, of which she is her own government, of which she is a Treasury minister, is the one that has brought us the highest ever state level of tax in this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

country. And I wonder if this Chair could do something. It's not my job to write yours or the Minister's speeches, if only. Minister. That was not a point of order, Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. So this is proof that they have learned none of the lessons of their catastrophic mini-budget over their catastrophic mini-budget over the years and years of punishing austerity inflicted on the people and the. Institutions of this and the. Institutions of this country, with nothing whatsoever to show for it but soaring debt, low productivity and devastated household finances. Because, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me be clear stamp duty.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is not. A beloved tax. Far, far from it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A beloved tax. Far, far from it. No more. It is no more beloved than any other taxes. But what it is is an effective tax that raises an effective tax that raises billions of pounds annually, with those buying the most expensive properties contributing the most. And this contribution is vital to the upkeep of our public services, our NHS, our schools, our armed our NHS, our schools, our armed forces and abolishing stamp duty would take billions out of the would take billions out of the public purse £13.9 billion alone, a multi-billion pound tax cut to the budgets of our most essential budgets of our most essential services.

It is the same horror show from the same old conservatives, wildly. Swinging their side at public services without a care in the world. The consequences for our NHS, our schools and our armed forces. So which services would members

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opposite want to cut down this time? Would it. Be. Would it be. Would it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would it. that. Fewer soldiers. Fewer police officers, madam. Madam Deputy Speaker, they're asking me if I'm asking. I'm more than aware that they've referenced in this debate their fantasy economics based on welfare, based on welfare cuts. But the shadow on welfare cuts. But the shadow Chancellor oversaw the biggest increase in benefit spending in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

increase in benefit spending in decades. When he was the Secretary of State for work and pensions. If he truly believes in. Welfare, if he truly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Welfare, if he truly. Believes that welfare spending needs cutting, why did he let it needs cutting, why did he let it balloon? Madam Deputy Speaker, we've heard from various honourable members their objections to this members their objections to this tax and to all sorts of things that they imagine might be in the budget

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this month. I will. Grateful to the Minister. Just to be clear, does she agree this is a bad tax? And would she, in a a bad tax? And would she, in a perfect world, seek to find ways of controlling public expenditure so that it could be removed? And people across the country, people across the country, particularly first time buyers and the elderly, could benefit from it?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the elderly, could benefit from it? Madam speaker, it's a tax, so obviously I don't love it. No, but what I think is just quite extraordinary is the party opposite. New found hatred of taxation when they increase taxes 25 times in the last. In the last Parliament. So we've heard, as I said, Madam Speaker, from various honourable members about the objections to this tax. I'm not going to engage on the points that have been made around the budget today for very obvious reasons.

Expect to repeat that. We are committed to a single major fiscal event per year, where The Chancellor will set out any tax decisions in the usual way, alongside the Obr's forecast, and that fiscal event will take place. As everyone knows, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the 26th of November, at which point there will be plenty of time to discuss and debate the decisions that The Chancellor takes in the budget. However, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to speak to some of the points raised during the course of this debate because we heard plenty, Madam Deputy Speaker, from the party opposite, about why they want to abolish stamp duty some, and I will say this.

I say this in a heartful, in a well-meant way. Some some points I think were made very, very thoughtfully. But I'm sorry to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, we heard absolutely nothing from the members opposite on their appalling economic record. We heard nothing from them on their appalling record on housebuilding. Save the acknowledgement, actually, I should say, of the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire. Nothing on the waste of public money. That was the fraud on their watch, and nothing whatsoever that could be described as fiscal responsibility.

And we also heard from some of my right hon. Friends on these benches about the urgent need to build more houses in this country, given our appalling inheritance, which, of course, is the key way that we that we solve the housing crisis. And I want to pay tribute, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the thoughtful speeches of the members for Welwyn Hatfield, Milton Keynes North, Crewe and Nantwich and North Warwickshire, and my honourable friend the member for Loughborough and Tipton and Wednesbury, who spoke powerfully of the consequences of the party opposite's mismanagement of the economy, including food banks, poverty, and, of course, the housing crisis.

So I welcome the commitment of the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire's. He talked about the need to build more housing, and indeed, he talked about beautiful housing, which I can assure him. That is exactly the type of housing that this government is going to facilitate being built. Albeit I do note that his colleagues took him back straight to opposing development. No sooner had he made that point. I should also say that I welcome the mini insight he gave into the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

infighting of the of the last government. There was also I will. I may.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I may. Or she may recall that actually it was her Secretary of State who removed the word beautiful from the removed the word beautiful from the MP. So could she accomplish how we expecting to have those beautiful designs, if that's been taken away

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as a standard within the guidance that her government provided? Minister Rugby. Madam speaker, I can assure him

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam speaker, I can assure him that the houses will be beautiful and we're going to build 1.5 million over the course of this million over the course of this Parliament. I also want to refer, Madam Deputy Speaker. There was a brief, there was a brief. There was brief, there was a brief. There was a brief reference to Nirvana. There was a brief reference to Nirvana from the benches opposite before from the benches opposite before descending back into half baked and unfunded plans.

To which, Madam Speaker, that reference to Nirvana. Speaker, that reference to Nirvana. On this side of the House, we thought to ourselves, well, never thought to ourselves, well, never mind some tell me something. Yeah, but thank you. Yeah. Thank you. I but thank you. Yeah. Thank you. I was pleased to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Liberal Democrat Speaker, the Liberal Democrat spokesman and indeed others in, in the Liberal Democrats say that they will be opposing this motion. And I wholeheartedly agree with her that wholeheartedly agree with her that this motion is fundamentally flawed.

And then, Madam Deputy Speaker, by way of closing, I will make clear that this government is one of fiscal responsibility, our steadfast commitment to the fiscal rules have brought stability to our economy and allowed us to boost investment by £120 billion over the course of this Parliament and the dividends. Madam Deputy Speaker, of this approach, even after just a year, are already clear. The highest growth in the G7 in the first half of this year cuts to interest rates, real wages rising more in the time since the last election than they did in ten years.

In ten years of Conservative government record investments from overseas, new homes and infrastructure progressing all over the country, a strong foundation to build on in the years ahead. So what have we have been debating today? Madam Deputy Speaker, is a simple question of two visions for the country. Or put another way, does this country go forwards or backwards? The party opposite want us to go back, back to their time in office, where Britain had a government which pursued unfunded tax cuts and austerity, leading to soaring debt, low productivity, under-investment and anaemic growth? A Britain where we didn't build infrastructure, including houses and far too many people in this country, Madam Deputy Speaker, were unable to get on the housing ladder.

This government, Madam Deputy Speaker, wants the country to move forwards. We're managing the public finances with stability and certainty. In an uncertain world. We're a government that invests in public services, our infrastructure and our communities, working with businesses and local leaders to bring growth and opportunity to every part of the country. A government which is building houses,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

including in areas of the country that the shadow Secretary of State. Is. That. We're Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We're Speaker. I'm being interrupted, I'm afraid a government which is building houses, including in areas of the country that the shadow of the country that the shadow Secretary of State has previously described in rather unparliamentary language, a government which supports working people with new jobs, higher wages and new homes, and a government that's committed to building 1.5 million new homes, this Parliament, and restoring the dream of home ownership. We're a government which will not duck. Madam Deputy Speaker, the difficult Madam Deputy Speaker, the difficult decisions that will face into them, because that is the only way that we will deliver a decade of we will deliver a decade of national renewal and a thriving economy for the people of this economy for the people of this country.

So, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is what today's debate is about backwards with fiscal irresponsibility from the party opposite or forwards with economic stability, investment and reform stability, investment and reform under this Prime Minister and this Chancellor.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Chancellor. The question is, as on the order papers, may that opinion say aye. A.
16:51
17:04
17:04
Alex Burghart Portrait Alex Burghart MP (Brentwood and Ongar, Conservative)
-
-
men were arrested on suspicion of having spied for China against honourable members of this House. The Director of Public Prosecutions has himself acknowledged that this appears to have been a gross breach of trust against honourable members. And yet the case against these two men collapsed because, in the words of the senior Treasury Counsel, Tom Little KC, the case was effectively unsustainable and brought to a crashing halt because the government's own witness, the national security, the deputy national security adviser, refused to provide the fatal piece of evidence.

Mr. little had. What he called $1 million question was China active threat to national security? Deputy national security adviser repeatedly refused to say yes. The government effectively refused to say what was patently apparent to anyone remotely alive. To the facts of the case. This House has every reason to be told why it refused, and it has every right to know why. For example, the Prime Minister himself did not intervene to prevent the case from collapsing. When we know that he was warned that it was unlikely to proceed, and also that it's reported that the Home Secretary herself did try to intervene.

Now we don't call for the publication of this material lightly. Madam Deputy Speaker, we know that it's an extraordinary measure to call for the government to publish documents relating to the formation of policy. But this is an extraordinary event. The reason we have reached this point is because the government has been unable or unwilling to answer basic questions about what it knew, when and why it acted as it did. It is hidden behind civil servants and advisers. When it is ministers who are supposed to make decisions, and in doing so, it has brought the actions and decisions of those advisers and officials into the spotlight in a way that is most irregular.

Just as worryingly, there has been a persistent inaccuracy and inconsistency in the government's statements to the point where this House can no longer trust a word of them. There are a number of examples. First, on the 13th of October, the Security Minister denied in this House that the Mega mandarin meeting on the 1st of September, which is the subject of our motion, took place. But last week the Solicitor General admitted that it did. We now know that it was led by the National Security Adviser, that it was attended by the Cabinet Secretary, the permanent Under-Secretary at the FCDO, by senior representation from the Home Office, the Attorney General's Office and the chief of MI5.

But we still don't know what was said there, what was agreed or indeed why the government tried to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deny its existence. I'm happy to give way to my right hon. Friend, I'm very grateful.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friend, I'm very grateful. To my right hon. Friend. I was. Interested to. See that the National Security

**** Possible New Speaker ****

See that the National Security Adviser. Was listed as being involved in that meeting. Now, the national security adviser is a.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

national security adviser is a. Political appointee. He's a special adviser. And that's. Usually the. Reason that the deputy national

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Reason that the deputy national security adviser is put forward. To take. All the flak. But if the NSA

**** Possible New Speaker ****

All the flak. But if the NSA himself is participating in these policy meetings about this matter, why doesn't he come forward? And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

why doesn't he come forward? And why is he sheltering behind the full time official who's. Being. Hung out to dry?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hung out to dry? Yeah. Well, my. My right honourable friend makes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My right honourable friend makes a very pertinent point. He is personally very experienced at such things. Indeed we are. It has been things. Indeed we are. It has been reported that the national security adviser chaired that meeting. Let's say that he was taking a very say that he was taking a very active role in what was going on. And this is why it's incredibly important that the government comes important that the government comes clean with us as to what happened in that meeting, who attended and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what was decided there. I'm happy to give. Way to. My honourable friend. The National Security Adviser has spent a great deal of time visiting various Chinese entities before and after his appointment. But one appointment he doesn't appear very keen on taking up is with the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, which has requested quite legitimately

**** Possible New Speaker ****

under the Osmotherly rules, that he appears before it, and Ministers. Appear to be blocking it. Why does my hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Why does my hon. Friend. Yeah. My right honourable friend is right that the national Security adviser showed great reluctance to attend, but I understand that the national security adviser has now agreed to attend. Although the agreed to attend. Although the report I read was that he was going to attend in camera, which I if that is correct, and the Minister that is correct, and the Minister has the right to opportunity to to say that that's not true. But if that report is correct, then I'm not sure that that is the best level of transparency that this House might expect.

The second instance of inconsistency and inaccuracy we draw attention to is inaccuracy we draw attention to is from the 7th of October, when the Prime Minister told journalists what mattered in this case was the what mattered in this case was the designation of China, as it had been in 2023, when the offences were alleged to have occurred. were alleged to have occurred. However, last week on the 24th of October, the director of public prosecution said that this was prosecution said that this was categorically not the case.

He said and I quote, the test was positively not what the then positively not what the then government was prepared to or did say in public about China, but rather whether China was, as a rather whether China was, as a matter of fact, an active threat to national security. This is a most important point, Madam Deputy Speaker one revisited yesterday. It's a very serious question as to why the deputy national security adviser believed that he would, quote, need to be in line with government policy at the time when the CPS said that they didn't need to know about policy, what they needed to know about were the facts.

The minister should explain to the House why the deputy national security adviser chose to ignore the CPS on this, and he should also tell us whether he thinks the deputy national security adviser complied with Civil Procedure Rule 35, which requires him to assist

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the court and overrides any other obligation. Third, I'll give him away on that point. Perhaps I do thank you for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Perhaps I do thank you for giving way. Perhaps you can clarify what is happening here. Is it the case that the government. The issue case that the government. The issue is that the government thought it was a national threat to national security, China, but did not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

security, China, but did not declare it or did declare it, but it was not a threat. I am quite making. He'll he'll have.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He'll he'll have. A perfectly good opportunity to question the people responsible for that in a few moments time. You that in a few moments time. You know, the point is that the government has been unclear, inconsistent and inaccurate, and we are giving the government an are giving the government an opportunity to clear this up right now. A very serious I'll give one more time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

more time. I think the issue is that the government in 2023 was not clear on whether or not it was a threat, whether or not it was a threat, whether or not it did it clearly make that statement, or was it a threat in the government failed to make that statement.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

make that statement. So the the previous government was clear on a number of occasions that China was a threat. But if that China was a threat. But if you've been listening to what I just said, the DPP said the director of public prosecution said director of public prosecution said last week that it was categorically not a question of what the last government said. And I will and I government said. And I will and I will repeat for the benefit of the honourable gentleman, now I have his attention.

It's it was a question of whether China was, as a matter of fact, an active threat to national security. It's not a question of policy. It's a matter of fact. I'm not going to go through it a third time. I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way to my honourable friend. I'm very. Grateful to the. Honourable member for setting out the. Stories so far, but given

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that there have. Been so. Many variations on the truth, can the honourable member come up with an.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with an. Explanation as to. Why the government. Cannot alight on a single version of the truth in. This matter?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I think there are basically two answers to my hon. Friend's question. Two possible answers. The first is that the the government can't tell it's it's elbow from its posterior, or it doesn't want this House to know the truth either way. And the matter is truth either way. And the matter is so serious as this, it's incredibly, incredibly important that we get to the truth of the matter. And the the truth of the matter. And the motion tonight presents an opportunity for the government to be entirely transparent with us and set out the facts of the case.

They set out the facts of the case. They were at the time, particularly on the 1st of October when this all important meeting took place. Very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

important meeting took place. Very happy to give way to my right hon. Friend. To clear up one. Small point. When the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

When the. CPS decided to prosecute originally back in 24, they were convinced of the nature of the then required evidence that was there in front of them that China in this front of them that China in this case, was responsible and therefore posed a threat. What changed was the Rusev case in between times in which it was redefined as to what then the CPS needed to be able to say to go ahead with any other further prosecution. It was made clear that all they needed to say was to make the clear point that China was a persistent, continuous threat to the UK's strategic interests.

That was why they needed to make that statement. They had nothing to do with what had happened before. It was all about what happened going forward from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Rusev case. That was the key. My right honourable friend is absolutely correct, and the Director of Public Prosecutions has been been very clear and consistent on this point. I will give way one

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on this point. I will give way one more time then I will make some progress. Giving way. The first. Treasury Counsel, Tom Little, yesterday. Said that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Said that. He took the. Extraordinary step of having. A direct. Discussion with the deputy national security.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

national security. Adviser because he can understand why what he said was a relatively straightforward evidence,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

relatively straightforward evidence, namely that China was an active and ongoing threat had. Not been provided. Why did the government not provide that commitment? Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Well, this is the million dollar question. Why did the government, why was the government not prepared why was the government not prepared to say something that was manifest to say something that was manifest to, to evidentially true to all and sundry? Third example, on the 15th of October, the Prime Minister said, of October, the Prime Minister said, and I quote, that the deputy national security adviser acted entirely independently, without consultation with ministers or consultation with ministers or special advisers and without political involvement, end quote.

But the CPS has now made it clear that there were multiple that there were multiple discussions about what the dsRNA would say and wouldn't say, starting with one such discussion starting with one such discussion on the 3rd of July 2025. Moreover, the NSA's first witness statement was, and I quote cited by the then NSA Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary and sent to the Prime Minister via number ten private office, including special advisers, end quote. A fourth example, on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

28th of October. The security. I will give an example. I'm grateful to have given away. Isn't it therefore incredible? Either way, given the statement he's just put out, but also that he's just put out, but also that the deputy didn't speak to his boss, the national security adviser, to have a discussion about the biggest have a discussion about the biggest spy case this century and not even discuss it. He was left to his own evidence.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

evidence. I think all of us find it very difficult to believe that the deputy national security adviser deputy national security adviser was left entirely to his own devices. Our fourth example, on the 20th of October, the security minister, who's in his place, told the House fine evidence went in in August, and I can give the honourable gentleman an assurance honourable gentleman an assurance that there is nothing the Prime Minister or any other minister could have done thereafter, end quote. But we now know there was a quote.

But we now know there was a meeting between the CPS and the government on both the third and 9th of September to attempt to 9th of September to attempt to rescue the case. Why did the Security Minister tell the House something that wasn't correct? A something that wasn't correct? A fifth example yesterday, the Cabinet. I'll give way to the honourable gentleman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As far as I can. Remember, the Attorney General told the House of Lords yesterday that the 3rd. Of September was when he.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of September was when he. Was informed. difficulties. With. The case. But the key point is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That he had. No power. memorandum. Between him. And. Between the. Attorney General's office.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And the CPS. That the that the. Attorney General. Doesn't get. Involved. In.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Evidential sufficiency. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Ministers do get involved. It's their job to be involved. Ministers their job to be involved. Ministers represent the government. Ministers represent all of us. It is not good enough for the government to say enough for the government to say that it is entirely powerless in this instance. It isn't. It isn't a this instance. It isn't. It isn't a fifth, a fifth example. Yesterday, the Cabinet Secretary said that he did not believe that the chief of did not believe that the chief of MI5 had described China as a threat.

But on the 16th of October, 2025 this year, Ken McCallum said Do Chinese state actors present a UK national security threat? The answer is, of course, yes they do every day. How on earth did the Cabinet secretary not know this? Cabinet secretary not know this? This is an issue of absolutely paramount importance. There are many other such examples. Madam many other such examples. Madam Deputy Speaker, the government has an opportunity to be clear with us today, not just about the meetings today, not just about the meetings and the dealings of the past six months, but also about its position as it stands.

So, will the Minister tell us what is the material difference between a range of threats and an active security threat? The point that the deputy national security adviser was was keen to make yesterday, but perhaps most importantly of all, does the government believe that China is an active security threat or not? And if not, what would it take to cross that threshold? It's time for the government to publish all the details so that we can see what really happened here. And I know the government will protest its innocence.

I know the government will claim that it is all the fault of the CPS or the last government or the legislation, just as it has tried to do so for weeks. But such pleas and protests, Madam Deputy Speaker, are no good reason for it to refuse to publish the material we are requesting today. This House may have been spied upon. This House has a right to straight answers. This House has a right to see under the bonnet. When the safety and privacy of its members may have been compromised, and this House has a right to know what the government's real position is.

It has a right to know what the government's real agenda is. And if

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this government has nothing to hide, then it should hide nothing from this House. Yes it is, and forgive me. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes it is, and forgive me. The question is as on the Order Paper, and I call the minister Nick Thomas-symonds. And before he
17:19
17:19
17:19
Nick Thomas-Symonds Portrait Rt Hon Nick Thomas-Symonds MP, The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Torfaen, Labour)
-
-
Madam Deputy Speaker, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just want to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, not just. As a minister, but. Indeed as a parliamentarian.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Indeed as a parliamentarian. That I want to reinforce. The. the. Collapse of this criminal. Case concerning. The two individuals charged.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The two individuals charged. Under the Official. Secrets Act of 1911. And everyone in the government. Was hoping. The trial.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would go. Ahead, and indeed. would. Now. As a. Reminder.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Reminder. Following the. Arrests of Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry in. March 2023. As part of a. Counter-espionage operation, counter-terrorism police requested

**** Possible New Speaker ****

counter-terrorism police requested that the Deputy. National Security Adviser act as a witness in. This case. Let me go through this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's important for the. Challenges that have. Been. Made. By the right hon. Gentleman. The defence.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The defence. Made clear he. Would. Provide evidence on. The basis of the government's. Position at. The. Time of. The offences.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Time of. The offences. And it is that that is. Absolutely crucial. To. The. Judgement that's been. Made.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Made. In this case. Now, the first judgement. Was drafted between the first statement was drafted, But well. APPG shadow Home Secretary, I'll.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

APPG shadow Home Secretary, I'll. Give him a moment and. Then. Let me. Make some progress. But I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Make some progress. But I will give way. The shadow Home Secretary. Then the statement was drafted the first in August. And December 2023, and. During which time. The CTP.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The CTP. Was updated. On progress, including that. The NSA would. Not be. Able to. Call China. An enemy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As that was. Not the position. Of the government at the time of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the offences. OK, I'll let him. I'll let him intervene. On that. The minister. Has twice said now in the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in the. Last minute that the question. Was the policy. Of the last government. Let me take. Him to page four.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Him to page four. Of the. Director of. Public Prosecutions. Letter dated Thursday of last week.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

week. In that he says this. Intervention should be short. Well, the. DPP says the opposite. He says

**** Possible New Speaker ****

DPP says the opposite. He says the issue. Was a question of fact and. Not categorically. Not the policy. Of the last government.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of the last government. Oh dear. Oh dear. Mr. Madam deputy, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh dear. Mr. Madam deputy, the test. Is that what he says? OK, right. He just quoted page four of right. He just quoted page four of the DPP's letter. Let's quote him. Page five. The information that we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

required. Related to the period between. The 31st of December, 2021 and 3rd of February, 2023.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

3rd of February, 2023. The position of the current. Government is. Not relevant. To the case. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not relevant. To the case. I suggest the Shadow Home Secretary looks at the next page. No, it's the times. No, it's.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not misleading. position. At the. Relevant time. But what is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What is, what is. Even what is. Even. I'm. Afraid are worse.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Afraid are worse. Is that the word. Enemy was. Not the position. At the. Time it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Time it. Came out of the statement that happened. Under the previous. Government, I'm afraid. And let me make some progress.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And let me make some progress. I've taken. I've taken the shadow Home Secretary. So let me make some progress before finalising his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

progress before finalising his statement. In December. 2023. The Nssa cited the then National security adviser and the then security adviser and the then Cabinet. Office Permanent Secretary. The then Cabinet Office permanent Secretary came back with a comments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Secretary came back with a comments on the 18th of December. This is all. Under the previous government. For the NSA. To consider.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To consider. The NSA then finalised the statement. His private office sent a final version of the draft. To the then.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the then. Prime Minister to the number ten. Private officer, number ten special advisers. Once they were submitted, they were not shared, and in April they were not shared, and in April 2024, formal charges were laid. That is the position under the That is the position under the previous government. Now, two supplemental witness statements supplemental witness statements from the Nssa was submitted in February 2025 and August 2025, following requests from. CT following requests from. CT policing to provide further detail on the nature and extent of the threat to the UK from China, and for the second statement, the CTP specifically asked the NSA to comment on whether China, as a state during the period 31st of December, 2021 to 3rd of February.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

2023. Posed an active threat, and whether it remains the case now for whether it remains the case now for the third statement, the CTP requested that the NSA provide further points of detail regarding further points of detail regarding the UK government of the nature and extent of the threat, with examples and the NSA faithfully with full and the NSA faithfully with full integrity. I noticed the shadow CDL was implying that somehow he wasn't was implying that somehow he wasn't compliant with part 35, set out the various threats posed by the Chinese state in line with the UK's government's position at that material time, in order to try to support a successful prosecution.

support a successful prosecution. And then we come, obviously, that to the meeting that the shadow CDL has referred to, which I'll come to has referred to, which I'll come to in a moment on the 1st of September. But I was fascinated, actually, by But I was fascinated, actually, by the shadow CDL opening when he talked of the clarity of the last government's position, the government's approach to China is guided by three pillars guided by three pillars strengthening our national security protections, aligning and cooperating with our partners, and engaging where it is consistent with our interest.

Who said that with our interest. Who said that the shadow CDL did in 2023, and he is here now trying to talk about the clarity of the position in 2023. And on the first, not for a moment. And on the 1st of September, the national security adviser convened a meeting to discuss the UK's relationship with China in the context of this case and several other upcoming moments. It's entirely what you would expect the NSA to do now. We've learned that entirely separately and entirely independently of government.

The CPS were deliberating not to offer evidence in this case. On the 3rd of September, the DPP told the Cabinet Secretary and the nsna of his intention, subject to confirmation, not to put forward evidence. And unfortunately, that decision was confirmed on the 9th of December. I must say to the benches opposite, that is a matter of regret. It is quite rightly an independent decision, but it is a matter of regret. And on the 15th September 2025, the CPS officially confirmed the decision to discontinue the case against Kash and Bury.

Now I actually welcome the scrutiny of this decision and that's why I welcome the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy inquiry into espionage cases in the Official Secrets Act. I welcome the the ICC's investigation as to how classified intelligence was used. And since we last discussed the matter in this House, the Chief secretary of the Prime Minister, the Attorney General, the Cabinet secretary, the national Security advisor, the deputy national Security adviser have all submitted evidence to the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy.

Yesterday, the joint Committee heard evidence from the Director of Public Prosecutions, the first Treasury Counsel. At a later session, the Cabinet Secretary and the Deputy National Security Adviser. Tomorrow, the Chief Secretary of the Prime Minister. The Attorney General will give more evidence and the question has been put about the national security adviser, who will also be giving evidence soon and certainly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

before the end of the year. I'll give way to thank you. Mr. Speaker. The Minister expresses. Deep

**** Possible New Speaker ****

regret that. This case hasn't gone to trial. And I want. To believe him on that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To believe him on that. But the case hasn't gone to trial. So with the power of. Hindsight. If he was. To go back and. Do this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Do this. All again. What would he have done differently to ensure that. This case. Did go. To trial?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To trial? Unfortunate. And well, I tell you exactly what would have made a massive difference if we could have updated the Official Secrets Act updated the Official Secrets Act far sooner than 2023, because that would have made a material difference. This case has been prosecuted under a 1911 act. The National Security Act was passed in 2023. If only the shadow CDL had 2023. If only the shadow CDL had been in the Cabinet Office. To be close was what was going on and what would actually have made a difference, that the legislation had been changed in earlier stage and we wouldn't be in this position.

and we wouldn't be in this position. But let me let me just also be clear with the House, the allegations of political interference with this case are interference with this case are absolutely baseless. And the CPS decision to discontinue the case decision to discontinue the case was I will in a moment was independent of government and indeed ask what the Director of Public Prosecutions himself said about that. He reiterated again yesterday when he gave evidence sitting Allied side Tom little KC and on that note, I'll give Right honourable gentleman.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Honourable friend. Lewes Lewes. I will take both.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker I'll go first and then I'll come. To order. Well, you can't have two so Julian Lewis quick.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Julian Lewis quick. Full. Can he explain to the House once and for all how it is possible for a government to believe. That China is responsible believe. That China is responsible for posing a wide range of threats, but is not a threat itself. He

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would clear. Matters up and. Allay the suspicions. That government's holding back for economic reasons.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

economic reasons. If he would simply say China is a threat to our national. Security.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Security. Will he say so? Uses a. Multiplicity of threats. It poses a threat in terms of poses a threat in terms of espionage. It poses a threat in terms of cyber. It poses a threat in terms of economic security. But in terms of economic security. But the greatest of respect to the honourable gentleman, it whether it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

honourable gentleman, it whether it was at the material time and I can't go back and change that. Yes. I'm grateful to the Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the Minister. For. Taking an intervention, and I'm listening carefully to what he has to say. But could.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But could. We now be informed how MPs today

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are to be. Further protected from foreign intelligence? Absolutely. 100% correct. And there's a huge

**** Possible New Speaker ****

100% correct. And there's a huge priority for the government. It's a very serious issue. And as I said when I opened this debate, it isn't just about the position of the government. I say it as a parliamentarian that we in this place have to be protected from place have to be protected from that foreign interference. But the honourable, the right hon. Gentleman, the Shadow Chancellor of Gentleman, the Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy, asked about the meeting of the 1st of September. Well, we heard yesterday from the Cabinet heard yesterday from the Cabinet Secretary and indeed the Deputy National security adviser, who both attended that meeting.

We heard attended that meeting. We heard from them yesterday the discussion about the bilateral relationship between the UK and China in the context of the case. The Cabinet context of the case. The Cabinet Secretary made clear yesterday the meeting was entirely appropriate. No discussion of the evidence took place at that meeting, and everyone involved was participating on the assumption that the case was going to go ahead. It was only on the 3rd to go ahead. It was only on the 3rd of September, confirmed by him in the evidence at the jxns yesterday.

And I'll come to that in a moment And I'll come to that in a moment that the Director of Public Prosecutions informed the Cabinet Secretary in the dnsa of his Secretary in the dnsa of his intention, subject to confirmation, that the CPS would not be putting forward evidence to trial. The Attorney General was informed on Attorney General was informed on the same day. Now the DPP confirmed, and I take your point, it's important if I can just finish this point, because the chronology I've been challenged on the chronology and I'm only too delighted to enlighten the right hon.

Gentleman, the DPP confirmed to the committee that this position was agreed after a period of internal decision making within the CPS in the run up to that meeting on the third. And at that meeting, the DPP made clear that this fact must not be briefed. Further, with the exception of informing the NSA and the permanent Under-Secretary of Fcdo, the Cabinet Secretary and the NSA therefore did not inform anyone else until shortly before the case became public, and on the 9th of September, the CPS confirmed the decision to offer no evidence to the DNS.

That is the chronology. Can I just say to the honourable, let's just address directly to what you said. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is already an established mechanism for Parliament to address this issue. The government is fully cooperating with the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy Inquiry. Indeed, the ISC provide evidence appear before the Committee in the usual way as regards the motion. One moment, as regards the motion that's been put forward for the wide range of documents that the Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy is seeking, there is no prospect.

He knows he was a Cabinet Office minister himself. He knows the sensitivity of those documents. He knows the legal professional privilege in I will I will give you one more, one more chance before I conclude. But what I would say to him that highly classified material material subject to legal professional privilege, advice to the Prime Minister, which successive governments have maintained a position of not releasing to the public. Why? Because it is in our interest to protect this material.

He knows that. He knows that in his will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to him for giving way. I mean, I've always admired, you know, the shine on his admired, you know, the shine on his brass neck and never so much as at this moment. Because I remember during the Brexit debates, him and many of the other gentlemen and ladies on those benches overriding, ladies on those benches overriding, you know, legal privilege and asking for classified documents week after week, members of this House may have been spied on. The government has a duty to be government has a duty to be transparent.

It cannot hide behind anything. Given that it has previously asked for similar

**** Possible New Speaker ****

previously asked for similar documents. Make them available. Well, I'm looking at the the right hon. Gentleman, and remembering back to the debates we remembering back to the debates we had on precisely this, but let me tell him the difference between what I was doing then and what's happening now. Number one, I was actually applying at the time via a humble address mechanism for a single document, a single document. single document, a single document. It was not. And by the way, he's he's rather he's rather shambolic motion, which seems to be a fishing motion, which seems to be a fishing expedition.

He's totally imprecise. But secondly secondly, the that was But secondly secondly, the that was not security material at this level, which is in our national interest. which is in our national interest. Yes I did. Now I just emphasise, Madam Deputy Speaker, I support parliamentary scrutiny. I support and welcome the ongoing process with the Joint Committee. I support the government, continue to engage with the ISC. What we will not do, though, is accede to the right hon. Gentleman's demand, and he knows.

He knows in his heart of hearts the long list of material he's stuck on. That would be totally inappropriate. And to actually put out in the public domain is a completely different situation. Asking for open publication to the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny that is going to go on, and quite rightly so. Let me conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, to say this. The government is gravely disappointed. I am gravely disappointed that this trial did not proceed. The evidence submitted to the point that was put to me earlier by the honourable member for New Forest East, that the NSA's evidence articulated clearly a range of threats that China posed to UK national security and indeed our economic security at the material time.

Now, in the light of those very real threats. And here I do agree with the shadow of The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. This is a very grave matter. In the light of the threats that have been identified, the government is resolute in its determination to work across all parties and in partnership with the parliamentary security authorities, as was raised by my honourable friend, to ensure that Chinese espionage and interference, or

**** Possible New Speaker ****

indeed from any other country, is not successful in the UK. Yeah. Now there's just 90 minutes and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now there's just 90 minutes and over 20 colleagues wishing to contribute, and that definitely was not short. Hopefully. Alex

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not short. Hopefully. Alex Wilkinson, spokesperson Liberal Democrats can show us how it's done. Max Wilkinson Deputy Speaker we.
17:35
Max Wilkinson Portrait Max Wilkinson MP (Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Max Wilkinson Deputy Speaker we. Congratulate the. Conservatives for bringing this debate today. Given the recent news headlines about their own weakness on this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

about their own weakness on this issue, it's what Sir Humphrey would describe as a courageous decision. But as the third. Party spokesperson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I feel obliged. To play the role of marriage counsellor. It is my duty to urge both sides, government and official. Opposition.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Opposition. To concede that they have made mistakes and to bring them together in the hope of finding common ground. Because, Madam Deputy ground. Because, Madam Deputy Speaker, they truly have more common ground on this than they would like to admit. The common ground is clear in the NSA's evidence statements, and it has become clearer as this sorry saga has dragged on. It became clearer

**** Possible New Speaker ****

still in yesterday's Joint. Committee on. The National Security Strategy that there is barely a cigarette that there is barely a cigarette paper between the position of the Conservative Party when it was in government, and the Labour government. Today, the Conservative Party won't want to admit that, Party won't want to admit that, because all it wants to do is pretend that the government is entirely to blame. A laudable aim for any opposition party, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for any opposition party, the Labour Party can't admit that because it cannot publicly concede that its position on the matter, central to. Our national.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Our national. Security interests, is the same as the Conservative government that it replaced last summer. It falls to us Liberal Democrats to speak to us Liberal Democrats to speak the uncomfortable parts of the truth and tell it like it is, because nobody else is willing or because nobody else is willing or able to do so. Today, when the conservatives were in government, while some of their brave backbenchers spoke out, the backbenchers spoke out, the machinery of government was keen to take an approach on China that was far from hawkish.

At the heart of this issue is the often unspoken suggestion that we must take a nuanced position on China, because our economy is now vulnerable to our economy is now vulnerable to international threats. The truth, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that the conservatives and their allies, allied to the Honourable member Clacton, cut us adrift from the EU. They've left Britain more exposed to economic pressure from hostile to economic pressure from hostile states than we should be. We find ourselves in a position where the government cannot bring itself to describe as a national security describe as a national security threat, a nation whose spies hacked the data of 40 million British voters held by the Electoral Commission.

The government cannot bring itself to describe as a national security threat, a nation that has agreed a no limits partnership with Putin despite his illegal invasion of Ukraine. Just ten days ago, Beijing was publicly bullying the government into granting permission for the new Chinese embassy in Tower Bridge. Warning of consequences if the government does not approve the plans. Is our weak international trading position caused by the disastrous Brexit given to us by the Conservatives and Reform members influencing the government's decision making on the new embassy? It would seem foolish to argue otherwise.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to draw a comparison between this and the government's position on Russia. Russia has been listed on the enhanced tier of the Foreign Influence Registration scheme. Given the no limits relationship between Beijing and Moscow, it is odd that Russia is listed while China is not. If the government really wanted to strengthen the case for prosecution, perhaps placing China on the enhanced tier would have aided the prosecution. Even absent the word enemy, the fact that the word enemy appeared on the original draft witness statement, but was later removed again, raises concerns about what was happening during the tenure of the previous government, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Conservative government. But also from the Official opposition frontbench too. Did the opposition frontbench too. Did the DNC meet with Ministers between the initial draft and the final version of the witness statement? This of the witness statement? This House, of course, owes a debt of gratitude to the Right honourable members for Tonbridge and for to members for Tonbridge and for to the member for Rutland and Stamford, both of whom have shown a great deal of bravery in the very best traditions of British public service.

The NSA's witness statement referenced back channels statement referenced back channels used to dissuade those two members from criticising Confucius Institutes in the UK. The security minister assured me that he was minister assured me that he was happy to speak with the members in question last week about this very point. Has that meeting now taken point. Has that meeting now taken place, and will the Minister from the dispatch box today let us know what this government's understanding of the word backchannel is in that context? Does the word backchannel refer to the previous government's whips, to the previous government's whips, to officials or to others? The public deserves to know which element of the British state was attempting to prevent brave MPs from asking prevent brave MPs from asking questions.

And if the Minister cannot, perhaps anyone from the Conservative frontbench or anywhere else on the official opposition else on the official opposition benches could clarify for the House. Finally, I want to turn to the involvement of the CPS in the involvement of the CPS in the collapse of the trial. The government is adamant that the failure to designate China as an enemy is central to the failure to prosecute. I've already addressed the questions about how this word was removed from the initial witness statement during the tenure of the previous government, but I want to now draw the House's attention to the Rousseff case, which was referenced earlier on and was being prosecuted at the same time.

In this instance, the judge stated, and I quote, any state which presently poses an active threat to the UK's national security can properly be described as an enemy in ordinary language. The outcome of this case was the conviction of six Bulgarian nationals in July of last year for operation, operating as part of a Russian espionage network. The CPS has serious questions to answer as to why this case fell apart when the term enemy was not an issue for the Rousseff case as recently as last July.

Transparency and independence and national security decisions are an essential are an essential part of maintaining public trust. This case has thrown that trust into serious jeopardy. At a time when the embassy planning application is already undermining the nation's confidence in the government's approach to relations with China. Neither the government nor the official opposition has provided clarity. The public could be forgiven for thinking that both sides are ducking responsibility. The Liberal Democrats believe we need a statutory public inquiry to get to the bottom of what went wrong and how influence over China policy collapsed this case.

Thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you, Madam Deputy Speaker. John Slinger, who I believe has speech.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

speech. John Slinger I'll do my best, Madam Deputy Speaker. Honourable members opposite are being nothing short of opportunistic and are playing political games with our national security. It's, of course, their job and their right to oppose their job and their right to oppose what the government's doing. However, on issues of national security, I would have thought there could be more appreciation of there could be more appreciation of the national interest than the nuances involved in it. In my speech, I'm going to do some myth speech, I'm going to do some myth busting.

Quite a useful thing to do in this age of misinformation, disinformation and hyperbolic chest thumping. What we're seeing is a somewhat phoney but very definitely opportunistic brand of national
17:41
John Slinger Portrait John Slinger MP (Rugby, Labour)
-
-
opportunistic brand of national security patriotism. Frankly, if ever overinflated balloons of confected outrage needed to be burst. It is today. Hear, hear. So I burst two myths and I'll stake two truisms. Myth one a narrative that the conservatives try to push is that Labour prioritised a strategic relationship with Communist China. However, the government fully recognises that China poses a series A series of threats to UK national security, from cyber attacks, foreign interference and espionage targeting our democratic institutions.

The true fault lies with the previous government. The right hon. Member for Braintree, the then Foreign Secretary, said in April 2023 that summing up China in one word as a threat was, and I quote, impossible, impractical, and most importantly, unwise. The leader of the opposition, while serving in the Cabinet also said, and I quote, we certainly should not be describing China as a foe. And now that this trial has collapsed, they are accusing this government of interfering when it was their carefully worded government policy that did not define China as an enemy.

And there is nothing Ministers here can do to change that. I will give way. I thank you. I thank you for giving way and I would I would urge him to not misquote the two hon. Right hon. Members that he has just quoted. But even even if the quotes that he gave were whole and full and which they are not, the DPP has categorically said that it was not about policy, it was about whether China was an actual threat at the time.

Is that the fact? Is the DPP right, or does he have some other information? I don't have any. Thank you for his intervention. I don't have any other intervention, any other information on that point. But I do believe that members opposite ought to look in the mirror and acknowledge that it was decisions taken by the previous government. So I'll turn to myth. I'll turn to myth two.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On that point. I do think it's really important. I thank him for giving way. I do think it's really giving way. I do think it's really important to clarify why such tight definitions were important in the first place, and that's because this case was brought forward under a 1911 Act of Parliament, not a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

modern, up to date Act of Parliament. Is that not why we're in this situation? I thank my honourable friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend for giving way, and it is absolutely, deeply regrettable that the party deeply regrettable that the party opposite, when it was in government, didn't reform legislation sufficiently well. Myth two another myth that the conservatives will continue to spread is that the Labour government interfered with the delivering of evidence. The the delivering of evidence. The shadow Home Secretary has made the accusation that, I quote, the government chose to deliberately submit inadequate evidence that led submit inadequate evidence that led to two alleged spies getting off scot free.

This myth simply has no real substance, as the Prime real substance, as the Prime Minister has confirmed that no Labour ministers or special advisers were involved with the advisers were involved with the provision of evidence for the case for this case. I shall move on to what all members across this House what all members across this House know to be true. I believe. Truism number one, it is dangerous to undermine public confidence in the undermine public confidence in the government on matters of national security for party political advantage.

Hear, hear. Tourism number two is the most important one. It's perfectly possible to hold two thoughts in your mind at the same time. One is that China is clearly. One is that China is clearly a strategic rival to the UK in certain areas, and two is that they are a vital partner, whether on the weather, on the Security Council in tackling global challenges and of course, for trade and investment. I will conclude, taking the advice of Madam Deputy Speaker by saying that the party opposite really do need to look in the mirror on this issue.

This government is acting with integrity.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marvellous, marvellous. Sir Geoffrey Cox. Thank you very much, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It's been a very interesting experience for us revisiting ancient times with the right hon. Gentleman who is leading right hon. Gentleman who is leading for the government on this debate. And while I agree with his sympathy And while I agree with his sympathy with his position, I can't, I'm afraid, sympathise with the rather bland and an account he's given of the events today. What is clear and it's an opossum, I think, often it's an opossum, I think, often imbibed with one's mother's milk.

But if it walks like a duck, quacks But if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, sounds like a duck. Looks like a duck. It's almost Looks like a duck. It's almost certainly a duck. And the problem in this case is that the government
17:45
Geoffrey Cox Portrait Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Cox KC MP (Torridge and Tavistock, Conservative)
-
-
in this case is that the government was never prepared to describe that animal as a duck, and it must have known from a very early period indeed, the first senior Treasury counsel said yesterday that even in August he had made this point abundantly, playing to the government that unless it reconsidered its approach and described the blasted animal as a duck, the case would go down the pan in August. Nothing to do with the Right Honourable gentleman says to me that there was nothing to prevent the government, through its expert witness, saying, in our view, China was a national security threat in 2021, nothing at all to prevent it.

This was a question. No, I won't do too short a time. There was nothing to prevent it because it was a question of fact. The fact is that the government was not prepared to change its approach. It still isn't. Now, it's a perfectly legitimate point for the right hon. Gentleman to say to me, back in 2021, the policy of the government was not to describe China as an enemy, but by that time we had not had the spying, the intimidation, the direct targeting on this institution the democratic assembly of our people that we had seen in 20.

We have seen now in by 2025, things have moved on. And it was incumbent upon the government now to reconsider the approach that it had, which was that it would not describe a duck as a duck. What the witness was prepared to say is it has webbed feet, it swims, it quacks, it has a Bill, but we're not prepared to call it a duck. Now, are you telling me, Madam Speaker, that the right honourable gentleman can look this House in the eye and say that nobody raised this problem inside? Number ten, we have a policy problem.

It's a roadblock to this case. What are we going to do about it? That was never discussed with the national security adviser. The defence never raised that with any relevant minister. The Attorney General, when he met on the 3rd of September, says, well, I couldn't intervene on matters of sufficiency of evidence. Perfectly true. He can't intervene, but he could challenge. He could say, what do you need? Is there anything I can do by way of intercession with ministries to ensure that you get the evidence that you require? But nothing was said.

Nothing was said on the 3rd of September because nothing was the policy of the government. It was to wait while this case slid down the slope

**** Possible New Speaker ****

straight into the pan, where no doubt many of the not. Even the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Aptly named mandarins of Whitehall were perfectly content to Whitehall were perfectly content to see it slide. And so the extraordinary cheek of the right extraordinary cheek of the right honourable gentleman who comes to this House pretending that last four years ago, five years ago, four years ago, five years ago, with his humble address, when he asked for legal advice, advice on the most sensitive negotiating the most sensitive negotiating matters that this country was engaged in, with, with the Berlaymont should be disclosed for all to see, that we should not now see the truth of what the in reality the government was saying and doing at the time.

Madam Deputy and doing at the time. Madam Deputy Speaker, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it's almost certainly a duck. And when I apply it to what the right hon. Gentleman has to say, right hon. Gentleman has to say, it's almost certainly a complete crock of old duck. Duck.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

crock of old duck. Duck. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah, right. Follow that. Paul Waugh. I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Follow that. Paul Waugh. I'm told you've got four minutes. Speaker. First I want to put on record my anger and frustration, which many in this House share at the collapse of this case, particularly the dropping of the spying charges against Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry and the resulting collapse of their trial, which had been due to go ahead this very month. And I welcome Mr. Speaker's guidance on looking at how to improve members security. We, as members have a personal responsibility too.

We shouldn't forget to protect ourselves, our fellow members and our staff from such foreign interference. And I have to say, that includes in our hiring practices and vetting of staff who can work in this building, which has not been often mentioned in this debate. But I want to mainly warn of the dangers of some
17:51
Paul Waugh Portrait Paul Waugh MP (Rochdale, Labour )
-
-
of the rhetoric that has been used to date in this case. Now, of course, it's the job of His Majesty's opposition to probe, to challenge and obviously to scrutinise the government. Yet what's happened in this case is something that goes way beyond that, something that goes way beyond that, something that risks harming us all. Just as spying on our Parliament harms us all. What I'm talking harms us all. What I'm talking about are the repeated, unsubstantiated and scurrilous suggestions that any minister or special adviser in this government interfered or intervened in the independent decision making of the independent decision making of the CPS.

In his article in The Times on October the 15th, the Shadow Home Secretary accused the government of deliberately choosing to collapse deliberately choosing to collapse the case and I quote, it is clear the government chose to deliberately submit inadequate deliberately submit inadequate evidence that led to two alleged spies getting off scot free. He went on, they must now also explain who was guiding Matt Collins in preparing his evidence. That is an preparing his evidence. That is an appalling accusation to make, with zero evidence and an insult to the professional integrity of the deputy national security adviser, and I hope he withdraws it.

But sadly, the shadow Home Secretary sadly, the shadow Home Secretary was not alone. The leader of the opposition told the BBC on October 13th this looks like a deliberate 13th this looks like a deliberate decision to collapse the case and curry favour with the regime in China. She went on I suspect that ministers have decided that closer economic ties with China were more important than due process and our national security. Just look at those words. Looks like suspect. Not a shred of evidence, only insinuation.

That's not the language of a Prime Minister in waiting. Yet, as the security minister has made clear, it was an entirely independent decision by the CPS to discontinue the case. And they have confirmed that it came under no outside pressure to do so. As for that Whitehall meeting on September the 1st referenced by the opposition today in this motion. Crucially, Mr. Collins said yesterday that had been quotes at least four lawyers in the room who ensured that there was no discussion about the evidence in this case.

When it comes to Ukraine, this House has maintained a proud cross-party consensus in helping President Zelensky stand up to Putin. Sadly, that consensus is not at times helped by reform. Who's Putin

**** Possible New Speaker ****

apologists are indeed Moscow's useful idiots of the 21st century. Shameful.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But we need to maintain a similar cross-party consensus in fighting against Chinese threats. fighting against Chinese threats. It's vitally important. I will give way. making.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A good case about cross-party consideration, about. The threats of what China is. I wanted to ask a very simple wanted to ask a very simple question, but I've asked in here before. Do you think China should be in a foreign influence registration scheme, as is Russia? Yes or no?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes or no? That's a matter for ministers to decide. I'm not privy to all the information that would require that determination, but it's vitally important for our own national security and for our own national interest, that we maintain a similar consensus as we have on Ukraine, on the threats, challenges Ukraine, on the threats, challenges and opportunities posed by China. We should all stand firm in this House on issues of national House on issues of national security, human rights, and on the threats China poses clearly to our economy, our industrial secrets, economy, our industrial secrets, our intellectual property, our democracy, and, yes, our cyberspace.

And we should also recognise it's And we should also recognise it's important the UK engages with China, where it is in our hard headed national interest and mutual national interest and mutual interest, to do so. From climate change to global health to trade, that's why the opposition in government had a policy of protect, align and engage those that would engage. How different really is that from our own compete, challenge and cooperate? I know this place can often thrive on political knockabout and try to seize on your opponent's perceived weakness.

But in accusing one's political opponents of somehow being enemies of the people and plotting non-existent cover ups,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the only beneficiaries are real enemies abroad. Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. I come to Iain Duncan Smith, after which Backbench members will have a speaking limit of four

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have a speaking limit of four minutes. So Iain Duncan Smith. It's a it's a. Particular pleasure that you

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Particular pleasure that you should be in your Chair for this debate because like me and the others, some of whom have been others, some of whom have been named, you are also sanctioned by a brutal Chinese government. So I brutal Chinese government. So I think it's excellent that you are here to invigilate this and to keep

**** Possible New Speaker ****

here to invigilate this and to keep us on track. And forgive me if I go over. Good try pre-emptive. And I'm not going to. I'm not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I'm not going to. I'm not going to take the blandishments of the honourable gentleman opposite who told us to look in the mirror. I stopped looking in the mirror a long, long time ago. In fact, in 1992, when I was elected, I was told by a journalist at the express told by a journalist at the express I could look in the mirror and see my career behind me. I feel like I've been walking backwards ever I've been walking backwards ever since.

Can I just say the whole principle that underlies all of this is the government's behaviour over this decision. I'll come to over this decision. I'll come to the decision in a second. We haven't got a lot of time, so I want to deal with how the government dealt with this decision government dealt with this decision and how they have publicly dealt with it, which is really rather peculiar. Throughout. It's been almost impossible to drag information out of the government about why the Nhsa took decisions
17:56
Iain Duncan Smith Portrait Rt Hon Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP (Chingford and Woodford Green, Conservative)
-
-
that he took. Where was the government in this? When meetings took place, denials came up and took place, denials came up and then slid across to acceptances that dates were, in fact, as they said, even the Sunday Times I understood was told or basically exclaimed by the Prime Minister that at some point that they were lying about their raising of the idea of there being a meeting on the 1st of September containing all the 1st of September containing all these various individual, including the NSA, a sort of Dutch ridiculous nonsense going on here dodge, duck, dive, dip, and dodge the five D's of dodgeball or in this case, the of dodgeball or in this case, the five D's of Dodge spying case.

And the real problem here is that the real problem here is that getting to the truth of this has been painful. And if it's painful for the government, they have only themselves to blame. Have they come out straight away at the beginning and been clear about all of this? Instead of hiding behind the NSA, Instead of hiding behind the NSA, they might have found it easier. I mean, I find this ridiculous position that the NSA stated yesterday that he was bound to reflect the position of the government, but the NSA is not bound to reflect the position of the government.

He was asked and the government. He was asked and therefore bound to respond to the DPP, who had asked him to tell them whether or not. In fact, he said that China was an active security threat. Now, what I don't understand here is how the then DNC, at the time and again, giving evidence yesterday, was able to say that China posed a range of threats, just like the Minister previously had said on different areas all across the board from sanctions right the way through to espionage.

So I don't understand what is the difference between posing a series of significant threats to our national security in different areas across the board? How is that different from being a threat to our national security? It is impossible to even conceive that we could define this so narrowly that we're unable to come out with a very simple statement. They pose a threat to our national security. Let me tell the House. From my standpoint, I have a threat. That threat is I was chased and followed by wolf warriors, low level intelligence operatives of China regularly impersonating me abroad lies about what I had said.

We've been spied on as as those who have been sanctioned. I know what a threat looks like. It looks like that it's not a duck, it's a threat. And there's no reason why any government self-respecting government couldn't have said that. And the NSA should have said that straight off. And for him to then go out and tell us that the police asked him to introduce what had been in the manifesto of the Labour Party in the last election, and then say that he did know nothing at all about that previously, but he had to put this in context.

He wasn't asked to put it in context. He was asked to state clearly is the position from what the NSA sees and the evidence that he has taken is China pose that threat, that active security threat. And it brings me in the time only to another particular point, which is really important, which is the nub of all of this, that 1st of September meeting is critical in all of this, because throughout we were assured by the Prime Minister, for example, at Prime Minister's Questions on 15th of October, quote, there was no further submission of evidence one way or the other.

After any discussion in September. And yet we know that now not to be the case. So why was he making such a fundamental statement at Prime Minister's Questions, trying to shut this down? Didn't anybody bother to tell him that this had gone on to a meeting and we were told at no stage, by the way, was the national security adviser or any other appointed individual at any meetings and had any contact with the NSA throughout the submission of evidence.

That is also utterly untrue. We know the NSA was at the meeting chaired by the National Security Advisor on the 1st of September. What did they discuss? Football scores? Or were they going to discuss what was right in front of them there and then the still unfinished business of whether or not the NSA was going to comply with the DPP's requirement for a very clear statement. And it's that bit of subterfuge and dipping and dodging throughout, which is really quite peculiar.

Madam Deputy Speaker, so when the Minister gets up, can we not have this ridiculous game of you did this? You said that. What I would just simply like him to do, because I have respect for him, is to get up. Recognising that China poses a national security threat. Let us deal with that threat, let us take clear action and not play games. When tautological inexactitudes of what actually happened, at what meeting. We know now that the NSA met with all those characters.

We don't know who they are, but they should now release this, the minutes of this meeting, if they won't do it here in Parliament to this assembly, then they can do it in camera to the to the National Security and Intelligence Committee quite happily as well. But they should do this to clear the record, and I recommend they do it. Otherwise people like myself and the previous Deputy Speaker and others that have suffered the attacks of this brutal regime, by the way, massacring people in China and committing genocide.

Surely now is the time to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

make our position clear. Yeah. Peter Swallow Deputy. Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Peter Swallow Deputy. Speaker. Respect for democracy is fundamental to our British values and who we are as a country. But and who we are as a country. But the world is increasingly an unstable place, and we can no longer be complacent to the multiple threats our democratic norms and values are facing. norms and values are facing. Threats are coming from China, as we have seen from this espionage case, but also from other malign case, but also from other malign states like Russia and Iran.

And it's the job of all of us in this it's the job of all of us in this House to stand up to those threats and work in the interests of national security. When I held a national security. When I held a round table with my local Hong Kong community earlier this year to discuss proposed changes to
18:02
Peter Swallow Portrait Peter Swallow MP (Bracknell, Labour)
-
-
discuss proposed changes to immigration, I was saddened, but unfortunately not surprised to hear that many members of that community chose not to attend a meeting with their local MP because they were worried about the long arm of the Chinese state and the repercussions of the Hong Kong national Security Law on them and their families. Transnational repression is being used by hostile states to directly prosecute those they see as their enemies overseas, but it also has a wider chilling effect, leaving whole communities feeling afraid to engage in their basic democratic rights.

Meanwhile, I grow increasingly concerned about the influence of foreign actors over misinformation and disinformation online. I've seen in my own community over recent months how anonymous posting in local social media groups can have a pervasive effect on community cohesion and our democracy, and social media companies need to step up and do more to direct this. I'm not suggesting that every anonymous social media post is from a Russian bot, but I think we all know that Russia and other states are using social media against us, and there have been direct attacks on our democracy to these Chinese spies.

And as we've also seen, reform UK's former leader in Wales, Nathan Gill, last month pleading guilty to eight counts of bribery in return for making statements in favour of Russia whilst a member of the European Parliament. Jack Abbott to turn specifically to this China spy case. I do just want to reflect that part of the reason this case did not proceed to trial, and these two gentlemen were not able to be prosecuted, was because of the prevarication over reforming the Official Secrets Act.

This act was brought in in 1911. It pre-dates the First World War. And to fix the holes in our national security laws, despite widespread unanimous recognition for at least eight years that it was completely out of date and not fit for purpose, the previous government failed to act and left our country ill defended.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'll give way. Thanks for giving way. And of course, the government, the previous government did bring in new legislation subsequently. new legislation subsequently. However, under the previous act, the 1911 act, if the government had been prepared to state that China been prepared to state that China is a threat, the case could have gone forward and would likely have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

gone forward and would likely have been won. So he can't blame. Exactly this. This case collapsed because under that act, collapsed because under that act, the government did not. Either government did not provide enough government did not provide enough evidence. The witness statements issued by the previous government are a matter for record, and they do not in any way state unequivocally that China is a threat. In fact, multiple other threat. In fact, multiple other members of the opposition have on multiple occasions said it would not be possible to describe China unilaterally as a threat.

That is a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

unilaterally as a threat. That is a matter of record. I will give way, yes. The 2023. So we're going back a couple of years here. Intelligence, couple of years here. Intelligence, security Committee of Parliament report on China one, that China's view of the ideal future would be antithetical to the UK's interests. antithetical to the UK's interests. In its conclusion, China detailed 11 times a threat, an acute threat or a grave threat. So why could the UK government today, based on the report more than two years ago, not you.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The the minister quite clearly set out the range of threats posed by China. Look, I am really clear by China. Look, I am really clear that China poses a threat. I do also think that we have to be mature enough in this chamber to mature enough in this chamber to recognise that the way that we deal with the second largest economy in the world does have to recognise, the world does have to recognise, yes, the threats they face, they pose to our democracy, to our national security, but also all of the ways in which we have to we have to work with them.

You know, I have to work with them. You know, I stood on a manifesto that committed to cooperate with China, where we to cooperate with China, where we have where we can to challenge them, where we must and compete with them, where we must and compete with them, where we need to. I genuinely think that that is a mature and a way of that that is a mature and a way of dealing with a state that do not, that does not share our values, that poses a great threat to our democracy and to the way that democracy and to the way that citizens and residents in this country operate with within a country operate with within a democracy, but also is the second largest economy in the world.

And largest economy in the world. And as the, the former director of of MI5 said on on the Today show on the BBC this morning, we do have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. We do have to have a mature acceptance of the risks that China poses, and that means also recognising that we can't just walk off the pitch and not deal with the second largest economy in the world. It is infantile and it's not.

It's not realistic to suggest that. But to return to this case, it is just fundamentally the truth that if the new act had been in place sooner, it is very possible that these men could have been prosecuted successfully under that act. So I have a really simple question for the opposition frontbench. They need to be clear on this point. Why do they wait so long to replace a vital piece of security legislation? Why did they wait so long to make sure that we have the appropriate tools to keep this country safe? I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

am happy to take interventions on this point. I just. Tony Blair was Prime

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just. Tony Blair was Prime Minister for a very long time. Did he amend it. As the member, as the member

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As the member, as the member sitting right next to him has already set out? The threat from China has evolved over time. Look, China has evolved over time. Look, I would have loved the previous Labour government to amend this act, Labour government to amend this act, but it is the party opposite who set out a consultation and then sat on the results of that for eight

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the results of that for eight years and did nothing. Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. In its inquiry

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker. In its inquiry on China July 2023, the Intelligence and Security Committee, which I was a member at the time, concluded that China was a threat and the committee took evidence not from junior security officials, but from the chief of Sis, MI6 director general, the security service and general, the security service and the director of GCHQ, the chief of defence intelligence. And and this is an important hand, all the is an important hand, all the deputy national security advisors at the time.

And just to say that is already public. They reported to is already public. They reported to the committee. That report is clear and unambiguous in calling out China as a national security threat China as a national security threat to UK interests. And it's also crystal clear, taking the report as a whole, that China's threat is both live and active. And I know the timetable is July 2023, and I know the alleged offences were took place apparently December 21st to, I think February 23rd.

I'm aware the Integrated Review of 21, the refresh was in March 23rd, but the fact is this inquiry started taking evidence from these senior officials from November, I think, 2017, to a similar time in 2019, and then the subsequent committee carried on its work. So senior national security officials were giving evidence to the ISC about China being a threat, a national security threat, well before the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

offences took place in this place. At that. Point, yes. An assertion of fact then, from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

An assertion of fact then, from his reporting committee. Well. If you've got the directors of all the intelligence agencies all the intelligence agencies suggesting that China is a threat, that I think doesn't get much better than that and dare I say it, better than that and dare I say it, whilst we have great Deputy National Security advisors, their line managers, their directors, line managers, their directors, their bosses were clearly stating that China was a threat, national security threat, that in fact, the security threat, that in fact, the word threat is I'm just going to, if I may, if you want to intervene, I'm happy to have another minute.

I'm happy to have another minute. In fact, the word threat is mentioned 284 times in that report mentioned 284 times in that report of 207 pages. The key word in this whole episode from the Deputy National Security Advisor, that is National Security Advisor, that is the Nrsa for intelligence, defence and security, not the two remaining Deputy National Security advisors, Deputy National Security advisors, unless the Minister wants to correct me is whether China was an active threat, as underscored by active threat, as underscored by testimony to the Joint National Security Strategy Committee yesterday.

Well, the evidence in yesterday. Well, the evidence in the report would suggest that China has been known to be an active threat for some time. And I've mentioned the various reviews. Indeed, in his own witness statement, the Dsna refers to China conducting, quote, large scale espionage operations, end quote. Again, this is not a historical reference or a past tense reference, but it's clearly referring to the here and now operations taking place today, clearly an active threat, not just a general or undetermined threat.

China being an active threat was also underscored by the Director general of security Services recent speech, in which he referred to China's cyber cyber espionage, clandestine technology transfer, interference in UK public life, harassment and intimidation of opponents. Once more. These threats are not just historical, they are current, active, happening in the UK right now. They have not stopped. They are increasing. They continue. Indeed, the director

**** Possible New Speaker ****

General's speech. I'm very happy to give way. Listen to him very carefully because it's an excellent speech because it's an excellent speech he's making. But I just wondered if he saw in the testimony yesterday where the intervention suddenly by where the intervention suddenly by Sir Chris Wormald, that he did not believe that Ken McCallum, chief of MI5, had described China as a MI5, had described China as a threat. He intervened across the DNA to make this point
18:12
Mark Pritchard Portrait Rt Hon Mark Pritchard MP (The Wrekin, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

fundamentally untrue, is it not? Well, I think my right honourable friend makes a very good point. I think the House will take point. I think the House will take its own view on who they think is the expert on national security. I think it will be Ken McCallum, in my view, a very long serving and distinguished member of the UK intelligence community. If the hon. Gentleman doesn't mind, I won't, because I won't get another minute, and I do want to make some progress and allow other colleagues to speak.

But thank you indeed, the director general speech was explicit. The security service is very clear eyed about the national security threat from China, even as ministers might be tempted, arguably, to recalibrate economic interests over the UK's national security interests. But I but I wonder whether there might be other factors at work here, too. Underlying vested interests and competing interests between different parts of government and even some conflicting personalities involved. We haven't got time to go into that today. Today's debate is rightly focussed on whether politics got in the way of national security.

The wider question might be is why was a political adviser on pointing to the role of national security adviser in the first place, as my right honourable friend said earlier, perhaps there is there is something to see here. So the current national security adviser for all his wide and vast experience, and I pay tribute to his important role in the Northern Ireland peace process, another peace brokering exercise he's done around the world. There's absolutely no doubt he's a long standing, again, distinguished civil servant.

But maybe the fact that they're an outsider rather than insider became the national security adviser might be an issue here as well. Some may see that as a strength, but maybe today's proceedings suggest it might now be a weakness in this particular case. That is a question mark, of course. So back to China. In the conclusions of recommendations, the Intelligence Security Committee's inquiry on China, it talks about proper oversight. And we need to need to ensure. Madam Deputy Speaker, an example for the investment security unit does need to have proper oversight by the IC, because if there was ever a place to have politics conflict with the economic interests of this country, it's likely to be in that unit.

And that is absolutely critical. So I conclude by saying, going through my 15 minute speech in 30s, when politics gets too close to professional, cool, calm, intelligent judgements, it will always be fraught with danger, as this country witnessed with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

nation. I call Gareth Snell.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I call Gareth Snell. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. And can I just say, the honourable gentleman for the honourable gentleman for Chingford and Woodford Green, who actually his speech, I thought, touched on a number of points about touched on a number of points about this. There used to be a time in this House when, when a member had been under attack, when a member been under attack, when a member had found themselves at the wrong end of something. It was a moment of unification for us, and we would come together to collectively find come together to collectively find a way forward.

And it is of great regret, I think, or it should be to all of us, that the events that all of us, that the events that happened to the Honourable Lady for Rutland and Stamford and the honourable gentleman for for Tonbridge, has actually led to a
18:15
Gareth Snell Portrait Gareth Snell MP (Stoke-on-Trent Central, Labour )
-
-
point where we are now throwing political rocks at one another about meetings that may or may not have happened from a period of time dating back over the last 6 or 7 years. And I don't know the honourable lady, but I know the honourable gentleman. He is a gentleman who I can of utmost standing and of principle, and I can't imagine the horrors that he's been through as part of this process and the in the disruption it has to his life. And I think when we're debating this, that's just something we should keep in the forefront of our minds.

I also, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think that we have had a very complex relationship with China for the last decade. I can't be the only one who is old enough to remember the pictures of the now president of China pulling pints in the plough with the former Prime Minister, who was subsequently the Foreign Secretary. When some of this information was happening. We have not had a consistent approach to it publicly. And I say publicly, because I think the evidence that we've heard from various individuals on the opposition benches this evening makes quite clear that there were elements of officials within the last government who were calling, who were naming the government the naming China as a threat.

They were using that terminology. Unfortunately, the political faces of that administration weren't. And I'm not going to get into the rights and wrongs of that. But it's quite clear there is an inconsistency about how the language been applied to China throughout this period of time, which, if I were more legally minded, may have led to the situation we have now. That means that the CPS is saying one thing and the Dnsa is saying something else. And we're getting interpretations from very illustrious former attorney generals who, by the way, I remember the debate from the November 2017 when we were arguing for a humble address, and it was many members who opposite were saying, well, it was terrible idea to publish government information.

You couldn't ever publish government information because it would undermine government information being published. And in the future we might ask for it. And you're saying no. And I think, you know, we are we are clearly at that point. Point today. The point I want to make, though, Madam Deputy Speaker, is. We we all invest a lot of time and energy into this job. We put a lot of energy and time into our staff, and we are at the mercy of the vetting services to make sure that the staff that work for us are looked into properly.

Now. Now, we don't know, for instance, whether there are other operatives from other hostile states active in staffing units across. We just don't I mean, we can pretend we do, but we honestly don't. So whilst this debate continues and we are, I'm hoping going to get from the Minister some answers to the questions about how we've gotten to this point. I would say the thing that I want to understand going forward is how are we going to make sure this doesn't happen again? How are we going to get to a point in this Parliament that we can be sure that every Member of Parliament, regardless of which political party they come from, what position they hold, what standing they have, their length of service are free from that level of political interference, that oversight, that spy.

How we can ensure that no further members are sanctioned, like the honourable gentleman is, and disruption that he has so eloquently talked to the House about on numerous occasions that has disrupted his life, because for us to do our job properly, we have to have confidence in the people that are around us. We have to have confidence in the advice that we receive from officials, and we have to be certain that the processes that are in place to keep us safe are doing the job that they're meant to do, because ultimately, all of us here come to do a job.

We come to do it well. We are only human at the end of the day. And as this debate continues, I think we ought to hold the forefront of our minds that that there have been mistakes made. I think we all agree on that. I don't think anyone has on heart. I can honestly say that everything that has happened to this point has gone perfectly, but how we learn from that, to prevent it happening again has got to be key. And that is where, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will draw my remarks to a conclusion.

remarks to a conclusion.
18:19
Chris Law Portrait Chris Law MP (Dundee Central, Scottish National Party)
-
-
Chris Law. Parliament for Stoke on Trent. And really, I think you're hitting the nail on the head. I was just thinking throughout this debate, you know, this is not just about the failure of this prosecution, but actually our approach to China has been like this, not just for this year or last year or this government. It's been going on for years and years. And it just the reason I raise your debate there is March 2021. And the sanctions took place, which is four and a half years ago.

And what's interesting about that was now the government of the day, nor the official opposition demanded sanctions. What happened was it was the speakers of the House and Commons and Lords that responded by banning the Chinese ambassador from entering. But it has been reported at the time that the government had attempted to overturn this. So I think the key point here is that what you've just said previously, the Member of Parliament for Stoke on Trent, is crystal clear. All of us need to work on the lines, and we need cast iron assurances that no matter where we are, where we have been in the past, going forward, the very clear about the real threat that China poses, it's history tells you that already six decades of military occupation in Tibet, if you go to the mass detention and re-education of forced sterilisation of the Uyghur population, we have witnessed democracy come under attack in Hong Kong time and again.

And the ever present threat against Taiwan. China runs a global influence operation to be acknowledged in this House. The United Front has penetrated every sector of the United Kingdom economy. We have been well warned and as I said earlier, it's been repeated many times in the 2023 Intelligence Security Committee that China is a threat, acute threat and grave threat. And in 2022, the head of MI5, Ken Macallan, described the Chinese threat might feel abstract, but it is real and it is pressing and we need to talk about it and we need to act, and that is what we fail to do.

Now, if one of the key hindrances to prosecution appears to be concern that have not been able to convince the jury that China is an enemy, how would the minister describe a state that conducts long term, large scale espionage operations, including recruiting those who work in Parliament and poses a serious national threat in these islands? Why has it taken a failure of this case for the government to definitively state China as a threat? Why has this position come as a response to an embarrassing political criticism? I am happy.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

To make an absolutely excellent and unanswerable. Case. But the trouble is that even the circumstances of this case, the circumstances of this case, the government, have not said that China is a threat. They keep saying it poses a range of serious threats, but they keep baulking at saying it is a threat. I'm sure the honourable gentleman has no hesitation in saying that China is a threat. He should challenge them to do likewise.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to do likewise. I thank the honourable member for his intervention. It's a real and serious threat. I'm not just and serious threat. I'm not just saying it as an individual here who has all-party group of Tibet, who is actually anxious. I'm being spied on too. I'm saying this to the party and cross-party colleagues across this House who feel the real and present threat feel the real and present threat not only to ourselves, but to our constituents. I appreciate you saying that. Can I also ask, why is saying that.

Can I also ask, why is this position come as a response to an embarrassing political crisis, rather than as a principled position and proactive strategy? So position and proactive strategy? So many of us have been calling for so many years. Why is it that iPAC executive director looked at executive director looked at pilfered, put it, that the Chinese Communist Party's progress towards a great rejuvenation of the Chinese a great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation has met met formidable resistance not from governments but resistance not from governments but little old constituency MPs.

I think that's a really good question to consider. Madam Deputy Speaker, the government and opposition will squabble over who met who with, when and about who said what, when and who they can blame to squeeze as much political one upmanship from this case. But the Chinese Communist Party must be laughing at this House right now as we ping pong when the clarity is clear, we need national security taken very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

seriously, and we need to see China registration. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Right. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Public trust and confidence from international allies is wavering. And the on going threat to national And the on going threat to national security, our democratic institution and economic infrastructure remains. To conclude, infrastructure remains. To conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is time to end the inertia, caution and self-censorship from Whitehall and self-censorship from Whitehall and from government when it comes to China and acknowledge, address and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

China and acknowledge, address and face. Thank you. I call Tom Hayes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I call Tom Hayes. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to start by putting on record my anger at the collapse of
18:23
Tom Hayes Portrait Tom Hayes MP (Bournemouth East, Labour)
-
-
record my anger at the collapse of the case, because colleagues have talked around the particulars of the case. I'm actually going to use the short time that I have to to broaden the lens, as it were. I wanted to look again at the foundations of our security when the Conservative Party, when the opposition bring opposition day debates, I sit in them because I'm interested to hear the development of thinking of the party as it seeks to become a future government. And so I also, therefore, think about its record in government and where it's going.

I think there's going to be two points that I'll make here, which the opposition will disagree with, but I hope some members will agree with my third. The first is that any government, whichever party, has a duty to invest in the institutions and the infrastructure, the capabilities and the knowledge that enable our long term advantage and security. Now, you don't build those in five minutes, but you can build those in 14 years. And it's my view that in the 14 years that the conservatives were in power, they gave insufficient regard for building those things that could shore up our security.

The second point is that in the cases where they did build or bother to pursue infrastructure, they did, in fact open the door to Chinese firms. So while in truth the Chinese, the Conservative leadership, tend to know what they think about China now, they didn't know what to think about China when they were in office. And I think that's an important reality to stare at when it comes to Huawei and 5G. The conservatives were in and they were out when it came to nuclear.

The conservatives were in, then they were out. And we're still unpacking George Osborne's mistake on that front. Now, that does contrast sharply with the position of the honourable member for Chingford and Woodford Green. Woodford Green. I rediscover his 2020 Hudson Institute speech and I thought it was a very, very good insight into where things were then. And looking back at it, five years on, it's actually been able, with considerable foresight to see what has occurred. Now, I am very sorry and saddened that he has experienced what he has at the hands of the Chinese leadership, and other colleagues have experienced the same, but he is a minority in his party standing up on these issues.

I don't believe that the Conservative leadership have been as clear in their thinking and as forceful in their condemnations, and for his leadership now, to pretend that they were is inaccurate, and it does him a disservice. We should contrast it with the words of the leader of the opposition, who was Business Secretary pursuing business, said while she was in Cabinet, we certainly should not be describing China as a foe. We should contrast his position with that of one of the nine Conservative foreign secretaries, who said it would be impossible, in practical and most importantly, unwise, to sum up China in one word as a threat.

So the conservatives do need, as a leadership team, to stop throwing mud and come to terms with what happened on their watch. And we must also face reality in the face, which is we cannot shy away from engagement with China. I would I would bet that most of the opposition members have an iPhone in their pockets made in China. I would bet that they have other things in their home made in China. So we must engage, but we must do so. All of us in this Parliament, with our eyes wide open about the risks that that involves.

Some of us in this Parliament for many years have been prophesying about that for longer than others, but we must be aware of that. I will give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way on that point. I wasn't going to intervene, but he did make a statement about me he did make a statement about me justifying the position of the opposition as opposed to the government. I can assure him that government. I can assure him that had the the two sides been switched, I would have been carrying out exactly the same cross-examination as I have done today. No matter who as I have done today. No matter who is in government, I seem to have been in opposition and I will say so.

So I don't think that I'm doing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

so. So I don't think that I'm doing it for any betterment. I'm doing it because it's right. Yeah. I apologise if I've misrepresented what I was saying. misrepresented what I was saying. What I was saying is that he has, throughout his time on those benches, been forceful in his condemnation. Whoever would have condemnation. Whoever would have been in government, I believe he would have done that. But I don't believe that the Conservative leadership either now, on those leadership either now, on those benches or when they were in office did the same.

And that's the point I'm trying to make. The opposition I'm trying to make. The opposition called this debate today to throw mud, but I think it was an opportunity to think about the wider security context that we wider security context that we operate in. And I am intrigued, as the months go forward, to see what the Conservative Party posture will be as it contemplates the security and intelligence environment we're and intelligence environment we're in, whether they will shy away from engagement with China, a significant market and economic opportunity for us, or whether they opportunity for us, or whether they will seek to engage with it with our eyes wide open.

And I think the conservatives do need to accept that they did less than they could in office to create the foundations for our security and our economic growth. And in so doing, they made us more vulnerable. Until they accept this, until they apologise for this, it begs the question, why should any of us in this chamber and in our constituencies that we represent this never again to them? On the subject of keeping our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

country safe. Scott Arthur Luke Evans. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and. The road, the real. Threat to our security isn't necessarily what others do in the necessarily what others do in the shadows, but it's what one's own government hides from the light. And that's the essence of what And that's the essence of what we're trying to get to in the motion in front of us. To ask the government to publish the papers. government to publish the papers. And if I take a step back from this, to look at the public and the way in which they'll perceive this.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

in which they'll perceive this. This is. The biggest spy story and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The biggest spy story and incident in this country's history then. Get into the tit.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Get into the tit. For tat about what the PM did know or didn't know, and what the national security adviser doesn't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

national security adviser doesn't speak to. His deputy, does speak to his deputy. Who told the deputy. Security adviser that he needs

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Security adviser that he needs to toe the government line. We also see the Labour manifesto going into some of the witness statements, but
18:29
Luke Evans Portrait Dr Luke Evans MP (Hinckley and Bosworth, Conservative)
-
-
some of the witness statements, but I want to concentrate more on the bigger picture. And actually, as the member for Chingford and Woodford Green rightly pointed out, the behaviour here of the government. Yes, because the Prime Minister could have sorted this out and come to the House and spoken on this topic, laid it all out, put it all forward. The only thing we've closely had is actually a statement before PMQs. Of course US backbenchers can't ask those questions.

There is no way to deal with that. So further still, if the government is so angry, why isn't more action being taken? Why aren't people being fired? If that's the case? And why are we still having this debate several weeks? On if all the information is so crystal clear that this House could move on. And I'm worried this is actually a pattern of behaviour from the Prime Minister, because we saw this with the ambassador. He was the decision maker with the ambassador, and he did not come to this House.

He sent one of his ministers. Yet he is the one who makes those decisions and why it saddens me so much because I expect the retort from the other side would be, well, this is always.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thus is the Prime. Minister is being judged by his own standard that he set, that he own standard that he set, that he said he would do things different, and yet he isn't. He isn't coming to the House to explain this when to the House to explain this when he could have done. We know the information and the decisions will be with him. And when I push the minister last time about leadership that wasn't directed at him, I have a great deal of respect for him.

He a great deal of respect for him. He is following the leadership of the Prime Minister, who has not come to this House to explain what is going this House to explain what is going on, because if it is so clear cut, as the opposition have said, that. Would be an easy case to make in Would be an easy case to make in this House and this House would believe him. But we're not there.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

believe him. But we're not there. leads. To. A wider debate and wider concerns from the public that is there something going on, because it is a statement of fact that the I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend for giving way. Does he agree with me that the most obvious point is that that the most obvious point is that despite the government's disappointment, which we hear stressed by numerous ministers, including the Prime Minister including the Prime Minister himself at the collapse of the trial, it's the shock that the government appears not to have done government appears not to have done every single thing possible to have bolstered the case, to put the CPS in the best possible position to secure a prosecution.

The two just do not add up.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Absolutely. Not only have they not done anything with the case, but also why. Does still the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

debates that could be brought forward, legislation that needs to change, other measures that could be put in. Into the budget.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Into the budget. For example? Oh. I'm extremely. Grateful to my friend. It is true the government has repeatedly expressed disappointment, but in a expressed disappointment, but in a sense, still more disturbingly so am I find it is quite unusual for am I find it is quite unusual for MI5 to intervene by means of a speech by its head, which made very speech by its head, which made very clear that they were profoundly disappointed that this matter disappointed that this matter hadn't gone to court because it had it done so.

It would be the it done so. It would be the culmination of years of work they'd done in trying to deal with Chinese

**** Possible New Speaker ****

done in trying to deal with Chinese Westminster. He is absolutely spot on. It's because of this unprecedented fact because of this unprecedented fact that I would expect the Prime Minister to come forward and give those answers, not send the those answers, not send the minister in his place. But my worry is what the public I wouldn't, because I'm taking already. I've because I'm taking already. I've taken two interventions already. My my worry is here is what the public perceive, because it is a statement of fact that The Chancellor went to China, and since then we've had decisions made about Chagos, for example, British Steel and £1 billion.

What's going on there? A spy case now dropped the possibilities of a super embassy and even ID cards. Now my constituents come to me, see a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

running theme. Yes, I'll take them. Thank the honourable member for giving way. When I hear him speak, giving way. When I hear him speak, I do listen to what he's saying. I think he could be a very good replacement for the Shadow Minister on the front bench. The point I on the front bench. The point I want to make here, though, is what is his view on the relationship of is his view on the relationship of the UK to China? Ought we to engage and under what terms, or should we be economically decoupling? What is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

his view about the nature of the relationship? I'd like. The to to quote the earlier quote we had from earlier, to walk quote we had from earlier, to walk and chew gum at the same time. It's easy to call China a threat, but still engage. That's exactly what still engage. That's exactly what they do to us. They say we're embarrassed. We're upset. You were promised us something and we just promised us something and we just go, oh, I'm terribly sorry about that.

Actually. We can stand up for ourselves, say what? We think. ourselves, say what? We think. We're in a trade deficit with them. Don't forget that it's economically in their interest to be working in their interest to be working with us as much as it is for us to be working with them. But my worry be working with them. But my worry is that the public are joining dots now. The government will say there are no dots to be joined, but the are no dots to be joined, but the longer this goes on and these more incidents that come out, it becomes harder to make that argument.

Which harder to make that argument. Which brings us all full circle to where I started, because this is about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

transparency and releasing that documentation, because after all, I will keep on. I'm really grateful for him for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm really grateful for him for giving way and for bringing us back to where he started, because he started his intervention, started his intervention, suggesting that the government was was intervening unduly in this case. He then went on to suggest that the He then went on to suggest that the government didn't intervene unduly enough. So could he just really be enough. So could he just really be clear on this? Is his position and the position of the opposition that the government should have interfered in an independent prosecution or should not have? I think it's really unhelpful to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

think it's really unhelpful to be saying both things at the same time. I feel I'm being misquoted here,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I feel I'm being misquoted here, Madam Deputy Speaker, because what I've simply asked for is for this all to be resolved by the all to be resolved by the information being published. The government could come out and say it was a threat. I've also said it was a threat. I've also said that we can call it a threat and have economic work with the, the, the Chinese. That's what I hope point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

point. Yeah. I can't Katie Lam. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My honourable Madam Deputy Speaker. My honourable and Right honourable friends have set out well how the government's account of how this case collapsed simply does not add up. So in the interest of time, I will make just this one point. If, as I and many on this side of the House suspect to be the case, the Prime Minister's account of this situation is not factually correct, then he has allowed this case to collapse in order to win favour in Beijing.

This is a profound state of weakness. But even if the Prime Minister's account of this situation is true, then that means that he does not have control over his officials. Serious national security decisions are being made without his knowledge. That, too, is a profound state of weakness. It is a profound state of weakness. It is important to establish the facts I regret. I promise to speak so briefly. I cannot, but whatever briefly. I cannot, but whatever they may be, this is not how serious countries behave.

Regardless of our politics, we should all want our country to be respected by both our friends and our adversaries. Under this government, our friends see us as unreliable and our adversaries see us as a pushover. It's time for the us as a pushover. It's time for the government to tell the truth and undo some of the harm that it has done to this country's standing in the world.
18:37
18:37
Jim Allister Portrait Jim Allister KC MP (North Antrim, Traditional Unionist Voice)
-
-
this that in the spring of 2024, the evidential burden to bring a prosecution was met because the CPS levelled a charge that the two individuals charged were guilty under the 1911 act of having information capable of assisting an enemy. So the first point out of that is this it wasn't a deficiency in the 1911 act, which is the problem here, because it was capable of bringing the charge. The second point is this to bring the charge, the evidential test had to be met.

That is to say, there was a reasonable prospect of conviction and it was in the public interest. Those are the those are the tests for bringing a prosecution. So the unanswered question in all of this is what happened between the spring of 24 and September 25th, when suddenly the same evidential test was not met. What was it that changed that was met? Or the charges could never have been brought, but then suddenly it wasn't met and the charges were dropped.

It seems pretty clear from what has been said to a committee of this House that what changed was that the government backed off in its evidence as to what would establish whether or not China was an enemy, and indeed, they were assisted in the meantime by the Bulgarian case where the Court of Appeal refined enemy to that of posing threat or threats, and indeed said it was a matter of common sense as to whether or not something or someone was an enemy, and there is no greater jury question to decide something, whether or not it is common sense.

So the prosecution looked easier after the Court of Appeal decision, not harder. And yet the prosecution was dropped and that is yet to be explained to this House. And it seems to me it can only be explained by the government failing to come up to proof on the basis. And since they had come up to proof to bring the charge in the first place, they obviously retreated. And we can talk round us as much as we like. But that seems to me to be the immutable, the immovable reality of this situation.

And of course it does. There are issues here about the equivocation of government towards China, of course, but that's an equivocation which even is infecting devolution in Northern Ireland. We now have a co-sponsored conference coming up between the Chinese government and the Sinn Fein economy minister to talk about infrastructure and investment. I do say to this government, they need to take a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

long, hard look at how devolved institutions, particularly in Stormont, are playing footsie with the Chinese government. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. I called Shadow Minister Chris Philp. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In my opinion, China poses an active and current threat to the United Kingdom. That is all the government needed to say to the Crown Prosecution Service in order Crown Prosecution Service in order to secure this conviction. And yet they did not. As recently as 12 they did not. As recently as 12 days ago, the director general of MI5 said China poses a daily threat. MI5 said China poses a daily threat. He and the FBI, his FBI counterpart, said in July 2022 China was posing said in July 2022 China was posing a growing threat.

The former security minister, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling, Member for Tonbridge and Malling, said it from that despatch box in April 2024 and the Integrated April 2024 and the Integrated Review in July 2021, also said China poses the biggest state based threat to the UK's economic threat to the UK's economic security. It's pretty simple. I've said it, the government could have said it, the government could have said it, but they didn't. Madam Deputy Speaker, the government's commentary on this case has been commentary on this case has been evasive and sometimes misleading.

For example, the Prime Minister claimed in India on the 7th of October that what mattered in this case was the previous government's
18:43
Chris Philp Portrait Rt Hon Chris Philp MP (Croydon South, Conservative)
-
-
designation of China. He said it again from that despatch box on the 15th of October. He said the issue 15th of October. He said the issue was the position of the last government, and the current minister said it again. Opening minister said it again. Opening this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, that claim made by the Prime Minister and made again by the Minister and made again by the Minister earlier is categorically untrue. We know it's untrue because untrue. We know it's untrue because in page four of his letter, the Director of Public Prosecutions said it was untrue.

He said, and I said it was untrue. He said, and I quote, the test was therefore positively not what the then government was prepared to say in government was prepared to say in public, whether framed as policy or otherwise, but whether China was, as a matter of fact, an active threat to national security. He said it again in evidence yesterday. He said we were looking to the NSA to provide evidence of the actual threat and not what the government threat and not what the government policy was.

The DPP has said that categorically in writing in evidence yesterday, what the Prime evidence yesterday, what the Prime Minister said was misleading, and I asked this minister to retract it on the Prime Minister's behalf. Moreover, the minister himself, the Security Minister, said on the 15th Security Minister, said on the 15th of September that the collapse of this case came as a big surprise to the government and that they had only heard about it that morning. The decision was communicated this morning. He said, well, that, I'm afraid, wasn't true.

The decision was communicated at the latest on the 3rd of September, and it most certainly did not come as a surprise to the government that it wasn't the case, as he claimed that the government, he couldn't comment on why the case collapsed, as if he didn't know about it, because on no fewer than nine different occasions, according to the DPP, the CPS pleaded. They begged with the government to say those simple words that I said a couple of minutes ago that the government over two years refused to say.

June 2024, December 2024, February 2025. May 2025. July 2025. Twice on the third and the 10th. August 2025. The 3rd of September this year and on the 9th of September. Nine times, they begged the government to say those simple words and the government wouldn't say them. So why exactly was the Security minister acting all surprised on the 15th of September, claiming he didn't know what was going on when on nine separate occasions the CPS had pleaded with this government? Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, we come on to the meeting of the 1st of September, a meeting which the Home Secretary quoted in the Telegraph on October the 5th claimed didn't happen.

Well, we now know that it did happen, but we don't know is precisely what was discussed at that meeting. We haven't seen the minutes to it. We don't know the actions arising from it. We do know that it was chaired by Jonathan Powell, the national security adviser. We know many people were there. We know the deputy national security adviser, Matt Collins, was there. We also know that on the 14th of August, two and a half weeks before that meeting, he attended a conference which included the first Treasury Council, at which it became clear Mr.

Collins would not change his evidence and the case would therefore collapse. So Mr. Collins went into that meeting on September the 1st, most likely knowing the case was unlikely to proceed was that discussed was the possibility of providing more evidence discussed in that meeting? We don't know. And that is why the minutes need to be published. Now, we know for a fact that on the 3rd of September, the Director of Public Prosecutions informed the Cabinet Secretary and the DNC that the case was not going to be proceeding on the evidence as it stood.

The DPP also said, according to his letter at Page Six, he said it was agreed, and I quote, that the Cabinet Secretary might inform a limited group, including some ministers, including some ministers. So I ask the security minister, tell the House now which ministers were informed pursuant to that meeting on the 3rd of September, which ministers were informed, and did they take any action as a result, for example, deciding to provide better evidence which they could have done? It was reported in the Sunday Times recently that the Home Secretary got wind of this around this time, and decided to try and intervene.

I did ask the Security Minister this in an Urgent Question last week, and many colleagues behind me did as well. He didn't answer the question, so perhaps now he could. When did the Home Secretary become aware of the collapse of the trial? Did she try and intervene, and if so, how? Because it is quite clear. If the government had wanted to, they could have intervened between the 3rd of September, when the Cabinet Secretary was informed and when he was given permission to inform ministers, and the meeting on the 9th of September.

Six days later, when the CPS tried one last time, at least the ninth time, to get the evidence they needed, and once again it was not forthcoming. So did the government have any discussions in that period between the third and 9th of September about further evidence which they might have provided, and if they didn't, why not? A few simple words were all that were needed, words not about the previous government's policy, but words about the facts. As they stood on the ground.

I uttered those words just a few minutes ago. It was simple enough. And if this government had said what I said a few minutes ago, this case would have proceeded. Why did they choose not to do that? Mr. Madam Deputy Speaker, members of this Parliament have been spied on by a hostile state, a state which has stolen intellectual property on an industrial scale, both covertly and through acquisition, a state which plans to build a large embassy, probably for espionage purposes, amongst other things, a state which has opened secret police stations, a state which has put bounties on the heads of people living in the United Kingdom.

A state which has actively supported Russia in their war against Ukraine. And the government couldn't produce evidence that it was an active and current threat, even though it's quite clear, I think, to everyone in this chamber, it clearly was. So why didn't the government provide the evidence that they were asked to provide at least nine times? Is it because they're more interested in getting some sort of economic bailout from the Chinese to fix the mess they have created, than they are in our national security? That is the question they need to answer.

And if this House and the country are going to understand exactly what happened with this case, we need full transparency. We need full disclosure. The minutes of those meetings, the actions arising from them, the correspondence with the CPS, if they really want transparency, as the minister said earlier, all they've got to do is support this motion and put this material where it belongs in the public domain.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister Dan Jarvis. Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I begin by thanking the opposition for bringing forward. opposition for bringing forward. This opposition day debate and the right hon. Gentleman opposite for moving this motion and the Shadow moving this motion and the Shadow Home Secretary for his remarks. As I have repeatedly set out to the House, the government. Is extremely House, the government. Is extremely disappointed that this case will not be heard in court. And I share members concerns about the threats members concerns about the threats that we face from espionage.

But I'm just going to make a bit of I'm just going to make a bit of progress. Let me be clear about two things right from the start. First, we would not be here today had the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we would not be here today had the outdated Official Secrets Act of 1911 been replaced sooner. Second, it's the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Second, it's the. Responsibility of. The CPS. And the DPP to bring criminal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And the DPP to bring criminal prosecutions and compile evidence. The statements submitted to the The statements submitted to the Jxns confirm that, as does the evidence the Jcn s heard yesterday from the Cabinet Secretary and from the NSA. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, we have been consistently clear that no ministers and no special advisers interfered in the advisers interfered in the provision of evidence under this government. I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman for the Security Minister giving right.

Could he confirm to the House that the UK government, at ministerial level or diplomatic level, has not been threatened by the Chinese state about this trial, basically saying if this trial goes ahead, there will be consequences. Is the Minister aware of any discussions, any correspondence from China, either their embassy or directly from their ministers, to hours threatening this nation? Madam Deputy Speaker, I can say to the right hon. Gentleman who I hold in high regard, not least for the work that he did on the ISC, that no, I can give him those assurances that he seeks, and I can also assure him and the House how seriously this government takes the challenges that we face from countries right around the world.

Let me return to the NSA's evidence, because, as his written evidence makes clear from the moment, and this is an important point that the House will want to note from the moment the NSA's witness statement was submitted, he was a fully bound witness in criminal proceedings whose evidence was not yet heard or tested in court, so his witness evidence could not be and was not shared, and this was later confirmed by the CPS. Now, in this debate and in recent weeks, there have been a number of different and at times conflicting claims about this government's involvement in the case, and I want to address those claims directly today.

The word enemy was removed from the first witness statement at the NSA's request during the drafting process, because it did not reflect the government's policy at the time. The NSA made amendments to ensure his witness statement text reflected his assessment of the strongest elements of the evidential material provided by counter-terrorism police, by demonstrating that the information that was alleged to have been provided was prejudicial to the safety or the interests of the UK. When KTP approached the NSA to write a supplementary statement in November of 2024, he was specifically asked to comment on whether China is a state which, during the period the 31st of December, 2021 to the 3rd of February 2023, posed an active threat to the UK's national security, and to confirm whether that remains the position at the time of writing.

That is why paragraph six of the second statement references part of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

current government policy towards China. I will give way here. He's making a powerful point

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He's making a powerful point about the active threat. Could I just ask him, does the government perceive at this point in time

**** Possible New Speaker ****

perceive at this point in time China is an active threat? I mean. As he knows, and I think I may even have said this to him previously, and certainly to the House, that China presents a series of threats to the government. I'll of threats to the government. I'll say a little bit more about that, but if you'll forgive me, because time is short, I just want to focus
18:53
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
time is short, I just want to focus on the NSS and the evidence that he's given, because that's important for the House. So the NSS confirmed that the NSS yesterday that he used language from an answer to a parliamentary question. In his third statement, as the NSS provided the current government's position as context, as had been requested, the NSA's third statement was written in a way that ensured consistency with his first two statements. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the sake of clarity, I'll say it again.

The current National Security Advisor had no role in either the substance of the case or the. Evidence provided. Now, there has been misreporting, speculation and fabrication about the officials meeting that the National Security Advisor chaired on the 1st of September and the the right hon. Gentleman, the member for Chingford and Woodford Green mentioned it just a moment ago. I can tell him and the House that a meeting of senior officials took place on the 1st of September to discuss the UK's relationship with China.

The meeting was specifically set up to provide. Let me just finish the point and I'll come back to him if time allows. The meeting was specifically set up to provide the Fcdo with an opportunity to discuss at an appropriately senior official level. No ministers attended the meeting what the approach would be to handling engagement with China across a range of scenarios related to this case, as well as in relation to wider issues that would come up. Those that attended the meeting were operating on the basis that the trial would go ahead at the start of October.

I'm going to make a bit of progress because time is against me now. Meetings such as this are a routine part of the NSA's role.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Chris Ward Minister did say.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Chris Ward Minister did say. I'm going to make a bit of progress, Madam Deputy Speaker, because time is against me. because time is against me. Meetings such as this are a routine part of the national security advisers role. Co-ordinating

**** Possible New Speaker ****

advisers role. Co-ordinating departments across government. Minister on the question of who was present to give way on who? Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Why was the Attorney General's office represented in prison if the case had nothing to do? If the case had nothing to do? If the meeting had nothing to do with the case, why was the Attorney General's office present through its representative?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

its representative? Simply because a number of government departments were represented at this meeting, as represented at this meeting, as would normally be the case in the right honourable gentleman served in a government a number of years in a government a number of years ago. I can give him an assurance that this government works collaboratively across government with other government departments, and therefore it seems to make perfect sense that other government perfect sense that other government departments would be represented at such a meeting as this.

Now, I'm such a meeting as this. Now, I'm going to try and reflect some of the points that have been made in this debate, including the point from the shadow Home Secretary, from the shadow Home Secretary, specifically about the Home Secretary. I can tell him in the House that no minister, no minister in this government was involved in any aspect of the production of evidence. The Liberal Democrat spokesman offered his his service as a as a marriage guidance counsellor. I'd advise him not to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give up his job. Minister. Please continue.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Please continue. The honourable member for Rugby nailed the myths I thought very effectively in his contribution. The right hon. Member for Torridge The right hon. Member for Torridge and Tavistock described his duck. It felt as if his contributions It felt as if his contributions were as much aimed at the DPP and the CPS as the government, but it was engaging nonetheless. The member for Rochdale raised important points about some of the critiques that have been levelled, and I agree with him about his and I agree with him about his point with regard to trying to establish a cross-party consensus.

The right hon. Member for Chingford The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green spoke about the nature and the description of the threats that we face from China. threats that we face from China. Let me say to him that it is completely unacceptable that he and other members of this House are sanctioned, and I give him an absolute assurance. The seriousness with which this government takes those particular threats. Now, the those particular threats. Now, the hon. Member for Bracknell spoke about transnational repression.

He's raised it previously, and I He's raised it previously, and I can tell him that the Defending Democracy Task Force has concluded a review into this, and the a review into this, and the government has developed a range of support and security mechanisms. But most importantly, we condemn But most importantly, we condemn any malign activity towards anyone here in the UK. The right hon. Member for Wrekin spoke about the work of the Esrc, and he's right to do so. The government welcomes the work of the Esrc to look carefully at the circumstances of this case, as we do the important work of the Jxns.

The honourable member for Stoke on Trent, I thought, made a really important point that given the concerns that have been rightly expressed right across this House about what's happened, we should be trying to seek to work together and establish a consensus. And I thought he made that point very powerfully indeed. Madam Deputy Speaker, time is running very short. So let me say to the House that national security is the first duty of this government, and that is why we oppose the opposition's motion, which would not only see the release of information subject to legal professional privilege, but would also see the release of information vital to the security of the United Kingdom, including advice to the Prime Minister.

Successive governments, including the previous government in which he served as a minister, have maintained this position. Now, this is not a question about parliamentary scrutiny. We welcome the ongoing process with the Jxns, and we look forward to continuing to work with them as with the IC. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, this government will continue to develop a consistent and pragmatic approach to economic engagement, but without compromising our national security.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will give way to the right hon. I have a very simple question. If you won't give it to the House, If you won't give it to the House, will he give it to the Intelligence and Security Committee that sits in meeting?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

meeting? The government has given a very clear commitment that we will cooperate and work closely with all of the committees of this House. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is precisely because everything this precisely because everything this government does is rooted in the national interest that I say that this government is extremely this government is extremely disappointed that this case has collapsed. It's right that the matter is being investigated by the appropriate parliamentary appropriate parliamentary committees, and we look forward to cooperating with that work here.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

cooperating with that work here. The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion, say aye. I of the contrary, no. Know vision. Clear
19:00
None Portrait Division
-

The The question The question is, The question is, as The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion, say aye. I of the contrary. No, no. Tell us for the eyes Nick Timothy David Reed tellers for the noes Gregor Poynton

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And. So. So. On. And. And. So. Frank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order! the ayes to the right 174. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the ayes to the right 174. The noes to the left 327.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left 327. the ayes to the right were 174. The noes to the left were 327. So The noes to the left were 327. So the noes have it, the noes have it the noes have it, the noes have it unlock. Motion number two on Financial services and markets. Minister to move. The question is,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion, say aye, I. Of the contrary, no I think the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of the contrary, no I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Motion number three on adjournment Minister to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The question is as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion, say aye, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. Of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to motion number four relating to the Education Committee. Jessica Morden to move. The question is as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion. Say I. I of the country. No, I think

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I beg to move that this House do. Now adjourn. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do now adjourn. Liz Jarvis. Thank you, Madam Deputy. Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to highlight the issues faced by disabled. Veterans.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Veterans. At the last census, over 3000. People in Eastleigh reported that they had previously served in that they had previously served in the armed forces, of whom 1045 are classified as disabled. Madam Deputy Speaker, veterans have made Deputy Speaker, veterans have made huge sacrifices for our country. Yet too often they find that the Yet too often they find that the systems which are meant to support them are inconsistent or simply not fit for purpose. I have previously fit for purpose.

I have previously raised the case of my constituent, Mark Holton, M.B.E. in this chamber and written to the Minister about and written to the Minister about his case. Mark is a decorated Army veteran who served with distinction for over two decades in the British for over two decades in the British Army and was deployed in Afghanistan, Estonia and Latvia. In Afghanistan, Estonia and Latvia. In February this year, Mark suffered catastrophic injuries in an accident while working abroad. Mark accident while working abroad. Mark cannot walk, and yet he has been denied access to Pip and Employment and Support Allowance because he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and Support Allowance because he did not reside in the UK for 18 months out of the last three years. Anna McMorrin honourable member. Give way. I will give.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the member for giving way and it's great that she secured this debate today. As mentioned, this debate today. As mentioned, nearly half of UK veterans reported being disabled and it's a figure far higher than the UK population, far higher than the UK population, and many of our disabled veterans will receive the military compensation, as she has alluded to. To support the injury or illness To support the injury or illness caused during service, does the member agree with me that it's an absolute disgrace that military absolute disgrace that military compensation is included in means testing for certain benefits as she's outlined, leaving so many veterans and their families disadvantaged?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well. I thank my friend for her intervention and I will be coming
19:16
Liz Jarvis Portrait Liz Jarvis MP (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
intervention and I will be coming to this later in the debate. I'm just going to make some progress, if that's OK. Mark cannot walk, and yet he's been denied access to Pip and Employment and Support Allowance because he did not reside in the UK for 18 months out of the last three years. During his time abroad, he paid UK taxes and is now back in the UK permanently. Yet he has been blocked from accessing continuous care and financial support because of the residency residency criteria.

The emotional toll on Mark and his family has been enormous. They have been forced to sell their home of more than 20 years. In his words. I fought for this country, I've paid my taxes all my life and now, because I was abroad for 18 months, I am made to suffer. I feel deserted, unwanted, abandoned. It's devastating. Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm sure the Minister will agree with me that this is an appalling way to treat a veteran of the armed forces. Covenant states that members of the Armed Forces community should be treated with dignity and respect.

But in this case, as in so many others, that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

simply isn't happening. On that point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On that point. friend. I think. I thank my honourable friend for giving way. She makes an excellent point. The Armed Forces covenant point. The Armed Forces covenant all too often doesn't live up to what people expect. I've had a constituent who has struggled accessing housing suitable for his accessing housing suitable for his needs. He has two children. They can't stay over because he suffers with PTSD, wakes up in the night with PTSD, wakes up in the night having night terrors, and the children are subsequently not able to stay with him as a result of that.

Does she agree with me that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that. Does she agree with me that when it comes to housing in particular, we need to do so much more to support those who served? Well, I thank my honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I thank my honourable friend for his intervention and I do absolutely agree. I'm sure the Minister will want to champion disabled veterans. Does she agree with me that Mark deserves support now? Sadly. Mark is one of the many now? Sadly. Mark is one of the many veterans across this country who are facing systemic challenges. Veterans report feeling unprepared

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for civilian life after medical discharge as the system is unclear and inconsistent. Will she give way on that point?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will she give way on that point? friend. I thank her for giving way and for securing this important debate. I recently spoke with I recently spoke with Gloucestershire resident and British Army veteran Chris, confined to a wheelchair since the confined to a wheelchair since the jungle warfare training accident in 1998. He spoke of the obstacle of pride and how too many personnel declined to seek help until a point of crisis, if ever he would have benefited from a regimental or service advocate who could intervene early on or post discharge to motivate and support those affected before it's too late.

As the honourable member agree with me that such support could help bridge the feeling of abandonment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that injured veterans often feel after discharge. I do agree with my honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do agree with my honourable friend. Veterans report feeling unprepared for civilian life after medical discharge, as the system is medical discharge, as the system is unclear and inconsistent. Too often, it fails to provide a simple, supportive handover to civilian supportive handover to civilian health care, housing, employment advice and benefits. Charities and veterans groups are calling for an independent review of the medical discharge process across all services to make it consistent, compassionate and genuinely compassionate and genuinely supportive to ensure no disabled veteran falls through the cracks or is left without the best possible

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is left without the best possible support. I will. Be fighting. Gentlemen. Can I commend Honourable lady for Eastleigh for bringing this for Eastleigh for bringing this forward? And the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland really needs to be upgraded as well. But does the the Armed Forces covenant does the the Armed Forces covenant is only as good as the authority that implements it. Does the Honourable lady not agree that review must be carried out to review must be carried out to ensure that we are seeing improvement to how our veterans are helped, especially those who have been left with physical or mental been left with physical or mental trauma, and this must be reviewed in every constituent of this great

**** Possible New Speaker ****

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Every soldier needs to be looked after. OK.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I thank my honourable friend for his intervention. According to help for heroes, veterans with complex mental health conditions, including PTSD, often face long waits for mental health treatment. Although the Armed Forces Covenant promises priority treatment for service related conditions, the reality on the ground can fall short. In England, courage is a welcome single front door for veteran mental health, but there remains issues with consistency, capacity and specialist expertise. We need an improved up courage pathway with a common assessment tool, better signposting from GPS and acute trusts, and explicit requirement that practitioners delivering care have expertise in military mental health.

Access should be seamless across the UK, so support does not depend on a postcode lottery. The Royal British Legion has noted that the structural failure. I will give way to my hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friend Honourable friend for. Giving way. On. The Mental Health Bill Committee. We spoke repeatedly about veterans often experiencing mental ill health and often linked to trauma from their services, and they often end up in a system that doesn't recognise the type of trauma that they have and what they have been through. Honourable friend agree that Veterans Mental Health Oversight Officer, the Lib Dems, have been calling for a dedicated have been calling for a dedicated role to make sure veterans receive the understanding and tailored care they deserve.

Would be a very good idea.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

idea. My honourable friend makes an excellent point and I do agree with him. The Royal British Legion has him. The Royal British Legion has noted that the structural failure to automatically automatically transfer service medical records to transfer service medical records to the NHS for personnel leaving the service leavers must request their full clinical records from Defence Medical Services under the Ministry Medical Services under the Ministry of Defence, which can take several months. Delays in accessing these records often results in records often results in difficulties obtaining civilian healthcare services or wider financial and housing support.

I understand that the government has committed to digitising service medical records through programme cortisone, but I wonder if the cortisone, but I wonder if the Minister can provide a timetable for completion, as the delivery of this programme is essential to this programme is essential to ensure timely access to services and continuity of care. Clearly meeting the needs of the Armed Forces community, including those with disabilities, relies on knowing who and where they are and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

how they access services and support. I will give way. Thanks very much. Right honourable friend for giving way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

giving way. I want to highlight a technicality that affects veterans who served before 1987, prior to Crown. The Crown Proceedings Act 1987, veterans were unable to bring 1987, veterans were unable to bring compensation claims against the Ministry of Defence. The 1987 act Ministry of Defence. The 1987 act changed this, but it will not be applied retrospectively, so pre 1987 veterans remain excluded. Would my honourable friend agree with me that this needs to be with me that this needs to be looked at to ensure consistent compensation support for disabled veterans across the United Kingdom?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

veterans across the United Kingdom? I thank my honourable friend for her intervention, and I am sure the Minister will address this later. However, veterans who use government services often report having to repeat their veteran status or details of their time in status or details of their time in service to multiple agencies. The government must establish improved government must establish improved collection and sharing of data to help deliver tailored support to disabled veterans. Frequently disabled veterans. Frequently struggle with the Pip process, as these complex forms and assessments can be difficult to navigate, and made worse by the need to repeat traumatic information when health and benefit systems fail.

Financial hardship is the result. According to the Trussell Trust, veterans are twice as likely to run out of food than people who have never served in the armed forces, and a third of veterans with a physical disability or mental condition are regularly going without the essentials. I hope the government will tackle this in the budget next month, and ensure veterans never have to struggle to cover the essentials. We know that financial insecurity and poor living conditions can make health conditions worse, so there really needs to be greater urgency to ensure the benefit system supports the nation's heroes.

With the cost of living. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Very much and thank you very much for bringing this debate, but also your generosity in taking so also your generosity in taking so many interventions. I really appreciate it. In Clackmannanshire we have the Wee County Veterans and we have the Wee County Veterans and they provide incredible support and camaraderie for ex-servicemen and camaraderie for ex-servicemen and ex-service women. However, the Wee County veterans are incredibly dismayed at the withdrawal of the dismayed at the withdrawal of the Armed Services Advice Project from RBL.

It has been withdrawn and RBL. It has been withdrawn and replaced with. I have to say, a generic telephone service. I consider that to be a serious

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consider that to be a serious downgrade from RBL to the Honourable lady. I agree. I thank the honourable member for his intervention. I understand that he has raised this in the House before, and no doubt the Minister will address this issue in Minister will address this issue in due course. Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to the Royal British Legion and Help for heroes and SSAFa for their advocacy on behalf of disabled veterans. The Royal British Legion's Credit Their Service campaign has highlighted that military compensation awarded for pain and loss in service is too often treated as ordinary income in means tested benefits, including local provisions such as council

**** Possible New Speaker ****

local provisions such as council tax support, housing benefit and disabled facilities grants. I will give way. I thank my hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friend for giving way. John, who. Lives in Fife. Said he lost his hearing due to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Said he lost his hearing due to inadequate ear protection on the practice firing range. And for which he receives compensation. He's never claimed benefits, however, should he need to apply however, should he need to apply for benefits in the future, his compensation payments would disadvantage him. Contrary to the armed forces covenant. So does my honourable friend agree with me that military compensation for disability should not count towards means? Testing for benefits and veterans should not be penalised.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

veterans should not be penalised. I thank the honourable lady for her intervention. I absolutely her intervention. I absolutely agree. It's wrong in principle and damaging in practice. Military and civilian compensation should be treated the same. The government should amend legislation, legislation and guidance so that military compensation is fully disregarded in means tested disregarded in means tested benefits, bringing national consistency where there is currently a postcode lottery. As an currently a postcode lottery. As an example, the Means test for Disabled Facilities grant, which fund home adaptations can deter those on modest incomes, decisions that are inconsistent and the treatment of military compensation varies.

Ministers should work with local government to remove these barriers and to guarantee timely adaptations for disabled veterans. Rehabilitation is another area where the standard drops after discharge whilst serving. Severely wounded personnel can access world class multidisciplinary rehabilitation at the Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre, including cutting edge devices. However, once they leave service and the lifespan of these devices expires, replacing them becomes the responsibility of the NHS, which generally provides equipment of lower quality and utility. Help for heroes is calling for an NHS rehabilitation pathway for veterans that provides an equivalent, equivalent level of care and guarantees like for like replacement of essential aids and devices initially provided by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Defence Medical Services for the most. I will give way. Much obliged. I commend her for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Much obliged. I commend her for bringing this debate. As a representative from Northern Ireland, I'm very conscious that Ireland, I'm very conscious that many of our veterans suffered their disability in Northern Ireland, defending us against the terrorism of various organisations, and for of various organisations, and for that we owe a debt of gratitude. Their sacrifice is well marked at this time of the year, but flowing this time of the year, but flowing from that in Northern Ireland, there is the Victims Permanent Disablement Payment Scheme, Disablement Payment Scheme, administered from Northern Ireland but available to all veterans across the United Kingdom who suffered their disability in Northern Ireland.

And yet, sadly, despite the thousands who were despite the thousands who were injured, less than 1000 veterans from GB have applied to that fund. It provides a monthly payment. It provides a possibility of a ten year lump sum. And would I could I, year lump sum. And would I could I, through this debate, urge veterans in GB who suffered the injury in Northern Ireland to apply to that Northern Ireland to apply to that scheme before it closes for applications on the 31st of August next year.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable member for his intervention for the most seriously injured. The integrated seriously injured. The integrated personal commissioning for veterans can be transformative, but eligibility is too narrow. Excluding those injured before 2010 Excluding those injured before 2010 and those in residential care. The Royal British Legion is also pushing the government to increase investment in adult social care to meet the needs of the armed forces community. Can the minister confirm community. Can the minister confirm whether the government will ensure social care reforms reflect social care reforms reflect covenant commitments? Veterans are being let down across the board.

They need much better support to They need much better support to help with the cost of living crisis, which is why I support the establishment establishment of an Office of Veterans Affairs to Office of Veterans Affairs to launch an inquiry into the impact of the cost of living crisis on the armed Forces community. But more armed Forces community. But more also needs to be done for unpaid carers and more to fight stigma around mental health. As more than around mental health. As more than half of veterans say they have had a mental health problem and 60% say they find it hard to speak up about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they find it hard to speak up about way. I thank my honourable friend for giving way, congratulating her on such an important debate this evening. A veteran in my Redditch constituency lives with severe PTSD constituency lives with severe PTSD and finds everyday noise, banging, shouting, even children playing deeply debilitating. He would greatly benefit from a service dog, but his current accommodation is too small and without a secure garden. Does the honourable member agree that veterans and their families deserve access to housing that properly meets their physical and mental health needs, including space for vital assistance animals, and shouldn't be asked to settle for second best.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable member for his intervention and I for his intervention and I absolutely agree. More also needs to be done for unpaid carers and more to fight stigma around mental health, as more than half of health, as more than half of veterans say they've had a mental health problem and 60% say that they find it hard to speak up about they find it hard to speak up about mental health issues. We also need better recording of veterans physical and mental health outcomes, physical and mental health outcomes, including waiting times, so we can see where services are falling short and allow us to work in this House to address that.

Above all, military compensation for illness or injury should not count towards mean testing for benefits. Madam Deputy Speaker, my constituency of Eastleigh has a unique and proud connection with our armed forces connection with our armed forces through the Spitfire and the role our community played in securing victory in the Second World War. This Remembrance Day, I will also be paying tribute to the disabled veterans in my constituency who, like Mark Halton, served our like Mark Halton, served our country with honour but now feel country with honour but now feel left behind and let down here.

Our veterans deserve so much more. Better mental health support. Easier access to professional help. Regular mental health check ups at key life points, fair benefits that respect lived reality and consistent data so we can fix what is failing. I appreciate the time the Minister has given to this debate, and I hope she will take

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the points I have made on board. Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. I very much welcome this debate on disabled veterans are hugely, hugely important topic and I'm very grateful to the member for Eastleigh for securing it and for speaking so passionately about this subject, which I know is dear to so subject, which I know is dear to so many, and I'd like to thank her for her excellent speech and for everybody else for your thought everybody else for your thought provoking contributions today. As I believe the member rightly stated, almost a third of UK veterans have some disability.

So this is an issue that I know affects every constituency and every community right across the country. So I'll right across the country. So I'll always welcome scrutiny of how what we are doing to support disabled veterans and how we deliver the veterans and how we deliver the very best care and support for those who have served. As you know, this isn't just a professional imperative for me, it's also imperative for me, it's also personal. I did serve in the Army and I worked alongside many soldiers and officers who were soldiers and officers who were injured, who today carry physical and mental scars from their service.

and mental scars from their service. Many are able to carry those as part of their day to day life, but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

part of their day to day life, but many are really feeling the impact on their personal lives. I will give one. My office is. Supporting a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

veteran. With complex PTSD who has experienced a judicial process that simply does not adequately reflect the specific needs of some veterans. Does the Minister accept that veterans with conflict related PTSD can function absolutely well in many or most aspects of life, but may be especially affected or triggered in confrontational or adversarial settings, such as court adversarial settings, such as court proceedings. And will she endorse the adoption of trauma informed practice and proper training within the judiciary on the presentations of complex PTSD to help ensure fair of complex PTSD to help ensure fair treatment, and, crucially, so that veterans are not retraumatized by veterans are not retraumatized by the system? And if I could just add, I had very, very good conversations with Minister Carns on this before with Minister Carns on this before you.

Sorry, the Minister took the role.
19:33
Louise Sandher-Jones Portrait Louise Sandher-Jones MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (North East Derbyshire, Labour)
-
-
I thank the honourable member for her intervention. And she's absolutely right to draw attention to the importance of trauma informed response. If she is able to write to me with details of the case, I'll take a look. Thank you very much. So as I was speaking about those I served alongside and veterans across this country, they answered when our country called them. So it was now up to us to renew the contract with those who served. And I would just like to briefly address some of the points that some of the honourable members made.

In particular, the point raised by a couple of honourable members regarding the interplay of military benefits, compensations, allowances and pensions with the existing benefits scheme. As I'm sure the honourable members are aware, there is a complex range of benefits and how they interact with the benefits system can be complicated where there is a principle about duplication. And I think it is important to note where, for example, military compensation is received. For example, the independence payment. There is then a principle of duplication.

For example, in regards to the personal Independence payment, a lot of benefits do not directly. A lot of military compensation allowances do not necessarily directly affect your entitlement to benefits and also have different impact on your tax as well. On to the point raised by the member for is it Harrogate and Knaresborough? Who is? Sorry I skipped over that. The honourable member for Tewkesbury and gallant member for Tewkesbury, who has raised a point about veterans, not necessarily always reaching out to seek help.

I hope he is aware of the recently announced valour scheme, which will be a regional network of physical hubs, and the reason why I passionately believe in the strength of these being physical hubs is that they are a way for a veteran to go in with absolutely no obligation, have a cup of tea and be able to speak to those who understand and gain trust and gain comfort, and therefore find it easier to talk about what issues they may be facing and what support they will be needed.

And I hope we're able to announce more details on that soon, because I believe it will significantly help.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, of course. I thank the. Minister for. Giving way on the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Giving way on the. Point of the complex benefits ecosystem. I have a fantastic charity in my constituency called Scotland Slight loss, Scotland and sight Loss veterans. Sorry sight sight Loss veterans. Sorry sight Scotland's Sight Scotland and Sight Scotland veterans who do a fantastic job supporting benefit fantastic job supporting benefit veterans as they apply for welfare. Will you join me in congratulating charities right across the country

**** Possible New Speaker ****

charities right across the country who are doing this every single day to support our veterans? I thank. The honourable member

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank. The honourable member for his intervention. We are very fortunate to have a wonderful charity sector of charities, both large and small, some with quite broad remits and some as he mentions, with very focussed. And I'm always blown away by the dedication of people to support our veterans and absolutely applaud the very valuable work that they are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

very valuable work that they are doing. Yeah. I'm very grateful to the Minister for giving way, and I Minister for giving way, and I thank my honourable friend, for for bringing this debate to the House tonight. On the point of the charitable sector where the state falls down so often, the charitable sector and amazing volunteers are there to pick up the pieces. And I there to pick up the pieces. And I wonder if the Minister would join me in paying tribute to some incredible local charities in my Surrey Heath constituency, which, as she knows, is deeply connected to the military through through the Sandhurst, Pirbright and formerly Deepcut Barracks as well.

I think in particular about the recently reconstituted branch of the Camberley RBL, but also the Surrey Heath Veterans Hub and incredible volunteers like Roy Sellstrom, who have over years given time and effort to to rehabilitating and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

supporting our very well respected veteran community. Thank you. I thank the honourable member

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable member for his intervention. As he knows, I have previously spent some time in his constituency whilst at in his constituency whilst at Sandhurst and it is an area with very deep connections to the armed forces. So I join him in applauding those and the charities that he mentions for sure. The honourable mentions for sure. The honourable member for Strangford and I believe the honourable member for Harrogate, also spoke about the challenges of also spoke about the challenges of making sure that the covenant is applied fairly and across the applied fairly and across the country.

As I'm sure he's aware, we are bringing extending the Armed Forces covenant into law, and part

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Forces covenant into law, and part of that is ensuring that we don't have this postcode lottery. So that. Able to set clear expectations about how this affects a range of policy areas, particularly that delivered by local government, but also expanded across housing, for example. I think the honourable member.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

member. Just the honourable the thank the Minister for all her answers, Minister, in relation to charities. Minister, in relation to charities. And I know the new but I wish you well in the new position you're taking over. The Minister will be well aware of Beyond the well aware of Beyond the Battlefield, the charity and my constituent portavogie that looks after all of Northern Ireland in relation to those soldiers who fall between the cracks. Could I extend an invitation to the minister? Lovely to see her in Portavogie, in Strangford.

And I know that the people who are there will be encouraged by her visit, if that's possible. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable member for his intervention, and I certainly hope to visit Northern

**** Possible New Speaker ****

certainly hope to visit Northern Ireland soon. And I'm very grateful to receive his invitation, of course. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and can I congratulate the noble Lady on her appointment to the ministerial role? It is encouraging ministerial role? It is encouraging to hear to to to hear again that the government intends to legislate for a statutory footing for the for a statutory footing for the covenant. But. But she will know that enforcement of that is is as important as the statute in which it is derived. Across the country, there are some organisations who there are some organisations who put the covenant on a voluntary basis at the core of what they do, and it's a tenement tenant of the principles of which they make decisions in other places.

It's a certificate that lots of people are signed for show. Can she say how signed for show. Can she say how the government is going to make sure that the new law is enforced properly, so that the postcode lottery that none of us want to see

**** Possible New Speaker ****

lottery that none of us want to see actually is eradicated from those public services. I thank the honourable member for his intervention, and he raises for his intervention, and he raises a very important point about how we make sure that the armed Forces covenant, when it is put into law, covenant, when it is put into law, is delivered so that it is consistent and that those working across our country are held to across our country are held to account in their delivery of it.

And I hope to update them with more details soon. And just quickly, further on the covenant, just to say to the honourable member for Redditch to thank him for raising that particular point. If you would write to me about that case, I would appreciate it. Thank you. And then just lastly, just to thank the honourable member for North Antrim for raising, raising the Disablement Scheme and for raising awareness of it. And I thank you to. Mark Holton served his country with honour and courage.

So I was very shocked to hear about the horrific extent of the injuries that he sustained in an e-scooter crash. As the member will know, all benefits, including the Personal Independence Payment, do have certain conditions attached, including some are indeed means tested or based on the number of contributions paid in relevant tax years, and there may well be a past present test applied. The administration of these particular benefits is, of course, a matter for the Department for Work and Pensions. However, the honourable member wishes to write to me.

I will make sure that the details of the case is shared with my colleagues, my honourable colleagues, anyone who has followed defence policy over the past 16 months will know how hard this government is working to renew the contract of this nation with those who serve, and we are delivering the largest sustained increases in defence spending since the Cold War, as well as the biggest pay increases in over two decades. We are transforming military housing and making sure that we overhaul recruitment.

We Minister. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank the gallant minister. It's the. Point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Point. Of homelessness. In particular, we know that our disabled veterans are somewhat overrepresented at are somewhat overrepresented at times in that particular area, and Doncaster Council has taken a bit of a lead in terms of actually

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of a lead in terms of actually making armed forces a locally. Representative group. It means that they consider them more in their housing strategies more in their housing strategies and their plans. Does she think that's a good idea to roll out councils?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable member for his intervention and really applaud the work being taken in Doncaster to take into account the Doncaster to take into account the needs of veterans, and I certainly hope, as the Armed Forces Covenant is put into law, that that is is put into law, that that is exactly the sort of thing we will see rolled out across the country. Although the data that shows almost a third of veterans are disabled, we must always remember that behind that statistic is a person who that statistic is a person who trained, deployed and served.

Every one of those veterans will have a unique story and face very unique and different challenges. So to provide an effective support network, we must of course make network, we must of course make sure that the service is tailored and flexible and responds to each

**** Possible New Speaker ****

individual needs. The right honourable and gallant Minister and I congratulate her on her position. I have combat stress that's based in my constituency, and I recently met them, and I was made aware that PTSD can come on sort of five, ten, 15 years after deployment, which I was unaware of. And at the moment, there's no obligation for GPS to be aware of the fact that individuals are veterans. So when someone presents as a GP, they might not know this.

And I wondered what the minister's thoughts were about mandatory registering of veterans in GPS so that actually they might be aware that they've served previously and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

can provide adequate support. I thank the honourable member for her intervention, and she for her intervention, and she raised a very important point. And I know, like any veteran of the war in Afghanistan, it is interesting how the experience changes as as we move, as we move away from it personally. So just to keep moving personally. So just to keep moving swiftly, there are many pathways to support. Obviously, GP surgeries support. Obviously, GP surgeries often work as a first point of contact, and I would urge every veteran to make sure that they do flag that they are a veteran with their GPS, that it is added to their medical record and will help their medical record and will help primary care services understand their needs.

And I know that many GP surgeries and NHS trusts have gone further and made sure they gone further and made sure they have specifically developed veteran friendly GP practices and veteran aware NHS trusts. There are other schemes providing support, of course. We have Opera Store, which is the veterans physical health and is the veterans physical health and wellbeing service, which supports veterans if they have a physical health problem of any type or severity that resulted from their severity that resulted from their service. If they are based in England, no matter when the problem first appeared or when they left, first appeared or when they left, the armed forces and a GP can refer veterans to opera Store.

We also veterans to opera Store. We also have the Veterans Welfare Service, which delivers 1 to 1 support through a network of welfare managers across the UK and Republic of Ireland, and they do a fantastic job and I really do commend the hard work that they do. And then we also have, of course, the integrated personal commissioning, which I believe has already been raised. As we know, for many veterans to be able to live independently in a safe and suitable environment is obviously of paramount importance and has been raised by honourable members here.

And local authorities do have a statutory duty to provide adaptations for people who satisfy the needs assessment. Eligibility criteria means test, and indeed, this government has boosted funding for the Disabled Facilities grant by £86 million annually.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Order. The House stands
19:51
None Portrait Speaker's Statement Mr Speaker
-

19:51
19:51
None Portrait Speaker's Statement Mr Speaker
-

19:51
19:51
None Portrait Speaker's Statement Mr Speaker
-

19:51
19:51
20:14
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page