Live Debate: Commons Chamber

Q9. What advice she has given the Government on the potential impact of removing jury trials in certain circumstances on the rule of law. (901404)

Robbie Moore benign, Mr.

11:56

Andy Slaughter KC MP, The Solicitor-General (Hammersmith and Chiswick, Labour)

- -

This is a general. system on the brink. The record backlogs mean victims are facing devastating delays for justice. This government continues to invest in our courts, but vital reforms are needed to. The Prime Minister and Justice Secretary have rightly listened to the strength of feeling from victims and this House, and they have decided not to establish the Crown Court Bench Division. But we will now act more quickly and implement the rest of our vital reforms sooner, delivering swifter justice for victims who the party opposite appear to have forgotten about entirely.

11:57

Robbie Moore MP (Keighley and Ilkley, Conservative)

- -

Mr. speaker. following widespread concern in this House, rightly retaining a trial by jury. However, the government still intends to allow judge only courts for complex cases, yet doesn't define what complex means. This risks mission creep and has attracted significant sun from organisations including the Criminal Bar Association. Why does the Attorney General believe that acceptable?

11:57

Andy Slaughter KC MP, The Solicitor-General (Hammersmith and Chiswick, Labour)

- -

Yes. >> Mr. Gentlemen. >> It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the party opposite oppose everything that is in the recommendations that Lord Leveson came forward with. They created. They are the party who created the Crown Court backlog, and yet they oppose every single measure which we devised to deal with it. When are they going to come up with proposals of their own? Why do they continue to oppose for opposition's sake?

11:58

Jerome Mayhew MP (Broadland and Fakenham, Conservative)

- -

Jerome Mayhew shall Attorney General. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yeah, yeah, yeah. >> Can the Attorney General explain to the House how why, having spent many months arguing for the abolition of most jury trials, she now thinks that they are indispensable. And does she accept that whilst juries are indispensable, an attorney general forced to perform such a spectacular U-turn may not be.

11:58

Andy Slaughter KC MP, The Solicitor-General (Hammersmith and Chiswick, Labour)

- -

Well again. Mr. speaker, this will be complete news to the opposition, but we do occasionally opposition, but we do occasionally listen. Listen to what this House has said and listen to what the professions have said, and we are going forward with proposals that will tackle the backlog. They never want to talk about the backlog because they cause the backlog. What we're looking for is solutions to that, and they're welcome to put forward their suggestions. forward their suggestions.

11:58

Q10. What steps she is taking to help increase prosecution rates for domestic abuse. (901405)

Will Forster Mr. Speaker.

11:59

Rt Hon Ellie Reeves KC MP, The Attorney-General (Lewisham West and East Dulwich, Labour)

- -

impact on victims and their families, and those who are brave enough to come forward deserve to enough to come forward deserve to have their cases resolved quickly. Last month, I announced the national rollout of enhanced national rollout of enhanced services for survivors of domestic abuse. This service will mean victims of domestic abuse will be victims of domestic abuse will be provided with a dedicated victim liaison officer, providing better support from charge to trial.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support from charge to trial. Well, Paul Foster speaker, last month, Woking your. Sanctuary and women's refuge in my constituency hosted a. Conference to tackle domestic abuse. One of the key issues that they One of the key issues that they want to see done is tackle the 2020 harm review that has not been implemented. What steps is the implemented. What steps is the Attorney General to taking to correct that wrong?

11:59

Mr Will Forster MP (Woking, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Hey.

11:59

Rt Hon Ellie Reeves KC MP, The Attorney-General (Lewisham West and East Dulwich, Labour)

- -

Well, I've taken many steps to tackle domestic abuse for. From rolling out the enhanced service offered to victims of domestic abuse to piloting meetings with the prosecution team pre-trial for victims of domestic abuse. This is a government that is committed to halving violence against women and girls in a decade, and we're getting on with the job.

12:00

Mr Speaker

Prime Minister. Before we come >> Prime Minister. Before we come to Prime Minister's Questions, colleagues will know that tomorrow marks the fifth anniversary of the death of Sir David Amess, a dear friend to me and all, and to so

12:00

Speaker's statement Mr Speaker

many across this house. He served in this house for 38 years and including proudly representing his South West constituency, where he was tragically killed carrying out his democratic duties. The deaths of both Sir David and former colleague Jo Cox, along with the threats that those in political life continue to receive, drive me every day to do whatever I can as speaker to improve the security and safety of members, their families and staff. This includes the important work being done by the speaker's conference on the Security of candidates, MPs and elections.

It's incumbent on us all to help prevent the continuing climate of attacks on those in public life. No members should fear carrying out their democratic duties. Sir David will always be remembered, and our thoughts are with his family and friends on this

12:01

Prime Minister's Question Time

day. We now come to Prime Minister's Questions. Jerome Mayhew.

12:01

Rt Hon Andy Burnham, The Prime Minister (Makerfield, Labour )

- -

Number one. Mr. Speaker. Prime Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. speaker, could I add my tribute to Sir David on the fifth tribute to Sir David on the fifth anniversary of his death? David was someone of whom I was very fond and someone of whom I was very fond and worked with very closely on the Health Select Committee. When I arrived in this House in 2001. We send our deepest condolences to David's family. There is more work to be done on the security of members of this House, and we will do it.

Mr. speaker, I look forward to welcoming President Zelensky to Downing Street later this afternoon. Our support for Ukraine is unwavering, and I have asked for further military and financial support to be drawn up, ready for the coming weeks. Later today, I will also meet Archie Goodburn, an incredible athlete and inspiring campaigner for brain cancer research. And finally, Mr. Speaker, can I also pay tribute to councillor Pat Karney, who served North Manchester for almost 50 years as a councillor in such a dedicated way, he saw the city through some of its greatest challenges.

He has fittingly been called Mr. Manchester on the front page of the Manchester Evening News today. Thank you, Pat, for your contribution to Manchester and to politics in our country. This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House. I shall have further such meetings later today.

12:03

Jerome Mayhew MP (Broadland and Fakenham, Conservative)

- -

Jerome Mayhew. >> Jerome Mayhew. >> Yeah, yeah, yeah. >> Mr. speaker, the Prime Minister sees himself as a man of candour. So will he tell the House. Did anyone associated with the running of Manchester City Football Club raised the charges they were facing and have now been found guilty of, either with him or with any member of his team.

12:03

Rt Hon Andy Burnham, The Prime Minister (Makerfield, Labour )

- -

The Prime Minister. >> The Prime Minister. >> They did not raise those issues with me. I'm very happy, Mr. Speaker, for everything to be set out in full. It is why I asked the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, in response to a call from the Leader of the Opposition and others to set out a full statement of my dealings with the owners of Manchester City Football Club. That statement was published on Monday and it includes the issues in the news today and that is the position.

12:04

Jack Abbott MP (Ipswich, Labour )

- -

Jack Abbott Mr. Speaker, I'm sure we are all incredibly moved by the Prime Minister's tribute to his late father, a Labour Party conference, and can I pass on my condolences to him and his family? During the Prime Minister's speech, I also thought about my own grandparents, two former teachers with decades of public service. But when they needed looking after, they had to go through their savings and their pension just to receive the care my granny needed. I'm sure that's a story that resonates with thousands of people in Ipswich and across the country, and that is because we have a care system that puts profit before people leaving behind not only the people who depend on this service, but the incredible people who work within it as well.

So can I, as a Labour and Co-operative MP, ask our country's first Labour and co-operative Prime Minister, whether he'll consider a cooperative approach to social care so we can finally put people before profit?

12:05

Rt Hon Andy Burnham, The Prime Minister (Makerfield, Labour )

- -

Minister Mr. Speaker, can I thank him for his kind words? And thank him for his kind words? And can I pass on my sympathies in relation to his grandparents? Any family in this country who has lived through the the journey through dementia and experiencing the social care system will know that we should not accept the status quo and the failure of this House to fix social care through the decades. Bodes does not reflect well on any party in this House.

We will fix it. We will create a National care service. And in laying out that path to the National Care Service, I can give him my word. As the Labour and Co-operative MP for Makerfield, that co-operative principles will be at the heart of the new National Care Service.

12:05

Rt Hon Kemi Badenoch MP (North West Essex, Conservative)

- -

We come to the Leader of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Opposition. Kemi Badenoch. Mr. Speaker, can I thank you and. The Prime Minister for your

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Prime Minister for your words about Sir David Amos. We miss him dearly. On this side of the House, as do his family. He was a fellow Essex MP and a very good friend to me and so many across friend to me and so many across this house, and I know he is still very much loved by his constituents very much loved by his constituents in Southend. Mr. speaker, the Prime Minister has had a busy few weeks tying himself in knots, explaining why national security shouldn't come at the expense of Social Security.

Bumbling into a row still ongoing about Manchester City, and I don't think his carefully worded answer to my hon. Friend is going to suffice. Doesn't sound like that one's going away, and he spent the last 48 hours trying to unsay that Russia influenced the 2016 referendum. When we all heard him say it, does he ever get tired of putting his foot in his mouth?

12:07

Rt Hon Andy Burnham, The Prime Minister (Makerfield, Labour )

- -

Clive Lewis. Mr. Mr. speaker, I am glad that she's raised my am glad that she's raised my comments because it gives me an opportunity to to say to the whole House how I intend to lead this country. We have lived through a decade of division, and we know that hostile actors have been seeking to interfere in our democratic process. That is a matter of fact. We need to call that out and look straight at it in a way that the party opposite didn't do.

I, I have a quote here from the right hon. Lady when she stood at this despatch box, when she was responsible for steering through the elections bill, and she said this right here, I have not read the Russia report. It's because they didn't want to see it. They wanted to look in the other direction. I won't do that, Mr. Speaker. I will draw a line. I will defend our democracy, and I will lead this country forward with positivity, unity and hope in the next decade.

12:08

Rt Hon Kemi Badenoch MP (North West Essex, Conservative)

- -

OK. They're not. Speaker, but you can't fight misinformation with misinformation. This is the first time I have ever heard the head of MI5 slapped down a Prime Minister for doing Russia's dirty work for them. Either the Prime Minister knew what he was doing on that podcast, trying to undermine the 2016 referendum, or he opened his mouth on a matter of national security and said the first thing that came into his head. So does the Prime Minister agree with the director general of MI5 that talking up Russian interference was a mistake?

12:08

Rt Hon Andy Burnham, The Prime Minister (Makerfield, Labour )

- -

Yes, Prime Minister. >> Yes, Prime Minister. >> Well, I could ask her whether she whether she's even read whether she's even read the Russia report yet. But I also wonder whether she's read the full comments from Sir Ken McKellen, whether she heard the comments from the former head of MI6, because if she had, she wouldn't have made the statements that she just made in this in this House. I think it's important, Mr. Speaker, that we are clear eyed about what happened in the past.

There is incontrovertible evidence that outside actors, enemies to this country have interfered in our democratic processes, and it is inconceivable that that was not taking place across the whole of the last decade.

12:09

Rt Hon Kemi Badenoch MP (North West Essex, Conservative)

- -

Still digging in. It's not me MI5 was talking about, Mr. Speaker, MI5 was talking about, Mr. Speaker, the fact is this Prime Minister will say anything instead of dealing with the tough decisions that only he can take, like on Britain's energy security. In July, he said he would approve the Rosebank and jackdaw oil and gas fields in the North Sea. What's he waiting for? If he'd approved them back then, we would have British Gas warming British homes this winter.

So will he now. It's true, it's true. All of the gas. All of the gas from jackdaw. Mr. speaker goes on to the British grid. So will he now stop faffing about and approve Rosebank and Jackdaw.

12:10

Rt Hon Andy Burnham, The Prime Minister (Makerfield, Labour )

- -

She asks me, Mr. Speaker, what I'm waiting for. I've had to wait for the government process, which was struck down by the courts under the conservative government to be fixed because they messed it up and we inherited that situation. So I will take a pragmatic approach on oil and gas, Mr. Speaker. We will set out our decisions shortly.

12:11

Rt Hon Kemi Badenoch MP (North West Essex, Conservative)

- -

Shortly. Speaker, this is a government. This is a government. This is a government that approves importing oil from Russia, approves new drilling off the Falkland Islands, but won't approve new drilling in the North Sea. The truth is, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is delaying a decision on energy to avoid a row with his backbenchers, just as he's avoiding another row on cutting welfare. The times reports that 2 million people are being paid sickness benefits and they may not even be sick.

Billions of pounds paid to people who shouldn't be getting it. The last time a Prime Minister tried to cut welfare, Labour MPs stopped him and they're still chuntering now. Look at them. Yeah, there she is. They're still chuntering now. Is the Prime Minister afraid to cut benefits because he doesn't want to fight with his backbenchers?

12:12

Rt Hon Andy Burnham, The Prime Minister (Makerfield, Labour )

- -

Prime Minister. >> Prime Minister. >> Mr. speaker, we commissioned the Milburn report because we do not want to see a country where young people in their 20s are stuck on benefits. I want a system where we give the right support to young people up front so that they can be in training, education or employment from 16 onwards. I think they do need better mental health support. I've argued for a different education system that gives parity to technical education alongside the university route, and we will bring forward the Milburn report soon.

We will set out our response to it. We will bring down the welfare bill.

12:12

Rt Hon Kemi Badenoch MP (North West Essex, Conservative)

- -

Mr. speaker, I, I didn't ask him about the Milburn Review, but he about the Milburn Review, but he wants to talk about it. I spoke to Alan Milburn and he said that that review was due before the Budget. He's kicked it into the long grass. The Budget is in two weeks. Let me tell the Prime Minister what should

**** Possible New Speaker ****

defence. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. In a BBC interview, Mr. Speaker, in a BBC interview on Sunday, the in a BBC interview on Sunday, the Defence Secretary refused to commit to spending 3% of GDP by 2030. I to spending 3% of GDP by 2030. I see he's not here today. Still not doing his job. People used to doing his job. People used to resign over this. This is the money that Britain needs to keep us safe. Now the Prime Minister won't even tell us what his plan is for another year.

So why won't he announce a date for 3% in this month's Budget.

12:13

Rt Hon Andy Burnham, The Prime Minister (Makerfield, Labour )

- -

Prime Minister? >> Prime Minister? >> Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm meeting President Zelensky, as I said this afternoon, and we will honour our afternoon, and we will honour our commitments to him and his country, and we will honour our NATO commitments. As I've said, every time that I have appeared at this despatch box, and she will have to wait for the Budget, but she comes here every week, Mr. Speaker, and poses as the the world leading authority on defence.

Now. I recall an interview she gave. She talked about interviews. I recall an interview recently about the Conservatives plans for an Iron Dome, and then she said, it isn't our plan. And then it emerged that it was briefed by her team, which doesn't sound like she's in control of her own policy on defence. And then under questioning on LBC from Mr. Ferrari, she said you've got to speak to a defence expert about exactly how it will work. Well, obviously we worked out in that interview she wasn't a defence expert and I think Mr.

Ferrari is still waiting for an explanation.

12:15

Rt Hon Kemi Badenoch MP (North West Essex, Conservative)

- -

Mr. speaker, a month ago, the Prime Minister was boasting that it was time to engage in problem solving rather than point scoring. It seems that's another thing that he said without thinking. He wants to talk about defence. Let's talk about defence. We are the only party that actually has a plan to get to 3% by 2030, he tells us. I asked him about the Budget, Mr. Speaker. I asked him about the Budget. He said he's meeting President Zelensky.

President Zelensky is not writing the Budget. He is. The last two Labour budgets have been a disaster, a total disaster. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I met a beauty salon owner who was struggling with the impact of Labour's tax rises. She told me she is dipping into her pension to pay the young people she employs. That is the brutal reality for tens of thousands of small business owners. Just after two years of labour, the Prime Minister entered Downing Street, promising the biggest change in 40 years.

Now Labour MPs are briefing journalists. They hope this Budget does as little harm as possible. Isn't he too busy appeasing his MPs, excusing his own mistakes and avoiding difficult decisions to give the country the leadership it needs?

12:16

Rt Hon Andy Burnham, The Prime Minister (Makerfield, Labour )

- -

Well. >> Well. >> Mr. Speaker, I use my conference speech to face up to difficult decisions. I faced up to a difficult decision about supporting older people in later life related to adjusting the triple lock so that we can lay the ground for a national care service. I took a difficult decision about developing closer ties with Europe, supported by a majority of people in this country. Why? Because we've got the chance to do a deal, Mr.

Speaker, before the end of the year, that can add growth to the British economy, support our farmers and our food industry. But let me finish today in a spirit of problem solving, not point scoring, in a spirit of unity with the right hon. Lady, because I'm going to make one further point about her conference speech, and I'm going to commend her for drawing a line on a decade of division. When she drew a line with the party over there for suggesting that her children weren't British.

That is wrong, Mr. Speaker, in every single respect. She was brave and she was right to call it out. That is what I want to see more of in the next decade as we go forward.

12:17

Deirdre Costigan MP (Ealing Southall, Labour)

- -

Deirdre Costigan thank. >> Deirdre Costigan thank. >> You, Mr. Speaker. Almost ten years ago, the shutters on Southall Police station were pulled down for good because of austerity cuts by the conservative government, a shuttered police station in the middle of our town centre makes criminals feel that they can get away with it, and residents feel like no one cares. So does the Prime Minister agree with me that we must do all that we can to end the blight of empty and shuttered buildings in our town centres? And will he back my campaign to pull up the shutters on Southall Police station so local residents can feel safe again?

12:18

Rt Hon Andy Burnham, The Prime Minister (Makerfield, Labour )

- -

Yeah. >> Well, she puts her points very powerfully, Mr. Speaker. High streets across the country, including Southall, have for too long been a symbol of the decline of our of our towns, and I'm determined to do something about it immediately. I cut business rates for pubs, clubs, music venues by 20%. Working with the Chancellor when I came into office, we are bringing forward a high street strategy. Later this year. We've announced a £210 million package for councils to reopen empty buildings.

I will look at the specifics around the police hub, but this is an issue, I think, Mr. Speaker, should be one that unites this House and one where we can work together.

12:19

Rt Hon Ed Davey MP (Kingston and Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Leader of the Liberal Democrats,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sir Ed Davey. Mr. speaker, they'll be getting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. speaker, they'll be getting more, Mr. speaker. Can I join you? The Prime Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And the leader of the. Opposition. In praising the. Late Sir. David Amess and sending our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

David Amess and sending our condolences to his family? He was a man who had respect across this man who had respect across this house and had friends across this House. Mr. speaker, when the Prime Minister announced cross-party talks on social care over the summer, I was delighted and immediately accepted because getting this right really matters. He said then that to build a lasting solution on funding care, we're going to have to listen to each other and find common ground.

And he said when he tried before back in 2009, his mistake had been leaving it too close to an election. Does he still think that now? And if we are to find the common ground if we are to find the common ground well before the next election, will he tell us when the next round of cross-party talks will be?

12:20

Rt Hon Andy Burnham, The Prime Minister (Makerfield, Labour )

- -

Mr. speaker, I'm happy to admit that again. Now, I was working with a colleague of of people on on the Lib Dem frontbench, Norman Lamb, and it did get too late and it got caught up in inevitably, the climate of the election. And then it happened to Theresa May in 2017. And this side of the House perhaps was doing the point scoring at that point in time. This is not an issue for point scoring. When is this house going to learn that? How long is it going to turn away from this issue? My hon.

Friend mentioned his grandparents. I saw mine go through the care system, and then I vowed as a Minister in the Blair government that I wouldn't let it happen to my parents. But it's just happened. It's not good enough for him for many thousands of people like him, but also for the people who work in social care, who give everything to it. I see his genuine commitment to this issue. It will be difficult, but let's get on and build this National Care Service and raise the esteem of politics with people across this country.

12:21

Rt Hon Ed Davey MP (Kingston and Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Sir Ed Davey. >> Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows I share his passion to get this right. He knows I share his passion to work cross-party to find the consensus, which is the only way we can put this right. But I hope we can get on with the cross-party talks. We can't push this to the end of the next decade. We have to act now for the millions of people who need our help. Mr. speaker, can I move on to other matters? Scared of the midterms? President Trump has done a deal with Vladimir Putin to buy Russian diesel, ripping up international sanctions against Putin.

The Prime Minister studiously avoided commenting on Trump's behaviour on Monday. But this House does deserve to know his position, as does, frankly, President Zelensky and our brave Ukrainian allies. So let me ask the Prime Minister this. Doesn't he agree? This is yet another shameful Trump betrayal of security?

12:22

Rt Hon Andy Burnham, The Prime Minister (Makerfield, Labour )

- -

Yes. cross-party talks on social care, certainly before the end of the year, but hopefully within the next month. And the the former shadow health secretary from the opposition, a leader of the main opposition, came, and I will make sure it's available to all sides of the House. All parties in this in this House. On the question around what is happening in Ukraine, obviously, I'm looking very much now at my meeting with President Zelensky in a. In a couple of hours.

I called him on Saturday because I recognised it was another very dark and difficult moment for him. As they contemplate a winter that will be severe for his people, I recognise that he is carrying the heaviest of weights right now and it is extremely difficult for him what I have to do in my role is try and repair bridges so that the support comes back, and therefore I should, at this moment in time, be careful in terms of laying the ground to to bring people back together.

That is the role I intend to play. It's the right role for me to play in this moment. I will listen to President Zelensky carefully, but he won't be going away from Britain today. Empty handed.

12:24

Jen Craft MP (Thurrock, Labour)

- -

Jen Craft PQ Mr. speaker, my six year old constituent, Holly school, does not allow siblings to attend school events. Her brother William has profound, multiple life limiting disabilities and needs. 247 specialist care. He is also a delightful little boy, as they cannot bring William or leave him with a babysitter. This effectively means that Holly's parents must always stay away from school events, missing everything from parents evenings to Christmas plays to phonics workshops. Yet Catalyst Trust, which runs the school, and its CEO, Tony Parfitt, have repeatedly refused to make an exception to accommodate William or even to meet with myself to discuss ways forward.

So will the Prime Minister back my call for the Catalyst Trust to do the right thing? And can he ensure that academy trusts are meeting their reasonable adjustment obligations to disabled children and their families?

12:25

Rt Hon Andy Burnham, The Prime Minister (Makerfield, Labour )

- -

Mr. speaker, can I thank my hon. >> Mr. speaker, can I thank my hon. Friend for giving me advance knowledge of this case, and I'll be honest in saying it worries me. It is crucial, clearly, because of the circumstances that my hon. Friend describes with relation to to to Holly's Holly's school, that the family are able to spend as much time together as is possible. That's why I've asked the Department for Education to speak to the trust. It must be possible to resolve this, this situation.

It shouldn't be causing any stress to the family. I would ask that they do it without delay.

12:25

Nigel Farage MP (Clacton, Reform UK)

- -

Nigel Farage thank you, Mr. Speaker. MI5 Ken McCallum yesterday revealed that there have been 50 arrests in the last year linked to Iran. And I have to say this government deserves praise. It deserves praise for prescribing the IRGC a very, very important move. But every single week there are young, unidentified males from Iran coming into this country, some of whom pose a genuine security threat to our nation. Is it not time the government recognised that what is going on in the English Channel is a national security emergency?

12:26

Rt Hon Andy Burnham, The Prime Minister (Makerfield, Labour )

- -

Yes, Minister. >> Yes, Minister. >> Mr. speaker, could I start just by recognising with the charges that have been laid against the individual responsible for the murder of Ann Widdecombe, and indeed also making threats against the hon. Member? Can I start by recognising it's been a hard time for him and his family. There's a lot we disagree on, but I defend his right to say it and I will work hard to secure his safety and every member of this, this House, and we will involve all sides in the Lovegrove review that my right hon.

Friend the Home Secretary has established on the issues related to Iran. Obviously, we've seen the issues at RAF Fairford recently, Mr. Speaker, and they have been dealt with in the right way, with the utmost seriousness by the police and security services. And the key point is, of course, we do need to get boat crossings down. I hope he would recognise that they are coming down. Removals are up. There is much more to be done, but there is clearly progress in the right direction.

I don't think we'll get.

12:27

Natasha Irons MP (Croydon East, Labour)

- -

Through the list. >> We really are going to have to answers. >> Natasha Irons Mr. Speaker. >> Mr. >> Speaker, it's tough growing up in Britain today, and with 1 in 5 in Britain today, and with 1 in 5 young people now have a mental health condition, the wellbeing of our young people remains in crisis. And in communities like mine in Croydon East, where young people are waiting up to four years for support, families are desperate for help. So can the Prime Minister outline what his government is doing to invest in early mental health support in communities across the country, and how will he tackle the long wait for support that is robbing young people of their future?

12:28

Rt Hon Andy Burnham, The Prime Minister (Makerfield, Labour )

- -

Prime Minister. >> Can I say to my hon. Friend, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to go back to the response to the Milburn Review. I think we need to give guarantees of mental health support when young people need it. Not waiting months, not waiting years exactly when they need it. And that will be a part of my response. Daisy Cooper.

12:28

Daisy Cooper MP (St Albans, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Exactly five weeks ago, I asked the Prime Minister if he would back my three year campaign to get a new mental health inpatient hub in Hertfordshire, to get a new mental Hertfordshire, which would begin to pay for itself as soon as it is built. Now, I know that the Prime Minister understands the principle of invest to save, because he himself has used this argument to explain why building social homes will reduce the housing benefit Bill.

So will the Prime Minister stick to his principles and having reviewed reviewed the proposal which I sent to him, will he now commit to provide the upfront resources to build this self-funding mental health hub in Hertfordshire?

12:29

Rt Hon Andy Burnham, The Prime Minister (Makerfield, Labour )

- -

Prime Minister? Mr. speaker, I >> Prime Minister? Mr. speaker, I will be writing to the hon. Lady soon, and I have to say might sound disappointing, but we will not be taking forward her specific suggestion. But I can tell her that we will be bringing forward four new community mental health centres across Hertfordshire as part of 159 across the country. I would be happy to ensure the Health Secretary works with her to involve her in the design of those, those new hubs, so that we can deliver the mental health support.

She's rightly calling for. Speaker.

12:29

James Asser MP (West Ham and Beckton, Labour)

- -

In the summer, I visited a holiday activities scheme where the organisers told me they'd had to increase the size of the lunch portions because children were hungry. With the schools closed, it was the only meal some of the kids were getting. The Prime Minister has rightly talked about the need to tackle the cost of living crisis and bring people hope again, which is essential in my constituency. So can I ask my right hon. Friend, will you join me? Our trade unions and community organisations in prioritising the elimination of food poverty? Because, Mr.

Speaker, no child in our country should go to bed at night feeling hungry?

12:30

Rt Hon Andy Burnham, The Prime Minister (Makerfield, Labour )

- -

Yes, sir. >> Yes, sir. >> I praise my hon. Friend. Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for West Derby, who has run the Right to Food campaign and, of course, our trade unions. I'm a proud supporter of them and they've supported me, and I declare that interest in that matter, in the way that I discussed it with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich recently. We do need to expand free school meals, and the government is doing that. So half a million more children can access them at school.

We've tripled investment in breakfast clubs. We need to keep working so that no single child in this country goes hungry in any single day.

12:31

Sarah Dyke MP (Glastonbury and Somerton, Liberal Democrat)

- -

And I. >> And I. >> Mr. speaker, in rural Somerset, distance has a price. Every school distance has a price. Every school bus been round and pothole fix costs more. Yet the government are diverting hundreds of millions from rural to urban councils, leaving Somerset £21 million a year worse off. Roberta, from Martock, told me yesterday we need more affordable homes but slashing funding won't build a single one. So will the Prime Minister use December's settlement to restore remoteness funding to Somerset? Yes or no?

12:31

Rt Hon Andy Burnham, The Prime Minister (Makerfield, Labour )

- -

Mr. >> Mr. speaker, I am determined as Prime Minister to ensure that we support all communities in this country, including our rural communities. I will listen carefully to what she's got to say as we bring forward our plans to show that we are on the side of her constituents. Speaker.

12:31

Maureen Burke MP (Glasgow North East, Labour)

- -

A recent BBC disclosure documentary exposed violence, open drug dealing, child exploitation and a staggering 1200 sexual offences recorded in Glasgow city centre in the year to March 2026. We must have an honest discussion about the city's pressures, including addiction, deprivation, immigration and community cohesion. While SNP underfunding has crippled local public services, and Glasgow City Council's response has fallen short. Reform is exploiting public safety fears to stoke racial division and our welcoming city.

Will the Prime Minister hear this call for help and support? A coordinated response to make Glasgow safer?

12:32

Rt Hon Andy Burnham, The Prime Minister (Makerfield, Labour )

- -

Prime Minister. obviously a devolved matter, but I am very open to working with the SNP government, Police Scotland, Glasgow City Council to deal with the issues that she is referencing. As mayor of Greater Manchester, I brought forward Operation Vulcan, which was a multi-agency approach to changing Cheatham Hill, and it did rip out entrenched criminality in that area. I'm more than happy to talk to her about how we pioneered that in Glasgow, too, and that is an offer that's open to her.

12:33

Dame Harriett Baldwin MP (West Worcestershire, Conservative)

- -

Harriett Baldwin yeah, yeah. made it crystal clear about doing deals with other parties. So will the Prime Minister make it equally clear, following the Green Party's descent into the most abhorrent antisemitism, that he will rule out, co-operating with them?

12:33

Rt Hon Andy Burnham, The Prime Minister (Makerfield, Labour )

- -

Minister Mr. Speaker, can I condemn the motion that was passed? Unequivocally? It is wrong. It is anti-Semitic and this side of the House will have nothing to do with House will have nothing to do with it. And we will always take the right response when it comes to any partnerships we have with other parties. We cannot support a partnership with a party that holds a position that has recently a position that has recently

12:34

Chris Kane MP (Stirling and Strathallan, Labour)

- -

Been adopted. Chris Kane thank you, Mr. Speaker. High School, senior pupils studying politics and modern studies asked me about everything from climate change to war in the Middle East. One young woman asked how young people can know they're being heard by politicians. So I brought her question here so that she and her classmates can see that a question asked in their assembly hall can get an answer from the Prime Minister. Whether we are discussing mental health, housing, jobs, our relationship with Europe or the upcoming report on Neet.

We are discussing their future. How will the Prime Minister ensure we talk with young people, rather than just about them, and show them that their ideas and opinions shape the decisions we take in this place?

12:34

Rt Hon Andy Burnham, The Prime Minister (Makerfield, Labour )

- -

Minister well, I couldn't agree with him more strongly, Mr. Speaker, and I will be in Scotland on Friday making a speech on these issues. Looking at how we can do more to support young people and help the Government in Scotland develop its approach to getting more young people into work. So we've also got the your first home scheme that we've brought forward, Mr. Speaker, we need to do much more to help young people get themselves established in life, and we will do that in all parts of the UK, including Scotland.

12:35

Munira Wilson MP (Twickenham, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Laura Wilson. >> Laura Wilson. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. >> Despite the desperate need for pitch space in my constituency, pitch space in my constituency, Abney Park playing fields in Teddington have lain derelict for over a decade. The most recent owner, a Chinese businessman, has now been sanctioned by the British government and had his assets frozen. So, given the Prime Minister has made clear that he wants communities to take back control of precious sites like Abney Park, will he work with me to ensure these playing fields are put back in the hands of the community right where they belong?

12:35

Rt Hon Andy Burnham, The Prime Minister (Makerfield, Labour )

- -

Minister. >> Minister. >> Mr. speaker, I am a complete champion for green space and physical activity, and I'm physical activity, and I'm concerned to hear about the situation her constituents are in. I've just had a commitment from the Secretary of State for digital, culture, Media and Sport to meet her to get this situation unlocked, and I hope that's helpful to her.

12:36

Joe Powell MP (Kensington and Bayswater, Labour)

- -

Joe Powell. >> It's now nearly ten years on from the Grenfell Tower fire, and I welcome the recent progress on criminal accountability. But from Hillsborough to Infected blood to the Countess of Chester Hospital to. Often inquiries and inquests make recommendations that sit on a shelf, leaving victims chasing answers and avoidable harms continuing. So will the Prime Minister give his support to an independent national oversight mechanism to sit alongside the Hillsborough Law and ensure that when tragedies like Grenfell do occur, the state is held properly accountable for change?

12:36

Rt Hon Andy Burnham, The Prime Minister (Makerfield, Labour )

- -

Prime Minister? >> Well, can I agree strongly with my hon. Friend? I remember bringing the Hillsborough families to meet the Grenfell family shortly after the disaster. It's painful that it's taken so long for charges to be laid, but at least they have been laid now. I know the First Secretary has met with the chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee this week to look at the oversight mechanism that he describes, and I'm confident we can develop a model that gives exactly the the commitment that he's looking for.

Mr. speaker, I want to leave him and in and his constituents in no doubt whatsoever as Prime Minister, I will work to support him every day to get justice for Grenfell.

12:37

Rt Hon Sir James Cleverly MP (Braintree, Conservative)

- -

Sir James Cleverly. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Nppf is 130 pages long. The London plan is over 500 pages long. The mayor's guidance to the London plan is over 2000 pages long. Will he concede that that added to the increase in taxes that his government is putting on businesses and employers. That Labour has been a disaster for home building in London, pricing young people out of the market and putting pressure on Home Counties constituencies like mine.

12:38

Rt Hon Andy Burnham, The Prime Minister (Makerfield, Labour )

- -

Yeah. >> And, Mr. Speaker, can I say that the the right hon. Gentleman just gave me a moment of deja vu. I remember standing up in these benches auditioning for a mayor's job many years ago. He didn't do a bad. He didn't do a bad audition. But maybe it needs a little bit of of work because I think the administration he worked in left some of that bureaucracy behind in, in, in London City Hall. And I hope he will show more candour and directness than the right hon.

Lady, the Leader of the Opposition, if he's ever asked the question, Has Brexit been good or bad for London? What's his answer?

12:39

Gerald Jones MP (Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare, Labour)

- -

Gerald Jones. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. >> The 21st of. >> October marks the 60th anniversary of the Aberfan disaster that claimed the lives of 116 children and 28 adults in the coming days. The community will mark the occasion with a range of events and as a precursor. This evening in portcullis House, the Lewes Merthyr Band will perform a piece of music dedicated to the lost children of Aberfan. In the most, it was the most unimaginable horror that befell the village and just how the community came together in the days and months ahead was and is testament to the spirit of the people of that community who responded with such dignity and fortitude.

It is fitting that the chair of the Aberfan Memorial Committee and a survivor of the disaster, Mr. David Davis, is with us in the gallery today. So could I ask the Prime Minister if he will join with me in paying tribute to those who were lost, and to what her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second described as the most indomitable spirit of the people and the community of Aberfan.

12:40

Rt Hon Andy Burnham, The Prime Minister (Makerfield, Labour )

- -

Can I thank my hon. Friend for his question and say that I will be meeting David shortly and look forward to paying tribute to him as chair of the Aberfan Memorial Committee for all of the support he's provided over the years to the 144 people who died. Of course, many of them children, the families who've lived with that grief for generations. Can I also say to him that I intend to visit Aberfan next week, on the occasion of the 60th anniversary? I want to pay tribute to the whole community today for the strength that they've shown over the years, and for the wonderful representation that my hon.

Friend has given them.

12:40

Peter Fortune MP (Bromley and Biggin Hill, Conservative)

- -

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. >> He's 43. >> Days since the Prime Minister received a letter signed by all opposition parties expressing support for the Lobular moonshot project. It's a project which seeks funding to fight the insidious disease that is lobular breast cancer. Sadly, no response has been received. When the Prime Minister was mayor of Greater Manchester, he committed to supporting the Lobular moonshot project. Would he reaffirm that commitment from the Dispatch Box today?

12:41

Rt Hon Andy Burnham, The Prime Minister (Makerfield, Labour )

- -

Minister I. I will indeed. Mr. speaker, I remember the meeting very well indeed, and I speak as very well indeed, and I speak as someone whose family has been affected by breast cancer. Yes. I look forward to, to to meeting them again, perhaps with him and other colleagues on all sides of the House.

12:41

Peter Dowd MP (Bootle, Labour)

- -

Peter Dowd final question. Speaker, the Argentine government has increased its aggression, its economic aggression towards the Falkland Islands. Given this. Could the Prime Minister update the House on the actions the government has belligerence?

12:42

Rt Hon Andy Burnham, The Prime Minister (Makerfield, Labour )

- -

Prime Minister? unwavering. The Falkland Islands are British and will remain so because that is the overwhelming will of the Falkland Islanders. We have made that clear to Argentina directly. We will not allow the Islanders to be used as a prop in Argentinian domestic politics. I raised this issue directly with President Trump just a few weeks ago. We will not allow Britain or indeed the Falkland Islands to be bullied in this way. We will seek to resolve the situation, but we will not hesitate to use more

**** Possible New Speaker ****

robust measures if necessary. That completes Prime Minister's Questions. Let the Frontbenches

12:43

Presentation of bills

12:44

Ten Minute Rule Motion: Wet wipes (labelling, sale and marketing)

>> Well done. >> We now come to the ten minute rule. Motion, wet wipes. Labelling.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rule. Motion, wet wipes. Labelling. Sale and marketing. David Burton-Sampson. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

12:44

David Burton-Sampson MP (Southend West and Leigh, Labour)

- -

12:56

General debate: Opposition day (third allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official opposition. subject to be announced.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I beg to move the motion in the in the name of the official opposition in my name and the benches opposite would not go and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

meet the women of Pennington. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And to hear their concerns. So today these benches have brought the women of Pennington to them. the women of Pennington to them. They are in the gallery today. So now the Minister for Women and Equalities and her colleagues on Equalities and her colleagues on the front and back benches opposite have nowhere to hide. The women of have nowhere to hide. The women of Puddington have written to all female Labour MPs and are still awaiting a response. How they vote today will be seen by the women of Pennington and by the women in

12:57

Joy Morrissey MP (Beaconsfield, Conservative)

- -

13:24

Rt Hon Anna Turley MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Redcar, Labour )

- -

13:46

Max Wilkinson MP (Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)

- -

13:56

Connor Naismith MP (Crewe and Nantwich, Labour)

- -

Conservative Party, when in office, designed an asylum accommodation programme which took over much programme which took over much loved hotels in some of the most deprived parts of our country, including the Crewe Arms Hotel and the Royal Hotel in the centre of the Royal Hotel in the centre of Crewe. Local services and community cohesion were put under severe strain. People were forced to strain. People were forced to cancel weddings and other events of sentimental value in their lives. Of course, it is not only the Tories who are up to their necks in that policy because who designed it, who championed it on the airwaves, boasting more and more hotels being brought on stream in deprived towns like mine.

Well, of course it was the hon. Member for Newark that now reform shadow Chancellor, aided and abetted by former Tory Ministers who betrayed our country. Not my words. The words of Zia Yusuf. But but in in opening this debate, the. The hon. Lady said that this shouldn't be about class, and I think that she's right. But why were places like Crewe chosen by that side when they were in government? Precisely because they were deprived, precisely because land values were lower in those places? I'm not I'm not going to give way because I don't want to take time from other people.

I don't think that that that approach is fair. And I was delighted when I was informed, after much campaigning, that the Crewe Arms Hotel would be closing as an asylum hotel. Now, I want to say I hope to see in the coming months the Royal Hotel also be closed for those purposes, and I urge the Minister, if she can, to say more about when we might see progress in that regard. But I think it's important to say that outcomes like that are only possible if we continue to see the progress that this government is making on small boat crossings coming down, which they are processing of claims going up as they, you know, in in stark contrast to the previous government where they collapsed and also deporting people who have no right to be here.

But also, and crucially, in respect to this debate, if accommodation for asylum seekers is spread more fairly across our country using appropriate disused military sites. So the proposition that the Tories put in front of us today seems to be that my constituents have to accept more of the burden of asylum accommodation, but some parts of our country don't, and that just simply is not fair. So I'm sure I know where my constituents will stand on that question, and I am with them, not with that side of the House.

I want to turn briefly before finishing to the question of the European Convention on Human Rights. The ECHR blocks just 3% of total removals from this country, and it also underpins our relationship with other countries around the world, including the Good Friday Agreement. Indeed, even the Tories much beloved Rwanda deal which has been mentioned in this date, what in this debate was contingent upon compliance with international agreements on human rights and refugee law, not because any UK or European Court said so, but because the Rwandan government insisted on it.

As any other third country we might want to work with would do. In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, this motion seeks to tell my constituents that they should continue to do more than their fair share in response to the phenomenon of small boats crossings, and it signifies the official opposition's retreat, frankly, from being a serious national party of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government. And I won't be supporting it. Simmons. Thank you very. Much indeed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, I draw the House's attention to my entry. In the register. The reason why I sought to intervene on the Member I sought to intervene on the Member for Crewe and Nantwich that I agree with the point that he made about with the point that he made about the unfairness of asylum dispersal, something which is of huge importance to my constituents, two importance to my constituents, two thirds of whom are in Hillingdon, which has the highest number of asylum seekers per capita of any local authority in the country, and because of Heathrow Airport, has borne the decades.

The consequences of the asylum dispersal policies. But I would invite him to call to mind and the Minister to the name of the member of this House who created the asylum dispersal system, who brought into being a system that placed asylum seekers on the basis of accommodation in the cheapest parts of the country, because that made taxpayers money go further. I worked with that member of Parliament when I was involved in local government. When he introduced it, he was the Member for Lee.

Now he's the Member for Makerfield, and he's our Prime

14:01

David Simmonds MP (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, Conservative)

- -

Minister and members who seek to criticise that system might wish to reflect that their party has been reflect that their party has been hearing, as has ours, for many years, that this is something where the British people expect us to do the British people expect us to do better, and nobody has a monopoly on virtue when it comes to dealing on virtue when it comes to dealing with the asylum system, particularly the member who I hope will reflect nowadays, Prime Minister, on the importance of Minister, on the importance of rebuilding the system that had so many flaws when he first put it into effect many years ago.

Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is hugely important. I know to you the relentless campaigning that you've done on behalf of your constituents around Crowborough reflects the campaigning many of us have needed to do and in my case, the lessons that have been learnt by my constituents, the consequences of the huge numbers arriving at Heathrow and then in more recent years as the asylum system has become even more overloaded with new applications as people are placed on coaches in Dover, in Kent, driven up in a house in that Home Office, asylum accommodation placed there by the then Minister, who is now the Prime Minister in the proximity of Heathrow Airport, a more recently.

Adding to that pressure, significant numbers of Chagossians fleeing the consequences of the government's deal where they're currently living in Mauritius and needing to be supported by the local authority. So this is something that really matters to constituents, and I have to reflect that. Following the murder of Wayne Broadhurst, who was killed whilst walking his dog in nearby Hillingdon about a year ago by Dawud Safi, an Afghan refugee. That community has done marvels to come together to show its hospitality and its welcome for people who are generally vulnerable.

But there is that sense of exasperation that we need to see serious progress on this, and in the spirit of accountability and recognising we're in opposition, I have some questions I'd like to put to the Minister. It is very clear from the points a number of members have made that this is not just about ECHR, it's about the refugee Convention, it's in particular about the Human Rights Act. I know I went to visit the court in Strasbourg, that we've only seen one case in the last 16 years concerned with immigration matters go against the British government.

But we have cases day after day after day within our own courts. But the ECHR has no jurisdiction over borders. It covers immigration but not borders. And as we see every day at Heathrow, people arrive as undocumented migrants. They don't have a visa, they don't have whatever is required and they are turned away and they're not able to access the process, which causes such frustration and leaves people stranded in our system for so many years, that sovereignty of decision making at the border is an asset that we have not used sufficiently.

And I know our opposition frontbench have set out in a borders plan, the much broader range of initiatives that we need to take. But I am going to ask the Minister, given the pressure this is causing on my constituents, will the government consider a different approach to sovereignty if simply saying to those who arrive on small boats, we will not let you cross our border. You have no documentation. You will not be allowed to access that system at all, and we will not accept that continued pressure on our courts, on our local authorities and our health services, the other parts of the system, and at the same time consider ideas, one which I've certainly advocated in this House before, like an asylum visa.

But bringing this into the system is simply saying, if you arrive to work, you arrive to get married, you arrive for a family reunion, you have to have a visa to cross our border. Asylum is the sole exception to that, and we are an island. People who come to our country know in advance that they're going to make that journey. There is ample opportunity for them to seek permission, and I have total sympathy, having been there on the French beaches and seen people and the footage that the French police have, that we need to make sure that we deal with this really robustly.

So, Madam Deputy Speaker, something which I know you and I share. Again, I'm going to finish on this point with the government. Is that need, given the way that the system operates, to ensure that there is full consultation and there is planning, so that those communities that are playing host to thousands of people who may be stuck in some sort of limbo for a long time, who will acquire through that process rights to housing locally, that we have a much more effective system in place for planning.

We need to address this in government with a much more robust approach to borders. But there are things this government could do today that would make the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

situation for mine and your constituents so much better. Goldsborough.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much. Madam Deputy Speaker. Today, we Mid Ulster support calling for the United Kingdom to leave the United Kingdom to leave the European Convention on Human Rights. Now, I'm going to do something slightly unusual as parliamentary speech and look into the detail of speech and look into the detail of the law that we're currently considering in Committee stage, because whilst the opposition is busy demanding we tear up an busy demanding we tear up an international agreement, an agreement, may I add, written by one of our greatest wartime prime Ministers, Winston Churchill, this House is already considering substantive reforms to how human rights law is applied in immigration cases.

The Immigration and Asylum Bill is currently being scrutinised in committee. That is where we should be having serious discussions about how the system works, what needs to change and how we make sure the law serves the public interest in clauses 17, 18, 19 and 20 are central to that work. They're not cosmetic changes. They're not empty promises. They are detailed legislative provisions designed to change how courts and tribunals consider human rights claims in an immigration case. Now, I have been a good one.

14:07

Ben Goldsborough MP (South Norfolk, Labour)

- -

Work that's going on in relation >> Work that's going on in relation to article eight. What's your view on how article three has changed and more from a protection against

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and more from a protection against torture to an access to particular forms of health? I think that's reasonable. I thank the hon. Gentleman. And as we're going through the Bill committee, which I'm a proud member of the Bill committee at the moment, we're looking at things such as the ouster clauses which are included in there. We're giving the detail that is needed for the Lords, the Law Lords and everyone else involved in this process to actually integrate the concern, what needs to be done, as I say.

So, as these are not cosmetic changes that we're looking at. Clause 17 addresses sponsor human rights claims. It creates a route for a person based in the UK to appeal the decision, refusing entry clearance to an overseas family member where the decision engages their right to family life under article eight. That is a specific change to the operation of the appeal system, with clear rules about how such claims are considered. Clause 18 goes further by establishing a clear statutory definition of family life for the purposes of article eight.

In immigration cases, it provides that family life will normally be limited to cohabiting, cohabiting families, partners and, in relevant circumstances, children and parents living together where someone seeks to establish family life beyond those core relationships, the legislation sets out that circumstances and evidence that courts should only consider for relationships between adults. That includes whether they are additional elements of dependency beyond normal emotional ties between them. It also makes clear that the courts must first determine whether article eight is engaged before going to consider in public interest.

That is an important distinction. The existence of a human right does not automatically determine the outcome of an immigration appeal. The court must consider the circumstances and apply the relevant legal test. Clause 19 strengthens the public interest consideration that courts and tribunals must take into account. It reinforces the importance of financial independence and being able to support and house yourself family without relying on state support. It is further considerations relating to criminal convictions, cooperation and immigration processes, and good character.

It clarifies the weight that should be normally given to a private and family life, established by people who are in the UK unlawfully, have obtained permission through deception or are in serious breach of the conditions of their immigration status, and it strengthens the considerations that apply when decisions could affect a child, including whether removal would have a very significant and long lasting adverse effect upon them. These are important changes to a framework within which immigration decisions are made. Clause 20 then goes and addresses cases involving foreign criminals and other liable to deportation.

It strengthens the statutory framework for considering deportation, making clear that the public interest in deporting those liable to deportation must be given significant weight, particularly where the offending is serious. It also sets out an exceptional circumstances in which a deportation may be disproportionate, including the impact on qualifying partners and children and cases involving very compelling circumstances. These decisions matter because the public rightly expects a system that takes criminal offending seriously, enforces Immigration Rules and makes decisions that reflect the interests of our country.

So I ask the Conservatives again, if you believe the law needs to change, why are you not engaging seriously with the changes already before Parliament? If you think these. If the the honourable benches opposite think these clauses don't go far enough, explain why. Put forward amendments. Tesla legislation make a case for using evidence and legal arguments because that's what legal parliamentary scrutiny is for. But instead we have a motion calling for the full withdrawal from the convention altogether, as though leaving an international agreement would somehow make every difficult question disappear.

Brexit, anyone? It would not. Leaving the ECHR would not by itself clear the asylum backlog. It would not automatically speed up decisions. It would not make every removal straightforward, and it would not erase the consequences of years of conservative mismanagement. The Conservatives had 14 years in government to get a grip on immigration and the asylum system. They had 14 years to improve decisions, making tackling backlogs and ensure that public money was spent effectively. Yet they left behind a system beset by delays, mounting costs and a reliance on asylum hotels.

Now they want to present themselves as the people with the answers. It truly is extraordinary. They created the conditions of many of the problems that are still dealing with in this government, and now they want to distract from that record with another dramatic announcement. Our constituents deserve far better than political theatre. They deserve an asylum system that makes decision, promptly removes people who have no right to remain, tackles criminality and treats people fairly. They deserve effective enforcement and value for taxpayers money that requires practical solutions, competent administration and legislation that works.

It requires government to get on with the job, rather than pretending that one grand gesture can solve everything. And a practical example is the Brook hotel, just outside of my constituency in Bowthorpe, opened under the previous conservative government, closed under a Labour government. That is what effective management of the asylum system does. When you are serious, instead of doing large grand gestures, the convention is not beyond reform. There is so much we are doing and so much more to be done.

But leaving the convention altogether is a much wider step than reforming how article eight is applied. We have heard already the impact that this will have on the Northern Ireland peace Agreement, and therefore we cannot just singly pull ourselves out of the ECHR. I'm sad to say, the Conservative Party that we all knew when growing up has now no longer staying with us,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and we must take the action we're doing in government. Caerphilly Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate today, because I think the concerns and worries of the women in Pennington are concerns of women up and down are concerns of women up and down the country who who share their same worries about the sorts of people that are being placed alongside them. And you and I Madam Deputy Speaker know better than many others because of the camp in Crowborough, exactly what those

14:14

Dr Kieran Mullan MP (Bexhill and Battle, Conservative)

- -

14:22

Chris Murray MP (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh, Labour)

- -

14:32

Rt Hon Suella Braverman KC MP (Fareham and Waterlooville, Reform UK)

- -

debate. That's how seriously this party in government takes this party in government takes this issue. And when I met the women of Piddington, I was staggered because Piddington, I was staggered because they are scared. They are angry, and they feel like no one in and they feel like no one in government is listening to them. And these people, there are not far And these people, there are not far right thugs. The women that I met and indeed the men, many of them are elderly pensioners.

Some of them are widowed and living alone. Many of them are parents speaking on behalf of their children. And this small rural village is fighting against the British state right now to protect itself. It is a scandal that no one in this government is willing to listen to. The women and girls of Piddington, and unfortunately, it is not contained to Piddington. It is also the people of Waterlooville. Last year I led a campaign with 10,000 local people to fight the Home Office and the Labour Lib Dem plans to house asylum seekers there.

We were successful on that occasion. Now I'm supporting people in Gosport, in Portsmouth, who are taking to the streets in peaceful protest against illegal migrants arriving on their shores. I won't because I want to respect the direction Madam Speaker. So this is extending across our country and it is out of control. Getting better. The government says it's getting better. The boats are getting bigger, the people coming are coming in higher numbers and British people are more scared than ever. And they're right to be scared, because the facts are that Afghan and Eritrean migrant men are 22 times more likely to be convicted of sex crimes than Brits.

40% of sexual assaults in London over the last five years were committed by foreign born men. I'm not making that up. That's data. So these are not irrational fears and they're being treated with contempt. The tragedy of all this is that this is caused by the ECHR. People come here on the boats illegally. They claim to be victims of persecution. They claim to have family rights here. All gaming human rights laws against us. I saw this as Home Secretary, as attorney general and previously as a barrister working in the field.

I wrote a paper about it last year, dismissed by the Conservative Party. And of course, the truth is, and we've got to be honest about this, we might not even have to be here talking about Piddington or Gosport or Fort Blockhouse or Waterlooville. This problem could have been fixed. The tragedy is that the last conservative government utterly refused to do the right thing, and I'll come to that. I was the first conservative Minister who said publicly, to fix this crisis, we need to leave the ECHR as attorney general, as home secretary.

What? What happened? The Leader of the Opposition, she said I was having a nervous breakdown. That party said I had mental health problems. They demonised, isolated and blocked me from doing the right thing. I've asked them to apologise today. They've refused to apologise to the nation for causing this crisis and I won't let them off the hook. I've just published a book setting out the painful battles I had with my Conservative Party colleagues to fix this, so I will not take any lectures from anyone in the Conservative Party about their their promises to leave the ECHR don't believe them.

What do we need? What do we need to stop this invasion and fix. What is this national security emergency? The emergency that my hon. Friend the member from Clacton has been talking about for years. We need to leave the Ipswich ECHR with credible leadership. We need to suspend our asylum system now, void all of those grants of asylum, deport all of those people who are applying for asylum, deporting 90,000 people, and yes, deploying the Royal Navy into the channel to ensure that we properly secure our borders.

This Labour government won't do it. The last conservative government didn't do it. This Conservative Party cannot be trusted. Only reform will stop the invasion and stop these boats.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think that is a no no. Sure. Point of order, Jesse Norman. Thank you, Madam.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. In his. Remarks to a question at. Prime Minister's Questions, the Prime Minister said, could I start Prime Minister said, could I start just by recognising with the charges that have been laid against charges that have been laid against the individual responsible for the murder of Ann Widdecombe? He didn't say the individual accused of her murder. He said the individual

14:36

Points of Order

murder. He said the individual responsible for her murder. A man is innocent until proven guilty. The presumption of innocence goes back to Magna Carta. It applies without exception. But the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has just publicly spoken as though a man awaiting trial has already been convicted of murder. It's directly contrary to the rule of law. It is a breach of the presumption of innocence. It is misleading to the House and in any other forum. It would be a contempt of court, which could be used to suggest the defendant had been prejudged on the merits of a case.

The Prime Minister needs to apologise and may I ask your guidance on this, Madam Deputy Speaker, as to whether the Prime Minister needs to apologise, to withdraw the statement and to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

correct the record immediately. I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. I assume, because he is so experienced that within protocol. He's also mentioned this to the the member, the Prime Minister, that he member, the Prime Minister, that he was going to raise this race, assumed I will I'll accept that as something he'll be doing incredibly quickly. The content of Ministers speeches and answers are not a speeches and answers are not a matter for the chair, but the Treasury front bench will have heard that point of order, and I'm sure that they will they will do everything they can to make sure it gets to where it gets to, and the appropriate action is taken.

And the honourable the right hon. Member can, of course, take more advice from the clerks if needed. I'll move on. Doctor Zubir Ahmed.

14:38

Dr Zubir Ahmed MP (Glasgow South West, Labour)

- -

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I start off by also acknowledging the concerns of the acknowledging the concerns of the women of Paddington that are viewing this debate today up in the gallery? Those concerns are not gallery? Those concerns are not limited, of course, to Paddington. They also include my constituency of Glasgow South West that has historically had the highest number historically had the highest number of asylum applications of anywhere in the United Kingdom, and it is a matter of record that I have asked the Home Secretary to look at this urgently to see if my city of Glasgow, my constituency of Glasgow South West, can be afforded some extra breathing space as it contends with its own issues of housing and social social cohesion, and I have made similar pleas to the Scottish Government in relation to priority housing rules and local and local connection rules.

Madam Deputy Speaker, both sides in this debate have acknowledged now that day zero of this issue is not. Today did not start two years ago. It started long ago, or perhaps 14, 14 to 20 years earlier, and we are not where we would wish to be. But we must be careful about the tenor of the debate that we also engage in on this topic, because what quickly becomes very legitimate concern about safeguarding, about how we tackle asylum, how about how we tackle the backlog, then bleeds into issues of multiculturalism has already been spoken about today, a ethno nationalism and another another matters, and indeed immigration more widely.

I can tell you for a fact that after this debate today, I'll be having some very uncharitable comments made on my social media because of my background. And I think, therefore, it is an important moment to also put on the record that largely this country over the last 100 years has been the most successful at integration and immigration, possibly in the history of mankind. I am an example of that. My immigration story began 100 years ago, when my grandfather took a boat from Calcutta and went to Hong Kong and became a member of the British Hong Kong Police Force.

And then in 1963, when my dad took took that journey by road to come from Pakistan into Glasgow to drive buses and then taxis. And he still does, you know, today in his 80s. We must always remember that once this debate starts to bleed out into other issues, that we must stand firm against those that would wish to use it as an instrument for championing deplorable ideas like ethno nationalism that, unfortunately, have also been espoused at times by members of this place, either, you know, a intentionally or unintentionally.

But the issue itself does need to be gripped because when it is not gripped, it is precisely minority communities that become first and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

foremost in the firing line for one. I thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank. The hon. Member for giving way. He's making an excellent speech, and he draws attention to the wider issues that result from this debate. Would he agree with me that it's because, precisely because of the current Home Office policies that current Home Office policies that is creating the environment in which paradoxical effects are being felt in my constituency, shortages of labour and fishing, farming, social and health care and hospitality. And this is exactly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the point that I think he's trying to make. I'm afraid it wasn't the point I was trying to make, but I will. I will take on some of his some of his arguments. What I would say is that in this country, in Scotland, that in this country, in Scotland, we have some of the highest levels of unemployed young people anywhere in the United Kingdom. And we in the United Kingdom. And we should first and foremost start by addressing them and their issues and getting them into employment.

Before we start to open up a wider debate about immigration and legal migration and numbers. And can I say to him also, I'm afraid in the city of Glasgow, it is bad enough that the right wing manipulate immigration and migration issues to march mass men down the streets of my constituencies, but also on the other side. I'm afraid politicians must also take responsibility, including in the Scottish Government, that pay lip service to social cohesion, that pay lip service to anti-racism rhetoric but never fall fundamentally relies on social cohesion to be a successful endeavour.

And back to my point I was trying to make Madam Deputy Speaker, we must address this issue because we are placing minorities in the firing line. If we do not, and therefore, I am so glad that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is bringing forward precisely a bill that will do that, because what is missing right now in this debate is trust and confidence, trust and confidence in the asylum and immigration system. And the bill placed before Parliament, now currently in its Committee stage, precisely serves to restore that trust and restore that confidence by making sure that we can regulate and produce an independent authority that will fast track asylum applications, that we can reinterpret components of human rights legislation to make sure that they are fit for the present and not the past.

And on that, I must note that the ECHR is not some kind of foreign construct, as has been tried to be outlined today in this place. It is a British construct. It is a Churchillian construct. It is the fabric of what it means to be British. It is what made my grandfather and my father serve the British and come to this country. It is because of the ECHR we have freedom of religion. It is because of the ECHR. We have freedom from torture.

It is because of the ECHR that we are able to now extricate ourselves from things like corporal punishment. And it is because actually of the ECHR, we're talking about women's safety today, and rightly so, that the women who are victims of domestic violence were protected from the benefit system, cutting their housing benefit. So what I would ask hon. Members on all sides to do today is to remember that when we have this debate, it has consequences for people from many communities up and down the country legitimately here, some, many for generations, who are caught in the net of people that wish to exploit this debate to to question their legitimacy in this country.

And often people like me

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to be in this place. And that is something we must always never forget. Hey. I'm afraid we have further. Time constraints. Backbenchers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Time constraints. Backbenchers are now on four minutes. And Mr. Job, I do not wish to hear you speaking from a sedentary position. Greg Smith.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Greg Smith. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. MoD

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker. MoD Bicester site A is but a stone's throw over the Buckinghamshire border into Oxfordshire. And so border into Oxfordshire. And so whilst Piddington have captured the headlines, actually the communities that are concerned by this proposal that feel threatened by this proposal, many of which sit in my constituency in Mid Buckinghamshire communities, small villages and hamlets, Borstal, Oakley, Brill, Ludgershall, Marsh, Gibbon, Long Crendon, Twyford and Poundon, Worminghall, Honeybook many others. All are walking distance from MoD Bicester site A.

And whilst I have absolute confidence that the real answer to this challenge is the Conservatives Borders plan, where those that are legally enter the United Kingdom by small boat should be deported within a week. I want to use the time that I've got today to focus on why the use of MoD Bicester site A simply doesn't stack up is the wrong plan. It is the wrong site. And that goes straight to some of the arguments that the Minister actually made about cost and location, none of which actually stack up in reality.

This is a site that has to be built entirely from scratch. There is no accommodation there at the moment. This is an entirely highly modular build on a site where there is no

14:46

Greg Smith MP (Mid Buckinghamshire, Conservative)

- -

fresh water supply. There is no ability to take the sewage away by ability to take the sewage away by anything other than road. If they want to look at environmental want to look at environmental concerns, we hear that some 6000l of diesel a day will have to be of diesel a day will have to be burnt in order to provide electricity to this site via electricity to this site via generators. There is no grid connection to MoD Bicester site a it's situated along a very busy, fast moving road.

But it's OK. We're told it's OK. The the. Those that are housed there will wear high vis jackets as the HGVs zoom past them. It is just not a site that is credible. I will say.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To my hon. Friend for giving way. Diesel is obviously very much in Diesel is obviously very much in the public mind at the moment. Has he seen any sort of impact statement as to what the daily cost

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the site would be, given the increase in diesel prices? I'm grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. And indeed, we heard the Minister speak. We heard Labour backbencher speak trying to say that this was going to be cheaper than hotels. Well, to be cheaper than hotels. Well, let me tell my hon. Friend and the House what the modelling actually says. On the cost of MoD Bicester site as an asylum camp. If that site persists for five years, the cost will work out at £235.34 per night.

If it goes ten years, £185.17 per night. The comparator for asylum hotels is £144 a night. The use of MoD Bicester site A is intrinsically, incredibly more expensive than using the hotel, so this doesn't offer value to the taxpayers that the government and the Labour Party want us to believe. That is an absolute nonsense that we cannot allow to persist. And of course, from a government, a government that likes to talk about wanting to follow all the rules all the time, etc.

they ruled out doing an environmental impact assessment, saying it wasn't going to have wasn't going to have much of an environmental impact. That's a statutory thing that anyone wanting to build something should go through, but they can't argue that it's going to have a minimal environmental impact. There were munitions stores on this site. It's absolutely riddled with asbestos. There is going to be released into the local environment. The wonderful campaign groups, not least wrong plan, wrong site, have done an incredible amount of work where they have found rare breeds of bat and newts, and the things that I know the government likes to Pooh Pooh this, but in reality you need to actually take attention and do these environmental environmental impact assessments is set down in statute.

It is the rules. It is the law we've got. And for the government to ride roughshod over that is purely unacceptable. And I urge the government to stop, to pause, to look at the cost, to look at the environmental impact, to look at the unsuitability of this site on practical grounds and withdraw it immediately, so that the communities in my constituency, as well as those in our neighbours in Oxfordshire, can breathe once more and live in the peace that they deserve to live in, free from the fear that my hon.

Friend for Beaconsfield set out in her opening

**** Possible New Speaker ****

speech, and that we can move on and stop this nonsense. Calum Miller thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate very much your efforts to regulate our debate. I might seek your dispensation to speak for slightly longer than the limit you've imposed. Given that my constituents are in the gallery, and given that the opposition chose and given that the opposition chose to cite a motion mentioning my constituency without any reference to me. Thank you, Madam Deputy to me. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The government wants to build in in in my constituency, a Portacabin village to house male asylum seekers, not in former military accommodation, but on a derelict storage depot at MoD Bicester. This is totally inappropriate on that point, I fully agree with the hon. Member for Beaconsfield from the moment that without any prior notice, the government published its proposal, I have opposed it. The scheme is wrong for local communities and my constituency is wrong for asylum seekers and is wrong for the

14:50

Calum Miller MP (Bicester and Woodstock, Liberal Democrat)

- -

taxpayer. For three and a half months I have worked closely with local campaigners to stop the scheme, raising it here with the

14:50

Greg Smith MP (Mid Buckinghamshire, Conservative)

- -

scheme, raising it here with the Prime Minister, the Borders and Asylum Minister and the Defence Readiness Minister. We will continue that campaign until the

14:50

Calum Miller MP (Bicester and Woodstock, Liberal Democrat)

- -

continue that campaign until the government sees sense. Allow me, Madam Deputy Speaker, to welcome my constituents from Piddington to the constituents from Piddington to the gallery today. I hope it will be possible to meet with them after the debate. I further welcome this chance to set out what is wrong chance to set out what is wrong with the proposal, for it is not an appropriate site to house 1256 people. Back in 2005, when the last Labour government proposed the scheme. Here, a planning inspector rejected the proposal to house 750 asylum seekers, men, women and children on site A.

He said it was isolated, unsuitable and unsafe and the proposal would create excessive community tensions. All of those things are still true today and apply even more to a larger site, exclusively housing male asylum seekers. And I second the comments of my neighbour in Mid Buckinghamshire, who has laid out very clearly the arguments that have been articulated so clearly by the campaigners from, amongst other groups, wrong plan, wrong site. And I just ask the Minister this, given the legal challenge that has been presented by that group, will the government pause its planning application and commit to conducting a full environmental impact assessment of the site, as required under its own policies before proceeding? Madam Deputy Speaker, I know this area very well.

Before entering this House, I served as County Councillor for the villages of Otmoor. I spent many evenings at Piddington, Arncott and Ambrosden Parish Councils, something I'm sure other members will be jealous of. Since this proposal. I visited Piddington many times, meeting members of the campaign group and knocking on the doors of my constituents, speaking with women and men about their concerns. Local residents are worried that this site would take away stretch local resources, not only water and power which are scarce, but also health services and policing.

Women and girls in the area have raised concerns with me about their safety, and as someone who has spoken repeatedly in this House against violence, against women and girls, I understand why they are fearful today. As a society, we are failing to protect them from predatory men. And when the worst happens, the justice system is not delivering them swift justice. No wonder they lack confidence. They will be kept safe. In that context, any proposal to house over 1200 men in a new site adjacent to small villages would be a cause for fear and concern.

I have spoken with the Police and Crime Commissioner, with Home Office Ministers and with local police leaders about this, and I will continue to seek assurance from Ministers that the government will provide sufficient additional police resources. However, let us be clear the Conservatives and Reform UK are trying to turn this into a race issue. It's not a race issue, Madam Speaker. It's a man issue. Women and girls are at risk from the behaviour of men. Tragically, 9 in 10 assaults are committed by men they know.

I will continue to fight for more police and court resources to keep women and girls safe. Madam Speaker, it is clear that the proposal that, like the proposal of the motion, I condemn the government's proposal. But I deeply regret that today the Conservatives have sought to link that with their policy on the European Court of Human Rights. We could have united on this issue, as I have sought to do at the local level with local conservative councillors and with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire.

Instead, the Conservatives have sought to divide rather than unite. I will continue to work with all those in my local community to oppose this wrong sighted proposal and to ensure that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the government thinks again. Aphra Brandreth thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. The first duty of any government is to keep duty of any government is to keep its citizens safe, and nowhere is that duty more important than across our communities and in the across our communities and in the protection of women and girls who have a right to feel safe and a right to expect the government to do everything in its power to do everything in its power to protect them. Today's debate is an opportunity to send a clear message that we will not accept policies which put our communities at risk, and that we are prepared to take the difficult decisions necessary to restore control of our borders.

The grooming gang scandal is a national disgrace. Girls, some as young as 11, were raped, abused and

14:54

Aphra Brandreth MP (Chester South and Eddisbury, Conservative)

- -

trafficked by organised gangs and when they cried out for help, too often they were ignored, often they were ignored, disbelieved or dismissed. And those in positions of authority whose first responsibility was to protect first responsibility was to protect them, failed them appallingly. We must never allow that to happen again. That means putting victims first, listening to their experiences, and having the courage to confront uncomfortable truths, to confront uncomfortable truths, however difficult they may be. In July, I raised the case of Shabir Ahmed, the Rochdale grooming gang ringleader, directly with the then Foreign Secretary.

She agreed that every possible lever should be explored to secure his deportation. Yet three months later, he remains in the UK when the law protects the man who raped a child rather than the child he raped. Something is profoundly wrong, and this house must have the power and the determination to put that right. Our rights in this country long predate the ECHR, and under our conservative borders plan, we will leave it illegal. Arrivals removed within a week. Every foreign criminal deported and an end to the cycle of last minute claims that let dangerous men run down the clock.

But what is this government's answer to house over 1200 single men at MoD Bicester, next to Piddington, a village of just 350 people with limited local infrastructure and services? Madam Deputy Speaker, the way these plans have been imposed on a small rural community has left many others feeling they could be next. Villages like Audlem in my constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury, where residents have raised serious concerns about the future of the old grammar school site. Yet when I asked Ministers whether any site in Audlem had been approved for asylum accommodation, the government failed to give me a straight answer.

And when I asked about the suitability of rural locations, I was told that the Home Office does not even record asylum accommodation, according to whether it is in a rural area. Many of the concerns raised in Piddington are equally relevant to Audlem. Small rural villages simply do not have the infrastructure to accommodate what would realistically be an influx of young men. My constituents deserve clarity. They deserve straight answers about the future of the site and above all, they deserve an immigration system that tackles illegal arrivals in the first place.

That means a credible deterrent, and that is delivered by leaving the ECHR. Madam Deputy Speaker, that is why I wholeheartedly support this motion, because whether it is Piddington, Audlem or communities across the country, people deserve to feel safe in their homes and in their communities. And above all, we owe it to every woman and girl in this country to do everything in our power to protect them here. House.

14:57

Rt Hon Sir Edward Leigh MP (Gainsborough, Conservative)

- -

Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Our hearts. >> Go out to the people of Piddington, and we've had a very Piddington, and we've had a very moving speech from the constituency MP. And of course, we agree with everything that he says on that. everything that he says on that. Can I share with you, Madam Speaker? Deputy Speaker, my own experience of the Unsuitably unsuitability of large military bases to house migrants we had worked for years after failed projects for former RAF bases in Lincolnshire for years to get massive regeneration into RAF Scampton.

The whole scheme was ready to go to raise 300, perhaps £300 million of investment. And then I received an invitation from the then Home Secretary, my personal friend, the right hon. Member for Fareham and Waterlooville. She summed me into her office, her grand office, and she said to me that all this regeneration is all going to vanish, and I'm going to put 2000 migrants in there, right next to hundreds, hundreds of people who had bought their home right next to the site a hundred yards away.

Now, I fought this battle for two years, and she was followed by the Rotherham of the Newark, who was even more. His enemies might say he was even more ruthless, even more determined to put the migrants in. But I have to say, and I'm now looking at the Minister, I have to thank this government. I really have to thank my friend, my personal friend, the right hon. Member for Lincoln, because Scampton is only five miles from Lincoln and they realised following the Nao report after £64 million wasted on trying to convert listed buildings, hundred 100 buildings, a runway, an 800 acre site, it was rubbish, condemned by the complete waste of money and we've seen them off.

So I thank the Minister for the latest deal that we've announced to try and get a world class defence company in there, so these large military bases simply don't work and they're no deterrent. You know, if you're in some hellhole like Eritrea, are you really worried about whether you might end up in Piddington or Scampton or Bicester? Of course not as a deterrent. It simply doesn't work. It would be better, frankly, to find some isolated state, a place to to surround it, to make it secure and detain people there in portacabins.

The trouble is, we can't do it because the Refugee Human Rights Act, the European Convention of Human Rights, the Refugee Convention, that's the problem we've always faced. We cannot detain these people. There is no deterrent unless we follow the policy of the opposition, to detain people as they land and deport them within a week. So all that we've heard about the ECHR and I'm on the Council of Europe, it simply stops us dealing with this problem. The only solution is offshoring.

Everybody knows that nothing else works. Now, can I end on a positive note? Because although we're right to hold the government to account, they're never going to listen to us on the ECHR. But I'm on the Council of Europe, as I've said. Why don't we have a return agreement to countries which are in the Council of Europe but are far distant away, are Armenia or Moldova or Azerbaijan or Serbia? I mean, I just give this free advice to the government. No court would ever stop it.

But something must be done. This is destroying our political system. It is driving people mad when we can't control our own borders. The government must act and if they don't act, then they will reap the whirlwind.

15:01

Pete Wishart MP (Perth and Kinross-shire, Scottish National Party)

- -

15:08

Shivani Raja MP (Leicester East, Conservative)

- -

Order Shivani Raja. >> Order Shivani Raja. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We all understand that the protection of women and girls is a matter that transcends party politics. This debate today is not about point scoring, but is an important conversation that we need important conversation that we need to have. The current direction of this government's immigration policy is harming our women and girls in communities across the country. Those who are most vulnerable are put at risk by hordes of single men who do not understand basic human rights, including the right not to be raped.

Why are we allowing individuals into our country who do not have the capacity to function as part of British society? Small boat crossings surged by 50% between 2024 general election and the end of 2025, reaching nearly 65,000 people. I know that hon. Members on the opposite benches will have their fair share of statistics to deploy in this debate, but we must focus on the situation right now and how to address it. The impact of this vast influx is felt right now by teenage girls who are too scared to walk to school alone, and by young women filled with fear when travelling home after an evening with friends.

This fear is felt by our mothers, our sisters, our daughters, our friends. I myself have felt that fear promises from the government benches to smash the gangs are hollow and empty. The Prime Minister is enjoying his newfound rhetoric of hope, but I encourage him and his ministerial colleagues to visit communities like Piddington and Crowborough and see the reality that confronts the women and girls there. Let us not make the mistake of thinking that we do not have a choice in this matter.

Madam Deputy Speaker in the first instance, can I suggest to my colleagues opposite that a rural village of 350 people is not a suitable site for over 1000 single men? But beyond that, there are policy decisions that we have the power in this House to make that will protect our women and girls. Our Conservative Borders plan details just some of the measures we could take to tackle illegal immigration, including leaving the EC and repealing the Human Rights Act, removing it from all immigration related matters.

The ECHR, as it stands, is a barrier to common sense. Why, Madam Deputy Speaker, are members on the opposite side of the House so resolutely committed to remaining part of a treaty that prevents the deportation of foreign rapists and paedophiles? Lord Wolfson's review confirmed that the UK governance is significantly constrained by ECHR membership. As long as we remain bound by these foreign court regulations, we cannot carry out the core duties that we owe to the British people. Any notion that we would lose fundamental rights upon leaving the ECHR is simply false.

Advanced democracies like Canada, Australia and New Zealand function effectively without the constraints of this convention, and it is naive to believe that the birthplace of parliamentary democracy cannot do the very same. Madam Deputy Speaker, I agree that our country has been built, has been built on legal immigration, but we must be crystal clear. The doctors, nurses, builders, engineers and teachers who come here to contribute to our country and strengthen our economy are not the same as single men sitting in asylum camps living off taxpayer money.

My constituency of Leicester East is a testament to that distinction. It is one of the most diverse constituencies in the country, and also one of the most entrepreneurial. With over 20,000 SMEs driving Leicester's economy, making that distinction is crucial. Uncontrolled illegal immigration undermines everyone who seeks to come here legally. Those who want to integrate, who spend thousands of pounds on visa applications and who work tirelessly to build a better life for their families. That is who we as a Conservative Party stand up for.

In closing, I encourage any members of this House to talk to women who now fear leaving their homes. Listen to the fathers, the brothers and sisters and their husbands. Hear how little hope they feel under this government's plans. Go to Chris Bloore and see how the Home Office's occupation of the training camp there is bringing hope to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

residents in Walden. When you force over 1000. Order, order Sarah Bool. Thank you, Madam.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. Now, whilst the MoD Bicester site is outside my constituency, it is actually constituency, it is actually approximately 11km from my nearest settlement and I wrote to the Home Secretary on the 1st of September Secretary on the 1st of September on behalf of female constituents, not only in South Northamptonshire, but also on behalf of Piddington but also on behalf of Piddington women who I'm so pleased to see in the gallery here today. And they contacted me to express their concerns for safety.

And I must reiterate that the guidance, understanding, behaviour and expectations in the UK reinforced their concerns. Now I have a migrant hotel in my constituency. We know the issues that come around having migrants in the area. A big question is what will they do with their time now? Rural crime already is an issue and this could be exploited and they could be by existing criminal gangs. Why? I'd like to ask the Minister, have stab vests been issued to security staff working at the base in the last month, when they've never been needed before? The site was deemed unsuitable for an open

15:13

Sarah Bool MP (South Northamptonshire, Conservative)

- -

accommodation centre by a planning inspectorate and local authority over 20 years ago, and little has over 20 years ago, and little has changed since. In the early 2000, the High Court ruled that no more than 750 people could potentially than 750 people could potentially live there, but now it's 1250. The Home Office argued that not using Home Office argued that not using hotels is to ensure better use of public money, but these large public money, but these large accommodation sites would cost £46 million more, according to the National Audit Office.

Now, all of this could be avoidable if only the government would take robust approach to our asylum system. And that means reviewing our position with the OECD. As Lord Wolfson's excellent report highlights, the ECHR does play significant legal constraints on the government's ability to address issues like immigration, and other countries across Europe are also reconsidering their relationship with the ECHR. In light of immigration issues. It's countries like Belgium, Italy, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Lithuania and Austria.

We are not alone. I will make progress because we are very close to the end of the debate. But the European all of those have have looked at reforming the actual ECHR. Well, the European Court of Human Rights has expanded the interpretation of human rights for as long as the European Court of Human Rights regards the ECHR as a living instrument such that its decisions and its. In consequence, those of domestic courts are not constrained by the actual wording of the ECHR.

We will have problems. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So John Hayes. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The growth in population in this growth in population in this country has been fuelled by mass migration. When I was a boy, the population was regularly cited as population was regularly cited as being about 5758 million. The ONS now estimate that by 2035, it's now estimate that by 2035, it's likely to be 72.5 million. Leaving aside the pressure that places on aside the pressure that places on public services the economic damage it does, the.

The truth is that the character of our country is being changed beyond recognition, and overwhelmingly the British people resist and resent that change which has happened without their consent. Now, Ministers know that there's a cultural problem. In August, the Home Office published a book for newly arrived asylum seekers, which said, and I quote, if you have sex with someone who does not want to. This is called rape. Rape is a serious crime. The fact that the government believes that those arriving were so primitive that they didn't know that is extraordinary, but the truth suggests that they were right.

Numerous cases. Just this week we saw the sentencing of Hussain. I'm not going to get the pronunciations right. Muhammad, a 36 year old Iranian woman who came to Britain convicted of a 33 to 33 year old woman and has been sentenced to 11

15:16

Rt Hon Sir John Hayes MP (South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)

- -

15:22

Rt Hon Chris Philp MP (Croydon South, Conservative)

- -

15:30

Jo White MP (Bassetlaw, Labour)

- -

of hotels being used to house vast numbers of illegal immigrants at immense cost to the public. Unfair immense cost to the public. Unfair to the genuine, genuine refugees left waiting over a year to have their case heard and unfair to the their case heard and unfair to the British people being asked to shoulder an ever increasing burden in their taxes and their in their taxes and their communities. From day one, we began the hard work of fixing our asylum the hard work of fixing our asylum system and restoring order and control to our borders.

The statistics show that we are making progress. Asylum decision making is up and returns are up, while small boat arrivals are down and we remain on track to end the use of asylum hotels. This Parliament and we know there is a long way to go and that is why we continue to work relentlessly at home and abroad, to tackle the people smugglers who value profit above human life, and to remove those who have no right to be here.

At the same time, we are ensuring asylum seekers are housed in the fairest, most cost effective way. We have seen the stress and strains of hotel usage. We are ending that scandal and we are moving asylum seekers to make appropriate accommodation to more appropriate accommodation, more former military bases, which are secure and contained, provide one of the best solutions. They allow us to bring in the services required on site, minimising the impact on the local community with in-house with in-house services, 24 over seven security and CCTV.

Of course, we will always listen to concerns and work with the community, but existing sites, including Wethersfield, have operated for years, with no evidence of any significant increase in criminality attributed to the operation of the site on the sea. We do not need to leave to restore order to our immigration system. Winston. No. Winston Churchill proposed the establishment of the European Commission of Human Rights at the 1948 Congress of Europe, and the UK was the first country to ratify it in 1951.

It came from Churchill's experience of dealing with the Nazis before and during the Second World War. 13 million were murdered, unprotected and easy rights define what we mean by never again, how they are interpreted and how they are applied are, of course, important. And it's why the Home Secretary committed last year to oversee reforms to bring it into the modern age. What it does include is freedom of assembly, freedom to a fair trial, the prohibition of torture, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, the right to life, including the right not to be murdered in your own state.

That is what the Nazis did. And this is where this comes from. And this is why these principles remain essential and which and which two countries have chosen to stay out. Russia and Belarus. And perhaps we should ask the opposition leaders in Russia and Belarus falsely imprisoned, tortured and murdered by the state. And this is what we are talking about. This is what we would throw away protections against show trials and political persecution. We will not hand over our freedoms to the whims of tyrants and dictators.

Instead, no I'm not. No, I'm not going to sit down. Instead, we stand with Churchill and we will build a fair, controlled immigration system that's free from abuse. We will focus on concerns that people are rightly concerned about, but the issue is not the existence of the convention, it is how it has been applied over time. We do not fix a fault by walking away. You sort it by restoring the right balance and making sure that the system works as intended.

And that is why all 46 members adopted the now political declaration in May, creating solid foundations for reform. The government is now translating this into practical change, and we will see reform of the domestic application of article eight, restoring the proper balance between individual rights and protecting the public interest. This is a binary choice reform and have greater control over our borders, or leave and lose our ability to return illegal migrants or foreign criminals criminals. I choose the powers that each gives us, which protects all our individual rights and freedoms.

It also provides us with responsibilities and where people have been subjected to torture or the risk of torture, we have rightly provided them with a place of security and safety.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. I now come to some of the further points made by hon. Members. I respond appropriately to members I respond appropriately to members and in responding to the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, wanted to know Crewe and Nantwich, wanted to know a timeline on closing down the hotels in places like Falkirk, which were approved by the Tories which were approved by the Tories when they were in power. The ambition is to end end hotel use by the end of this parliamentary term.

We are now going down from 400, which is when we came into Parliament to less than 160, and I will celebrate with him when we are in the position to close down the remaining hotel in his constituency. In response to the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, his Ruislip. Sorry, Ruislip. Sorry. I apologise for that. His. His introduction of the introduction of ETAs at the borders and ports and the use of visa penalties, has given us much greater control over our borders.

Disincentivizing the. The. The crossing through the introduction of new strong. Central to new strong control measures, including border command and by cracking down on illegal working and introducing safe and legal routes for genuine asylum cases from some of our most from some of the most dangerous countries in the world has meant we are giving us greater power over our borders. The changing of how ether is applied is critical to bringing back order and control on women's safety. This is a concern that this government shares, and I do acknowledge the concerns of the women who are here today.

No women should live live a smaller life, and this government is committed to halve violence against women and girls within this decade. And this is a cross-government response to the issue. And we will work as hard as we can to achieve this. The Home Office have met with Cherwell District Council chief executive and its leader to discuss cohesion challenges linked to that people are concerned about on the site, and they are listening to the concerns raised by women. And this is this is an imperative for the Home Office.

The proposal contained in the planning application includes on site 24 over seven security Khq-tv and. And this is what we have produced. Introduced on other large sites such as Wethersfield. Wethersfield, which has operated in this way for years. As the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh identified, safeguarding for the local community is an imperative. It is important and this drives the management of the site on the planning process and concerns were raised by the hon. Member earlier. This already includes an environment or environmental impact assessment.

You just walked in. And there were no there were no objections by National Natural England and the final cost of this site will only be known following the outcome of the procurement process. Keep going.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Keep going. Concerns were raised regarding article three. The government accepts that there will be a genuinely exceptional medical healthcare, healthcare cases where article three prevents removal. However, these must be exceptional.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

guarantee. Does she think that in any circumstances, a rapist should be failed to be deported from this country because of access to healthcare? A rapist?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So cases are inherently inherently fact sensitive and must always be assessed on their individual circumstances. It's not individual circumstances. It's not for me to say in this House. Absolutely. And following the Absolutely. And following the recent political declaration on article three, we are working to secure stronger, first instant decisions, better prepared litigation, and more consistent application of article three. Further operational policy or Further operational policy or legislative reform will remain available where persistent barriers are identified. In response to the Member for Fareham and Waterlooville, who was in her place earlier, has and no longer here or there she is.

She was in the Home Office when she approved large sites, including the one that was proposed for RAF Scampton, and this because she knows that in-house services. 24 over seven. CCTV and security provides a greater level of protection for communities. And in conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, this country is proud to offer sanctuary to those fleeing conflict or persecution. It is the right thing to do and it is a fundamental part of who we are. But that generosity depends on the support of the British public.

They must believe that our asylum is fair, and for that it must be capped and controlled with decisions and appeals which are fast and fair, and those with no right to be here promptly removed. That is the imperative behind every decision this government takes. We are restoring order to our control, restoring order to our borders. We are making our asylum system faster and fairer, and in doing so, we will ensure that this country can continue providing protection to those in need today and for generations to come.

15:41

Division

Hey! >> The question is, as on the Order Paper, As many as of that opinion say aye. I of the contrary. No, no. The question is, as on the Order Paper, As many as of that opinion say aye. I of the contrary. No, no. The Tellers for the ayes are David Simmons and Alicia Kearns, the tellers for the nos. Michael tellers for the nos. Michael Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

113, the nos. The left 309.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

113, the nos. The left 309. The ayes to the right for 113. The noes to the left 309. So the The noes to the left 309. So the nos have it. The nos have it unlock. Order order order. I will now announce the result of today's deferred divisions on the draft Acas Code of Practice on time off for trade union duties and activities. The eyes were 328, the nose were 114. So the ayes have it.

The ayes have it on the draft code of practice on the right of trade unions to access workplaces. The eyes were 326. The nose were 115. So the ayes have it on the draft. Trade unions Right to Access Workplaces Regulations 2026. The eyes were 326. The nose were 115. So the ayes have it on the carbon border adjustment mechanism. Calculation of C band rate and determination of Carbon Price Relief Regulations 2026. The eyes were 319.

The nose were 115. So the ayes have it. Before we move on to the second opposition day motion on inheritance tax, can I remind all members planning to speak in this debate that it is a courtesy of the House that you return for wind ups? We now come to the opposition day motion on inheritance tax. I inform the House that the speaker has not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

selected the amendment. I call the opposition spokesman to move the motion. Andrew Griffith. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I beg to move that this House calls on the government to cut

15:56

General debate: Opposition day (third allotted day): Inheritance Tax

calls on the government to cut public spending in order to abolish inheritance tax on family homes, inheritance tax on family homes, farms and businesses. Madam Deputy farms and businesses. Madam Deputy Speaker, there is a divide the size of Manchester's Etihad Arena in British politics today. Between those who want a tax, family farms and those who don't. Between those who want to tax family businesses and those who don't. And now between those who want to tax family homes and those who don't.

Not content with the highest tax burden in peace time history. In their first Budget, the government chose to impose inheritance tax on farmers and family businesses. Well, the Conservatives would scrap the family farm tax and the family business tax, and we would abolish inheritance tax on the family home, because we believe that people who work hard and save hard should keep the rewards, rather than seeing them sold and snaffled up to pay a tax burden who refuses to make the hard choices and to cut welfare.

We'll hear later from my colleague, the shadow Defence Secretary, who has been a stalwart defender of Britain's farmers that this government has attacked. So I'll speak briefly to the family businesses, that this government is also attacking. Many of them are small businesses, people who get up every day take on the responsibility of hiring, often young people, making payroll and of creating growth in this country.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Give way. Extremely grateful to him for giving way. And before he moves away from farms. And I moves away from farms. And I appreciate he's told us that our right hon. Friend will be responding on that point. Would he agree that one of the many agree that one of the many foolishnesses in the government's approach to attacks on the approach to attacks on the inheritance of farmland is that farmers face a challenge in the age of farmers? We need more young of farmers? We need more young people in farming, and if you make it more difficult and more expensive for those young people most likely to go into farming, namely the children of farming families, you will exacerbate that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

primary problem. Absolutely. Very well said. Well, the hon. Gentleman is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, the hon. Gentleman is exactly right. These are, by definition and the original reason for the exemption in death duties for the exemption in death duties that previous Labour governments respected was that generational aspect. The fact that a business, a aspect. The fact that a business, a farm, doesn't necessarily produce the cash flow necessary to hand the cash flow necessary to hand over an enormous part of that value when, tragically, death takes place. And I know that's a point that my right hon.

Friend will pick up later on. So if I can move on to businesses which, as both members of both sides will know, are far more numerous, in fact, than the farms who we know are impacted on this businesses in every one of our constituencies, in every one of our high streets and every one of our trading estates. Often they are family businesses that have been in that family for multiple generations, and this is causing extreme jeopardy, even to the point that people are having to take action right now to protect those family interests.

Madam Deputy Speaker Edmund Burke, much beloved on this side of the House, said that society is a partnership between those who are living, those who are dead and those who are yet to be born. And there couldn't be a better manifestation of that than Britain's family. Businesses rooted in their local community, providing jobs down the generations. And yet this government is hell bent on breaking them up and forcing them to sell the pieces to pay an inheritance tax bill that they should never have to face.

We conservatives are on the side of family businesses.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of course, I'm grateful to be hon. Gentleman for giving way, because across my constituency there is a wealth of small there is a wealth of small businesses that keep our local economy growing. But does he agree with me that a time when our with me that a time when our businesses need the support which enables them to create employment for the next generation? What we're seeing from the benches opposite, seeing from the benches opposite, of course, where there's no business experience, is a government that's just squeezing

16:01

Andrew Griffith MP (Arundel and South Downs, Conservative)

- -

16:15

Rt Hon James Murray MP (Ealing North, Labour )

- -

16:32

Daisy Cooper MP (St Albans, Liberal Democrat)

- -

16:41

Andrew Lewin MP (Welwyn Hatfield, Labour)

- -

16:48

Patrick Spencer MP (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, Conservative)

- -

farms, large and small, but also towns populated with small and medium sized independent businesses medium sized independent businesses like Simpsons Sweets and Bulstrode's of Framlingham, Bulstrode's of Framlingham, Luxmoore of Ramsden Buckle shipping of Blakenham, the Lion Pub of of Blakenham, the Lion Pub of Debenham and Milton's of Kesgrave. Many of them, many of them, many of Many of them, many of them, many of them you should get. The hon. Member should visit, many of them family owned and run businesses.

So many of those family businesses are made up of parents working with children, nephews, nieces, brothers, sisters, even grandchildren. There is a palpable love and passion among family members working for something that their parents and uncles, indeed grandparents built. There is both a care for customers as well as a profound camaraderie among team members that is so very hard to replicate. These businesses aren't just great places to work. They provide world beating products and services.

Dingley Dell, in my constituency sells pork products to the Oberoi Hotel. Is it a is it a real place? I point of order Oberoi

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hotel in New Delhi. Yes, absolutely. Hudson, I'm very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Are any of the premises there? Are there any black Labradors in them? Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm happy to report the black Labrador population of Suffolk. As I was saying, Madam Deputy Speaker I was saying, Madam Deputy Speaker is medical in Debenhams, sells medical equipment around the world. These businesses are invaluable to our economy and society. Not only do they provide jobs, but they pay their taxes that support critical public services. That's right. We need businesses to boost productivity and supercharge social mobility. But for so many of my local businesses, there is an unquestionable sadness that the current government seeks to penalize them for wanting to keep a business in the family.

This cannot be true for families of farmers who have tended to land for generations, who have woken up early, dedicated, unimaginable hours seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. And now they're told they have to give up that because this Prime Minister doesn't have the temerity to get to grips with the welfare Budget, because this Labour regime cannot bring themselves to stand up to civil service unions who want to work for days for more pay. Yes, everyone heard that, right.

This government wants to tax the farmers and the entrepreneurs who work seven days a week so that civil servants in London can work four days a week for a party founded to protect workers rights. Let me tell you, the workers in my constituency feel abandoned by this government. The iniquity of this social and economic contract negates the utter lunacy that seems to govern the government's approach to our public finances. I would welcome anyone in this chamber, indeed anyone in this country, to make a reasonable argument that public spending in its current form, with the interest rates at record levels and rising, is sustainable.

We have debt to GDP of approximately 100% with 3 trillion in debt outstanding. We've borrowed more than £134 billion last year alone. As a percentage of GDP. We spend as much now as we did at the height of the global financial crisis, when we were bailing out banks. And as much as we did during the mid 1970s, which by complete coincidence, was the last time we had a proper left wing government like this one in place. How many warnings from the IMF do we have to put up with until the government suddenly take note and realise you cannot borrow and spend your way from a crisis? June 2026.

September 2026. Now, just earlier this week, international economists have said enough is enough, but the government. But I won't actually. But the government has a chance for you to. The government has a chance to U-turn. It's a move they are now all too familiar with. Show some gumption and cut welfare. Grow a backbone and don't let the slackers in Whitehall get away with a four day work week, cut taxes on the productive half of our economy, allowing businesses and families to pass their homes that they work for and they save for onto their children.

The Prime Minister loves a football analogy. Well, this is the biggest open goal he will ever face in his career. Do the right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

thing, cut taxes, cut spending, and support businesses. Yeah. Katherine West, thank you very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Katherine West, thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker and it's a real pleasure to speak in this debate and also to reflect on this debate and also to reflect on this particular question of inheritance tax brought by the Conservative tax brought by the Conservative Party, given that it deals really with about 4% of as a proportion of the population, whereas I think on the population, whereas I think on this side of the House, we're rather more concerned with the 63% of the population who are facing really tough times.

And so therefore, Labour will be voting against this opposition day motion

16:54

Catherine West MP (Hornsey and Friern Barnet, Labour)

- -

when it comes to it this afternoon. I think we all remember where we I think we all remember where we were in the summer of 2022 when Liz Truss crashed the economy. The mortgages which ordinary families mortgages which ordinary families around the country were paying, went through the roof. A shiver went down the spine of all people went down the spine of all people who had pensions invested as civil servants were sacked, and the servants were sacked, and the general reputation of the economy in the UK was trashed.

And sadly, we've been paying for the Truss penalty ever since. Those of us on this side of the House fought to stop the chaos, to restore hope and deliver change. And in two years a lot of progress has been made. And over this summer, even more progress has been made, and I look forward to the Budget coming forward in two weeks, with more to offer those struggling with the cost of living crisis. Today, His Majesty's official opposition is asking the House to vote to bring back that version of chaos.

Independent analysis suggests that conservative inheritance tax proposals could cost up to £10 billion a year. Most families would rather see that money used to tackle the cost of living for everyone, to increase the wealth for the country as a whole, rather than provide tax cuts for the 4% of the proportion of the population affected by this particular taxation, conservatives say they're the party of home ownership. But after 14 years in government, home ownership fell out of reach for too many young people and the only growth was the growth in homelessness, which sadly under the Conservatives, went up by 74% in the 14 years that they were in government.

Working people took to the government, took the government to tackle the cost of living crisis and give them breathing space. But sadly, the Conservatives priority is to tax cuts for inherited wealth. And as the Member for Welland so eloquently laid out, we should be looking at all possible options to bring in that meritocratic principle that it doesn't matter where you are born, what your background is, you should have an opportunity throughout your working life to make the very best and to be successful.

I'll take an intervention. I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. But I wonder, Madam Deputy Speaker, if she might like to on the fact that from next April, pensions are going to be added in what is being described as inherited wealth. Does the hon. Lady agree with me that pensions are not inherited wealth? They are money that has been earned and has been set aside doing the right thing, and now that is going to cost ordinary families when they hand that money down.

Absolutely, Catherine, as she's aware, the commitments being made that for those who are just getting the State Pension taxation will not be taken out of it. But for those who earn a lot, whether that be through pensions, whether that be through inheritance and other things, they will be taxed proportionately, which I think sounds like a pretty fair principle to me. In the meantime, we're on the side of the house. This on the side of the house, getting on with building the fairer country with a new political and economic model.

But we do need to help people right now. That's why Labour has taken immediate action to provide breathing space for people and businesses. For example, this was recognised, I was pleased and a couple of members have mentioned the IMF report as often. With economists, it's a bit of a curate's egg. Some people can choose the the text that they liked on the other side, but the one that I took from the economist, Miss Tenorio, was that the World Economic Outlook report gave the UK GDP an upgrade.

So that, I think, gives us some hope. As the Budget is just two weeks away. It sets quite a positive background. And for those of us on this side of the House, it's waking up to a little bit of positive news, which I think is also quite a good background for these decisions coming up in two weeks time. Just very briefly, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm aware there's lots of other people I'm particularly pleased about the scrapped VAT on electricity bills for this winter, and I know that there's more to come for very for homes where there's a lot of use of electricity, be that due to disability or a very high number of people living in a particular home with the capped bus fares, helping people get to work or get to job interviews.

£2 for the whole of 2027. Changing the rules on branded school uniform items to ease costs for families. Taking 20% off business rates for pubs, social clubs, music venues. Of course, in London, all children having that hot dinner in the middle of the day in school, changing public procurement rules to back British businesses or jobs. There's so many things which have been introduced in the short two years in which Labour's been in, and there's much more to come. These measures build on work Labour's done to restore stability and growth to the economy.

Difficult decisions have been taken and I was pleased to see that the Prime Minister did announce a further difficult decision on the triple lock coming forward, and I think it is a moment in time where we do have to be a little bit gutsy in our politics, and I was pleased to see that the PM did announce that very difficult decision coming down the track, but he did at least announce it so that we can start talking about that difficult challenge we have have over social care.

To sum up, Madam Deputy Speaker, it has a ring of chaos. These proposals flung out by the opposition, and I know I was in opposition for 14 years. I know how tempting it is to have a giggle on opposition day debates, but we do have to face the truth that we have to have some difficult decisions made in order to restore the reputation of our economy internationally with the markets, but also to build that important foundation with some innovation which has been brought forward by the member from Welland and others, I'm sure, who will speak in this debate so that we can.

I won't, because I've only got 40s, and I know you want to speak. Members want to speak, but we will get on with the delivering the difficult decisions and the change which our communities are longing to see. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Peter Fortune.

17:00

Peter Fortune MP (Bromley and Biggin Hill, Conservative)

- -

17:07

Phil Brickell MP (Bolton West, Labour)

- -

reference to the growing cost of social care or the vital contribution that inheritance tax contribution that inheritance tax receipts make towards supporting our ageing population. So let me be our ageing population. So let me be clear that it is the Conservatives who are proposing a tax break paid who are proposing a tax break paid for cuts to public spending for those who have inherited or accumulated considerable wealth. A tax break for the wealthiest 5.5%, who are forecast to be subject to IHT this year.

And let's be honest about what the party opposite are proposing. They're proposing to abolish a progressive redistributive tax in its entirety at a potential cost of £10.8 billion a year, to benefit a small minority of the very wealthiest estates. Now, I have no objection to people wanting to pass something on to their children. It is a natural and a valuable part of being a parent. But the question before us today is not whether families should be able to pass on their hard earned assets fairly.

It is whether the right priority for this country is to abolish inheritance tax altogether, regardless of the cost. And I think the answer is clear. I do not want to dwell on figures too much today, but one figure is worth remembering, because my constituency is a varied one. It has affluent areas and not so affluent areas. Yet at the last general election, fewer than 1% of estates in my Bolton West constituency were expected to fall within the inheritance tax threshold.

So I have to ask, on behalf of my hard working constituents, who exactly are the official opposition speaking to with this proposal, because it will do precious little for the overwhelming majority of people in Bolton, in Blackrod, in Horwich and Westhoughton. It will not help the small business owner struggling with rising costs in Westhoughton. It will not help the single mum in Horwich managing the weekly shop. It will not help the pensioner in Blackrod worried about their energy bills, and it will not help the young person in Bolton trying to get on the first rung of the housing ladder.

It is designed to benefit a small minority with the largest estates. So let me reiterate the remarks from my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield that this is a return by the official opposition to their comfort zone. Most families in my constituency, and I wager in the country at large, would far rather see that money used to tackle the cost of living crisis, improve public services and give working people some breathing room. Now, the official opposition may have concerns about the tapering of the personal allowance for earners over £100,000, the high marginal tax rates that can create, or the economic distortions that follow.

Those are legitimate subjects for debate, but they are not the motion before us today. And if the Conservatives wanted to bring forward proposals that would genuinely help ordinary families, they had plenty of alternatives. They could have focused on cracking down on aggressive tax avoidance and evasion, which deprived the public purse of billions of pounds that could otherwise fund our public services. They could have tackled the tangled web of professional enablers who help wealthy individuals. And yes, some businesses conceal assets, exploit loopholes and avoid paying what they owe.

They could have proposed a fairer tax system that levels the playing field between online giants and high street businesses. Those are the debates worth having. Those are the sorts of proposals that could command support across this House. Instead, the Conservatives have deliberately chosen to pursue a narrow partisan agenda that benefits those who are asset rich, while offering precious little to those who need help the most. And that brings me to the wider question of priorities, because this government understands that helping people with the cost of living means taking practical action on the bills they pay, the services they rely on, and the businesses that sustain their communities.

And this government has pursued those, including through scrapping VAT on electricity bills for this winter. And those are practical measures. They speak to the everyday concerns of working people, families and, yes, small businesses. And that's what responsible government looks like. Yet the party opposite, by contrast, want us to believe that the answer to the pressures facing this country is to spend less on public services so that a small minority can pay less tax on their estates. I must say it sounds remarkably like they have learnt little from the Liz Truss debacle, and what they are proposing means less money available for public services, less money to support vulnerable people, and less capacity to address the pressures facing our country.

If the official opposition is serious about rebuilding its support across the United Kingdom, about speaking to people in every community and demonstrating that it is ready to govern again. It should scrap this motion. It should focus on the issues that speak to the country at large, because politics is about priorities and in choosing the complete abolition of inheritance tax. As the subject of today's opposition day debate, the official opposition has sent a very clear signal. Tax cuts for a small minority over support for the many.

The interests of the wealthiest estates over the needs of children growing up in poverty and chosen to spend billions on a policy that will do precious little for my constituents across Bolton West. And that's why I will not be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

supporting this motion. Hey, Stevenson. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm sure you will agree with me that there are few instincts, more human, than wanting to leave human, than wanting to leave something behind for your children. A home you paid for for over 30 years. Perhaps a farm your grandfather worked before you. Maybe a business you built from nothing. I know people on this side nothing. I know people on this side of the house know all about all three. And on this side of the House, we believe that hard work should be rewarded.

On that side of the House, as we've heard over the past few years. And today, they simply cannot resist their natural instincts to penalize aspirational homeowners, farmers and business

17:13

Blake Stephenson MP (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

- -

owners. Now, let us remember that inheritance tax was once something only the very, very wealthiest had only the very, very wealthiest had to think about. But of course, not anymore. The nil rate band has been anymore. The nil rate band has been £325,000 since 2009, and this government has frozen it all the government has frozen it all the way out to 2031. Over the same period, we know house prices have soared right across the country. soared right across the country. The result is that receipts have hit a record £8.2 billion, and the OBR expects them to reach almost £14 billion by the end of the decade.

Analysis by Tax Policy Associates suggests that by next year, around 1 in 5 pensioner households will face a bill if they died. This was not in contemplation when inheritance tax was first envisaged. And from April next year, because the party opposite can't get enough of hoovering up people's wealth, unspent pensions will also be dragged in to the liability. That is not a tax on the super rich. Madam Deputy Speaker, it's a tax on hard working constituents right across the country, including those in three bedroom semi-detached houses where they've raised their children.

And as we've heard today, including families in Carlisle

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Street in Saint Albans, no less. What was she said?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What was she said? Madam Deputy Speaker? It's fascinating that the conservative benches are so obsessed with Carlisle Avenue. I've just looked Carlisle Avenue. I've just looked up Carlisle Avenue's local election results from last May. One half of results from last May. One half of the street is in Bernards Heath Ward, where the Conservatives came fourth, and the other end of fourth, and the other end of Carlisle Avenue is in another ward where the Conservatives came fifth. I wonder what the hon.

Gentleman thinks about whether there are more structural issues with his party. That means that people living on Carlisle Avenue have no interest in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

his party policy. I am impressed by. I'm impressed by the hon. Lady's research. by the hon. Lady's research. Between the intervention earlier by my hon. Friend and making that point now, so I'm impressed. I point now, so I'm impressed. I might just add that members of the public are. Your constituent or constituents in that street may constituents in that street may have been duped by some Lib Dem paragraphs, perhaps, but let's. Let's see. Mid Bedfordshire is a rural constituency and and and and there are many farming, farming families in my constituency as there are right across the country.

And they were told in October 2024 that the government was coming for the land. They have worked for generations, and thanks to their hard work and their campaigning and pressure from this side of the House, the government retreated last December and raised the threshold to £2.5 million, which they are grateful for. But it does not go far enough. And despite debate after debate in this House, what the government doesn't seem to understand is that a farmer earning a small yield.

They. They can't cover the inheritance tax liability in less. They sell the land. If the government would prefer farmers to sell their land rather than farming it, they should just say so. If not, they should acknowledge that the incentives their family farm tax creates are simply wrong. Under their plans, a 20% charge still applies on land that often yields only 1 or 2% a year, but which is vital for them to help us feed the nation. And the rules have changed twice in 14 months.

You cannot plan a farm succession or a business succession over a generation when the tax rules change every Budget. The same is true, of course, of a family business. The engineering firm, the builders merchant, the garden centre, up and down the country, great family businesses. They

**** Possible New Speaker ****

cannot plan their succession when they don't have certainty in the rules. I absolutely do. I am grateful.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful. To my hon. Friend for giving way. Doesn't he agree with me that it is Doesn't he agree with me that it is completely iniquitous that family farms have to pay inheritance tax on their assets? And yet, if those on their assets? And yet, if those assets were owned by a foreign company or a foreign individual, no company or a foreign individual, no inheritance tax would be paid. Why does he think that this Labour government wants to single out British owned family farms?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And my hon. Friend makes an absolutely superb point, and it is absolutely superb point, and it is beyond all comprehension on this side as to why the government would target small family businesses and target small family businesses and small farms in the way they have. And I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. When the owner making that point. When the owner of a small business or a farm dies unexpectedly, the family should be focused on keeping the business going and the staff in work, not on raising a tax bill by selling off pieces of the business until there's nothing left.

The government can't talk about growth and then take apart small businesses because an owner has died. It is completely the wrong approach. So what would we do in government? A conservative government will abolish inheritance tax on the family home. That is the right thing to do. We will replace today's complicated allowances with a single half £1 million allowance per person, £1 million per couple. That is the right thing to do. And we will restore agricultural and business property in full, so that no family farm or family firm is broken up to fund Labour's welfare spending.

Absolutely. The Prime Minister says we cannot have national security without social security and absolutely shocking statement. But we cannot have either without economic security, without an economy where people create jobs, expand businesses, buy homes and feel the benefits of doing so. Our reforms would make sure that welfare works for British citizens, that people with lower level mental health conditions get treatment, rather than being written off with a check that more assessments are done face to face, and that the obligation to look for work means something.

Getting people into work is good for them, good for their families, and good for the taxpayer. Deputy speaker, in two weeks, the Chancellor will deliver his first Budget, and I know members on this side of the House are really looking forward to that day. Now he has a choice. He can keep taxing work, savings and inheritance, taxing everything you own that isn't nailed down, and more besides, perhaps. Let's see. To pay for a welfare bill that is truly out of control.

Or he can change course, get a grip on spending, and help power the engines of growth that will make us all richer. I know which choice make.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Tim Rocca. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We do not only ask today, how much have you got? We also ask, how did you get it? Did you earn it yourself or is it just been left to you by others? The estate duties provide a corrective against the provide a corrective against the development of the idle rich, and it's a far better thing to tax the it's a far better thing to tax the accumulation of the past than to burden the industry of the present.

And those aren't my words, Madam

17:20

Tim Roca MP (Macclesfield, Labour)

- -

17:29

John Cooper MP (Dumfries and Galloway, Conservative)

- -

rich, as evidenced by the hon. Member for Tipton and Wednesbury. Sadly, not in her place. A chill was sent to rural Dumfries and Galloway by changes to agricultural property relief, for this was not just about farmers, but about the wider community and the many jobs intertwined with dairy and beef, pigs and sheep, arable and horticulture. Since election to this place, I have had military veterans, some of the toughest people I have ever had the privilege to meet well up when recalling comrades lost and maimed in service of this country, a woman in tears because Duff pension advice had robbed her.

And I've also had farmers weeping too. We are talking here about men in their 80s, men with hard knocks enough for many lifetimes under their belts. And those proud old men were crying not for themselves and what they thought they might lose in what little time lay ahead, but about what future generations will lose. Many families realise that no child will now take on the stark new financial reality of farming. And how incredible was it to sit in this place and watch government Ministers giving advice on how to mitigate the damage their own policies were doing? Labour liked to roar about the 14 years we conservatives had in power, but what were they doing in their 14 years in opposition? Precious little proper planning, clearly, because the inheritance tax changes so toxic that no one else would touch them, were dusted off in jig time amid a scramble to be seen to be doing something, anything, in that first 100 days.

Inheritance tax is invidious in all its forms, the state exacting a last drop from estates gathered despite the tax man's previous depredations. It is a double taxation for anything in the purview of HMRC on death has already come through the storm of income tax, capital gains tax, VAT. It is why we conservatives have pledged to reverse the cuts to agricultural property relief, abolish inheritance tax on the family home and raise the individual threshold to £500,000. This will mean a couple can pass on their main home to direct descendants inheritance tax free, plus a further million pounds without any inheritance tax

**** Possible New Speaker ****

liability. Madam Deputy Speaker how about a giveaway? I'm very. Grateful to my hon. Friend. For.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For. Giving way. It's people who are doing the right thing. It's farmers who feed us and look after our who feed us and look after our precious environment. It's family businesses supporting their local economy, and it's families who work economy, and it's families who work hard to provide a family home. Isn't this about fairness that those people should be able to pass those people should be able to pass on their farms, their family businesses, their family homes to the next generation, free from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

inheritance tax? I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and he speaks to intervention, and he speaks to farmers far more, I think, than the Labour frontbench ever do. And he knows this is indeed, it's about fairness. And we conservatives fairness. And we conservatives believe in rewarding those who have done the right thing, who have strived and who have saved. And strived and who have saved. And there is further positive news from our plan, highlighted by the Taxpayers Alliance in October 2024, Taxpayers Alliance in October 2024, the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer announced an increase in the interest rate on late payment of taxes.

The rate had been calculated on the Bank of England base rate plus 2.5%, but the Budget saw an increase to the surcharge to 4% above base. Currently, this means that the interest rate on late payment on tax is a usurious 7.75% asset. Heavy cash light taxpayers, such as farmers, are particularly vulnerable to this change, as it takes time to convert assets into a form which allows them to pay tax balance. Inheritance tax is due six months after death, after which interest is charged daily on unpaid tax.

However, executives may struggle to meet this deadline because properties are illiquid assets that can take considerable time to sell, particularly when probate is required. Selling properties quickly may mean accepting a lower price while waiting for a better offer can result in additional additional punitive interest charges. The probate process creates further difficulties, as executors often need probate to sell inherited properties, yet inheritance tax must generally be paid before probate is granted. Happy to give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To him for giving way, and he is making a very technical and very important set of points. But does important set of points. But does he not accept that for businesses of the size and scale, family owned or not, that he's talking about that succession planning and perhaps even life insurance are very important tools that should be very important tools that should be considered to mitigate some of the things that he's describing. I don't think that's unreasonable, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention there, but he's talking about yet more costs being added onto businesses. And I've had farmers who've tried inheritance planning, and they've been told that the bank will not pass on the working overdraft to young members of the family. This is much more complicated than the hon. Gentleman pretends. Yeah. Although HMRC may allow payments in instalments over ten years or grant credit in certain circumstances, interest can accrue after six months.

This leaves taxpayers with higher bills through no fault of their own conservatives allowing family homes to be excluded from inheritance tax. Plus, that additional £1 million allowance allows. Sorry means the effect of this pernicious interest is restricted. Meanwhile, we need to look again at agriculture to see it not as a dripping roast on which Treasury may feast, but instead as a rural powerhouse helping to feed the nation. If this government were serious about their mantra. Food security is national security. They would halt the family farm tax right now and stop turning the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

human drama of a death into a financial crisis for the living. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Richard Becker. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know from bitter personal I know from bitter personal experience that the opportunity for a political party during a period of opposition is to reflect on what of opposition is to reflect on what went wrong in government, so you can take a different approach and seek to win the trust of the seek to win the trust of the country again. Unfortunately, it appears the Conservative Party instead using their time in opposition to double down on the mistakes they made in government.

Of course, we must support our farmers. Of course we must support our family businesses. But the complete abolition of inheritance tax not only from farms, not only from family businesses, but on all family homes, does not represent sound stewardship of this nation's

17:35

Richard Baker MP (Glenrothes and Mid Fife, Labour)

- -

finances. I'm afraid it is a proposal all too worthy. One of the proposal all too worthy. One of the key architects of Liz Truss's disastrous mini Budget. The key disastrous mini Budget. The key question for me about this proposal is what impact it would have for my constituents in Glenrothes and Mid constituents in Glenrothes and Mid Fife. They already paying the price of the SNP's failures in education. of the SNP's failures in education. Their failures on health services were still too many people waiting in pain on NHS waiting lists on the economy.

Two medium and large businesses in Scotland are paying some £54 million each year, more in business rates than their counterparts in England. And if the Scottish economy under the SNP has grown at the same rate as Manchester's with Andy Burnham over the past ten years, it would be £33 billion bigger. My constituents need fiscal policies which meet their priorities, protecting both the economy and public services, and this proposal does not meet that test. The latest available figures show inheritance tax is payable on fewer than 1 in 20 estates.

Just 1620 of those estates were in Scotland, in Glenrothes and Mid Fife. So few estates pay inheritance tax that HMRC withholds the figure to protect confidentiality. So the number of people in my constituency who have benefited from this proposal is so diminishingly small, it's not possible for HMRC to publish the figures. So with so few people in Glenrothes amid Fife qualifying for the theoretical benefit of this policy, we must then look at the costs and the opposition have said themselves this proposal would cost £6 billion.

But as a number of vulnerable friends have referred to the tax policy, associates estimate that the cost could be up to nearly £11 billion a year once behaviors are taken into consideration as a result of the tax change and and 40% of the benefit of this cut would go to the richest 5%. Once again, the Conservatives are the party of the few and not the many. When we know the pressures facing UK households because of the challenges facing the global economy, we know how the cost of living increases are affecting families across the country.

When we know the challenges facing key public services like social care, how on earth could this be a policy priority? The abolition of tax not just on farms, not just on family businesses, in all family homes? How could that be a priority for any government which truly had the interests of the whole country at heart? My constituents need actions like those taken already by this government, like scrapping VAT on energy bills, like action on business rates, which is needed in Scotland as well, like changes to procurement to back British businesses and jobs.

They do not need billions of pounds in investment in policies which will benefit precious few people in the communities. I represent our pensioners, our older people need a government which are prepared to act on real priorities such as social care. It is highly regrettable that the First Minister of Scotland has spent more time propagating factually incorrect statements on proposal to adjust the triple lock, rather than deal with the reality of social care in Scotland, where, just as in England, people require care support to face high social care charges, social care services are under-resourced

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and social care workers are underpaid. I will give way, of course. For giving way. He mentioned the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For giving way. He mentioned the government's pledge to reduce energy bills when he stood at the election. Did he exalt the policy election. Did he exalt the policy of reducing energy bills by £300? That was put forward by the former Prime Minister and now that he's withdrawn? Well, now that he's reduced them by £45, has he apologised for them for the bit

**** Possible New Speaker ****

apologised for them for the bit acting? We've already cut VAT from VAT, from energy bills. And what we're not going to do is invest up to £11 billion in priorities, which don't represent the needs of people who are facing those high energy bills at the moment, it is this government which is showing it is prepared to take action on the real priorities of my constituents and this country, and spending proposals from the opposition. These proposals show, regrettably, just how far they remain from being Again.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A categorymahindra. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you. Every day, millions of Thank you. Every day, millions of hard working people work, earn and contribute to our economy with the principal goal of providing for principal goal of providing for their children both in the present and in the future. For many, these and in the future. For many, these jobs are much more than a payslip. They are the pillars that allow a family to function, grow, and

17:40

Mr Gagan Mohindra MP (South West Hertfordshire, Conservative)

- -

family to function, grow, and thrive. As a former family business owner, I know just how valuable such opportunities can be. Today's debate is important not simply because it's about business, but because it's about protecting opportunity. It is about ensuring that the next generation has the chance to develop the skills, confidence and experience that will shape the rest of their lives and careers. I spent my summer on my annual Work Experience tour in South west Hertfordshire, visiting local businesses to volunteer my time and understand how they operate, and also to learn about the challenges they face in Kings Langley.

I went to Wayside Farm to Shadow Charlie, who has been running the farm for over 30 years, one of only two dairy farms remaining in Hertfordshire. I pulled pints behind the bar of the Unicorn in Abbots Langley, run by Debbie and Andy, with Debbie starting as an employee learning all about the pub before taking over. This is exactly the sort of entrepreneurial entrepreneurship we should be encouraging. I visited unit seven in Ricky and artisan coffee shop, owned by married couple Harman and Zarina, who also host community focused events for my residents.

Finally, I visited a car park store in Kings Langley, a family owned business which has grown so successfully that opened more stores and employ people across the country, helping both the local economy in my constituency. But I'm sure many other MPs in this chamber. All of them repeated the same message. Labour's harmful policies, increasing national insurance contributions, strict rules and regulations, energy costs, soaring means these small, independent businesses are now having to make difficult decisions about hiring and looking at opening hours, and when they should be supported and encouraged to grow their businesses instead.

Labour have also reduced opportunities for young people to get their foot on the career ladder. Hospitality businesses in particular, who have historically relied upon seasonal work and training young people up, can no longer afford to do so, meaning our young people are going without opportunities that should shape the rest of their lives. Growth happens when family businesses have the confidence to invest, expand and create jobs. That is why this government must work with businesses, not against them, and why the Conservatives would abolish the high rates of inheritance tax on farms, homes and businesses which support economic growth and local communities.

We would abolish business rates for thousands of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. Cut the red tape that stop employers recruiting young people and introduce our cheap power plan, which would cut electricity bills by 20% for businesses. In conclusion, this debate is ultimately about opportunity. My residents should not work hard to provide for their children's future, only to have that investment taken away to pay for an ever increasing welfare bill. Every family business is a testament to community, to innovation and to shared prosperity and to.

And these opportunities are worth protecting. And I'm incredibly proud of all the family run businesses I have in southwest Hertfordshire. I urge the government to recognise the damage that they are doing to these family businesses, and to work tirelessly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to ensure that my residents are not punished for life of hard work. No alarm.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No alarm. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The party opposite's decision to The party opposite's decision to cut inheritance tax for the wealthiest tells us exactly where their priorities lie, not with the their priorities lie, not with the everyday working man or woman, but with the very wealthiest in our society. Not with people, not with society. Not with people, not with constituents like mine in Saint Austell and Newquay, but the wealthiest 4% or so of those whose estates are affected by inheritance tax.

The Conservatives proposal would allow couples to leave their children £1 million of wealth, on top of a potentially very large home without paying a penny in tax. And they claim that they're the party, that we're the party of welfare. But what does that make them? Madam Deputy Speaker, tax cuts for the wealthiest paid for with spending cuts that take our country's public services backwards. They tried that for 14 years and it left our country poorer, sicker and economically stagnant.

Madam Deputy Speaker, it is clear they haven't learnt their lesson, arguing for its effective abolition sends a very different message to what very different message to what could be a much more reasonable debate about, perhaps, say, uprating, the threshold for uprating, the threshold for inheritance tax in line with intervention.

17:45

Noah Law MP (St Austell and Newquay, Labour)

- -

17:49

Robbie Moore MP (Keighley and Ilkley, Conservative)

- -

17:58

Alicia Kearns MP (Rutland and Stamford, Conservative)

- -

children better off than you were. And this stands in stark contrast with the government. The question we put before the House today is not complicated. Should government spend less so families can keep spend less so families can keep more? And on this side of the House, more? And on this side of the House, the answer is yes. In the Manderson files this summer, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East, the current Work and Pensions the current Work and Pensions Secretary, wrote to Peter Mandelson.

Every meeting I have is who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others? Yeah, he was right to be exasperated. 7 million people, over 10% of our population now claim at least one benefit. We will spend over £100 billion on health and disability benefits just this year. A full time worker, a national Living Wage takes home 22,500. Someone out of work on credit with the average housing support and Personal Independence Payments, receives 25,000 a year. We now pay more to not work than to work.

But then if you have worked and when that worker dies, her unspent pension will now be taxed. Because of this government, the house she spent her life paying for will be taxed. And it beggars belief that Labour MPs looked at these figures and recognised how they are strangling our country, and concluded that they would rebel against these modest reforms proposed by the last Prime Minister. Indeed, the party opposite would rather remove a sitting Prime Minister than attempt to create a fairer system.

Now imagine you're a farmer in the communities I serve up at the crack of dawn, working until very, very late. It is relentless every day. Your profit margins are the lowest of almost any industry. But you persevere because you value the land, your family's connection to it. And you take pride in feeding our country. But labour, they hit you with increased road taxes on double cab pickup trucks, increase employer Nic contributions and minimum wage taxes on fertilisers and of course, the cruel family farm tax.

And now a levy on the land itself when it passes from parent to child in Lincolnshire and Rutland, we are the breadbasket in agricultural heartland of Britain, and we are proud of what we do to feed this country. So when the Minister says traditional rural Britain, the pubs,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ale and loyal dogs we adore are a far right fantasy that never really existed, it is offensive. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. And I would invite her or any Labour MP to come visit Rutland, Stamford and the harbour and South Stamford and the harbour and South Korean villages because we are not a fantasy. We are communities who deserve respect. Although if I came deserve respect. Although if I came from her constituency, I'd also consider it to be a fantasy to see the type of idyllic life that we the type of idyllic life that we lead in our villages. We will never apologise for valuing the traditions and way of life that makes our rural communities so special.

Now, the Nature Minister was wrong when she claimed that rural pubs never really existed. She would, however, have been correct if she said that she and her government are doing their best to wipe them out of existence. The Bertie Arms and Uppington. Under Labour's plans, face a 2,000% increase in business rates by 2029 2,000%. The hard working landlady has dismissed the minor relief, which came as tokenistic, and says it will make no difference because of Labour's other tax hikes. I will very happily give way on that point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would agree with the hon. Lady that the business rates increases under this government are very under this government are very damaging, but she will, of course remember that her government, previous government had also pledged to reform business rates pledged to reform business rates fundamentally and completely failed to do so. Does she understand why businesses across the country are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

businesses across the country are fed up with both the Conservatives and Labour on this point? We took action. I'm grateful to have a chance on my record. We cut have a chance on my record. We cut employee National Insurance twice, taking 9 million workers out of it. We raised the national insurance threshold. We lifted. We abolished the lifetime allowance. We cut fuel duty business rates, relief for hospitality and for pubs. All of these things we did to support our pubs and businesses.

Now, the Prime Minister told the voters of Macclesfield that the family tax needs looking at again. So I wonder whether members in this chamber who thought they supported it this week will be regretting their words in a few weeks to time. Let us see now, since the new Prime Minister took office, his frontbench has excitedly chatted about Reindustrialisation as the word on its own builds a factory. It does not. Nor does taxing a business at the moment it passes to the next generation.

For April, the family firms in my communities like Rutland Plastics Coles plant, Arnold will see us at the Rutland Garden Village or independent family shops on my high street. Like Harrison and Donald Walker's bookshops will all face the same death tax as our wonderful farmers like Percy Gillman. Business property relief existed for a reason, so that a company never need be broken up to pay the Treasury. And these same businesses are not just economic powerhouses in communities like mine. But as Philippa Will said to me this morning, they are social powerhouses because they are rooted in our communities, and they make decisions for the longer term because they care about what happens to our people, to our communities, and to our towns.

Now, the government doesn't care about this because they've broken the social contract between businesses and our young people and those in part time work, because they've made it so much harder to hire them. And who loses out most apart from young people? Women, because it is women who rely on part time employment when raising their children, who are now unable to pick up additional work. And that is the true cost of this tax, not the 15 billion a year they forecast it will raise by 2030.

It's the businesses never started the capital that leaves, and the women and young children left without jobs. Now tax cuts must be paid for. And that is why we have put spending cuts first. But let's be very clear. If you tax the family firm at death and the founder sells early moves abroad or never builds at all, if you tax the farm, the fields go to the solar developer or they're built upon and we become reliant on foreign imports. Tax the people who work and pay, the people who don't.

And don't be surprised when fewer people work. We want people to work. We want people to be able to celebrate and benefit from a lifetime of toil and hard work. And that is human nature and nothing to be ashamed of. You have a government who is asking whom it can tax and opposition, asking how much more you can keep. So Labour's assault on farms and businesses, their insistence that rural life doesn't exist and their addiction to spending will destroy this country.

We want people to succeed and we hold close to our hearts,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our rural way of life. And that is why everyone today must support this motion. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Gregory Stafford. Thank you very much. Thank you, speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And whilst I'm following a vast number of extraordinarily excellent speeches from this side of the chamber, unfortunately, I'm going chamber, unfortunately, I'm going to have to start with some of the really quite stunning comments from the government benches. Comments the government benches. Comments that clearly demonstrates that the government has absolutely no clue about what creates wealth in this

18:06

Gregory Stafford MP (Farnham and Bordon, Conservative)

- -

country, what drives growth in our economy, and what real people who economy, and what real people who are working hard have to face out in Britain every single day. And no in Britain every single day. And no such. There was no such greater example of this than from the hon. Member for Macclesfield, who I noticed has just scuttled out of noticed has just scuttled out of the chamber. He had the audacity to quote Churchill and to call the people who are working hard in this country, the people who are grafting hard.

He misquoted Churchill and called them the idle rich. What a disgraceful thing to say to those people who are building a business. What a disgraceful thing to say to the farmers who are up at the crack of dawn trying to make their businesses work. He should come back to the chamber and apologise to them because he deserves it. I prefer another Churchill quote. Churchill said socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. We've seen a lot of failure, ignorance and envy from the government benches today, because the real people who are going to be hit by these taxes aren't those idle rich that the hon.

Member for Macclesfield mentioned. They are the grafters who put in people like my father's family, who ran a business for over a century in Hazelmere. They worked hard. They took risks. They saved. They stood on their own two feet. And these are the sort of people this Labour government has decided that they want to tax to the hilt, tax out of existence. For decades, business property relief meant a family firm could pass to the next generation without a bill. This government ended.

That relief was capped at 1,000,000 in 2024. Only after a backlash did it rise up to £2.5 million of combined business and agricultural property relief. But as my hon. Friend from Broadland and Fakenham said, businesses aren't a bank account. Cash and capital are two different things. It's the value is in its premises, its machinery, its stock and its goodwill. Not necessarily in cash. So the people who inherit it must find money from the very businesses that employ their staff and and extend growth.

Think of an owner. I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In my own friend for giving way. Does my hon. Friend fear like I do that you'll see so many more family that you'll see so many more family firms being sold and often sold to foreign buyers, people who have no interest in investing for the long

**** Possible New Speaker ****

interest in investing for the long term and investing in local communities. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. In my constituency, I'm sure and I'm sure across the country, small family across the country, small family businesses are having to make that really tough decision about what they are going to do. And he is right that they will often go to foreign firms, because those won't be hit by these level of taxes. And that is really an odd way for this Labour government to focus.

So to hit British businesses so that they will be sold to foreign ones. It's extraordinary. And the government, if it doesn't see it, must really think so. If I was going back to think of an owner in their 60s deciding, I don't know whether to buy a new machine or to take on another apprentice, now they must first ask, what will this do to my tax bill that my children will inherit a tax? As the right hon. Member said, a tax that makes owners think twice before investing and building growth.

I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for giving way. My husband is a farmer and runs runs businesses, and I know that he feels a huge responsibility, not just in terms of building his business, but also to the people that he employs. And is he not those that will get affected as those that will get affected as well if the business does not grow, does not invest because it's worried about this tax.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What my hon. Friend is, is, is absolutely right. And she neatly brings me on to some comments on brings me on to some comments on family farms. But she is right. It is not just the people who are running these businesses. It's not just those people who may inherit them, but it is the employees of those businesses who will end up losing out. And that is why we are not getting the growth that Labour claims it wants. So moving on to that family farm like lofts in Headley land, tractors, buildings and a lifetime of labour is passed from generation to generation.

Now the National Farmers Union calculated that a typical cereals farm, making roughly £34,000 a year, would face ten annual installments of £53,000 a year at the original 1 million threshold. Even at the new threshold, payments of £33,000 a year would swallow nearly all of the profits. So essentially, to pay, a farmer will have to sell sell the very fields that earn the living. Now, the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution found that over a third of families are probably or possibly depressed.

The Farming Community Network, which supports over 10,000 people, says its helpline has been taking calls linked to the upcoming Budget for weeks. I think, as my hon. Friend for Keighley and Ilkley said, this tax has led to suicides and that is an absolute disgrace and the government should recognise that and do everything it can to repair the damage that it has done emotionally and economically to our farms. And it was only when Ministers were challenged by my right hon. Friend the Shadow Environment Secretary, that they raised that threshold.

So if it was right to raise the threshold, then, because it was the wrong threshold, can the government now not look at it again and remove it again? Now, moving on briefly to the general inheritance tax points, the nil rate band has been at £325,000 since 2009. Labour has now said it's going to freeze it until April of 2031. Now, had it risen with inflation, it would be worth over half £1 million today. And to dispel the myth that has been put forward by the other side, that this affects only a small number of people.

The OBR expects 1 in 10 estates to pay by the end of the decade, and the IFS, the Institute for Fiscal Studies put that figure at 1 in 6. So this is not something that will just hit a very small number of people. A married couple, of course, can pass on up to £1 million if their home goes to their children. Now, that might sound generous, but until you add a family home in my constituency to a lifetime of savings from April 27th, their pension pots.

This is not a significant amount of money in the grand scheme of their of their things, especially when that pension relief is what we on all sides of this House were telling people to do, telling people to save for their future and the reward for their saving now is the government to take more of it in tax. Households that never thought of themselves as wealthy are being pulled in under Labour. Aspirational families are hit on the way in and unfortunately they hit on the way out.

And as hon. Members said, the shopkeeper sells their business to fund retirement and the farmer sells the fields in order to try and keep just a small measure of their farm. So I say to the Minister on the Treasury bench, you must take this message back to the Chancellor, rule out these changes and make things better for our local areas. As a conservative opposition, we present an alternative. We will abolish tax on the family home, and we will do that by slashing the welfare bill by £7 billion.

This is the first step, and I know that the shadow Chancellor has outlined his aspiration, and the Leader of the Opposition has done the same. In order to go further. Madam Deputy Speaker, this comes down to a fundamental point. On the one side, we have a government that sees a lifetime of savings, a business built over generations as just another tax opportunity. On the other, we have an opposition that believes those savings belong to the family that earned them. Not the grifters, not the idle rich, the grafters.

They built this country, and unlike Labour, a conservative government will let them keep it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. And with an immediate five minute time limit. Rebecca Smith.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

minute time limit. Rebecca Smith. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And following on from my colleague, the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon, he set out a huge amount of Bordon, he set out a huge amount of what I would like to continue talking about, not least the talking about, not least the constant referral to the wealthy that we have heard in this debate this afternoon, which, quite this afternoon, which, quite frankly, is offensive to any single person who is out there working and in many cases, not earning very much money, but spending a lot of that money to save and work

18:14

Rebecca Smith MP (South West Devon, Conservative)

- -

tirelessly to be able to buy a property, to be able to invest it in a business, to be able to do the right thing. And quite frankly, right thing. And quite frankly, that will be the one thing I take away from today is this absolute generalisation that anybody that we represent is somehow wealthy, and anybody that they represent is anybody that they represent is somehow not. It's just a complete fallacy and a complete disdain for working people. Indeed. We heard the Member for Hornsey and Three the Member for Hornsey and Three and Barnet imply that anybody who was not solely relying on the State Pension is earning a lot.

That's a complete, preposterous thing to say. For many families, Madam Deputy Speaker, buying a home is the biggest financial commitment they will ever make. It involves decades of saving of mortgage repayments and sacrifices along the way. The conservative pledge to abolish inheritance tax on the family home would therefore ensure that families are not penalised for passing on the home they have worked so hard to own, often at the expense of doing other things, and we know full well that people on benefits are able to get all sorts of discounts for things.

But it's the hard working families across the country who don't go to theme parks at discounted rates because they're paying their mortgage or indeed saving for one in the first place. We will also raise the general inheritance tax allowance to £500,000 for per person, or 1 million for a married couple. Now, crucially, Madam Deputy Speaker, this increased allowance will also benefit those who are unmarried or do not have children. Currently, if you are a single person, you are only able to get the £325,000 limit on your inheritance tax, which I think is completely wrong.

For all the many single people out there who work hard, who sometimes have money because they also have inherited that, has also had tax paid on it at multiple points. And I hear from single constituents in my patch who are just so frustrated with the way that they are expected time and time again to pay tax to pay for everybody else. Now, our proposal will give them greater freedom to leave more of what they have earned to the people who matter most to them, whether that's a sibling, a niece or nephew, or another loved one.

And this is not, as I've already said about the very wealthy who already use trusts and other mechanisms to protect their assets. This is about helping normal families who have seen the price of their family home shoot up over the years, tipping them over the threshold for inheritance tax through no fault of their own. And indeed, in my own conservative constituency, the so-called wealthy part of south west Devon, the Plymouth median salary is 36,500 pounds. Plymouth is generally seen as quite poor. Well, the West Devon and South Hams, part of my constituency, sees a median salary of between 26,500 and £30,000.

They are hardly wealthy people. Inheritance tax has become a tax for normal people who live on new build estates, not fancy people who have estates. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston has rightly said, whilst just 2.7% of homes were faced with an inheritance tax bill in 2009 to 22, sorry, in 2009 to 2010, this could rise to 8.2% in 2029 to 2023, according to research by Oxford Economics. Now, this issue is particularly relevant as the South Hams part of my constituency, where the average home costs £355,000, the third highest figure in the south west in Wembury, Brixton and Newton Ferrers, the median property sold for over £360,000 in the last year, rising to over £520,000 for detached homes.

Indeed, in Ivybridge, property has recently just sold for almost £420,000. Many of these properties were bought decades ago for considerably less. Let the inheritance tax threshold has remained frozen, as we have heard, and we've also covered the pension increase where pension funds are going to go in to inheritance calculations. Now, scrapping inheritance tax on family homes is about strengthening the social contract, the invisible bond between those who came before us, those who are here today, and those who will follow those great words of Edmund Burke.

Now, conservatives want to protect this partnership. We are backing parents who save responsibly and want their children and grandparents, children and grandchildren to benefit from the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sacrifices they have made. I will give way. The point about the indivisible

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The point about the indivisible bond between families. But does she not agree that that bond must also

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not agree that that bond must also apply for the community and the public more generally, from generation to generation? The hon. Member for his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Member for his intervention, I think that's called general taxation, and those people have paid that throughout their entire working lives. Why are we now targeting them at the point at which they die or indeed inherit money? I just don't think that is a workable opinion to hold on that, and I deeply disagree. Conservatives want to protect the social contract. We are backing parents who are save responsibly and want their children and grandchildren to benefit from the sacrifices they have made.

This stands in stark contrast, as we have heard, to Labour, who are widening the inheritance tax net ever further by sucking in family farms, pensions and family businesses. As conservatives. Madam Deputy Speaker, we believe that hard work should be rewarded. Families who have done the right thing should be able to pass

**** Possible New Speaker ****

something on to the next generation. To me. Thank you very much, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and one of the Liberating elements of speaking at this stage of the debate is are all the excellent and eminently sensible points have already been made. So you can do as a sort of assorted highlight of the best bits that come out of it. But it did that come out of it. But it did make me reflect that perhaps if we all took a bit of a stroll down to Clapham and got on to the omnibus Clapham and got on to the omnibus and spoke to the.

The man and woman who had alighted, I suspect their vision of this country would not be

18:20

Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst MP (Solihull West and Shirley, Conservative)

- -

18:25

Lewis Cocking MP (Broxbourne, Conservative)

- -

Thatcher also made the very important point relevant to today's debate. She said that a home is more than a financial asset, it is a stake in the future and it's something to be passed on to the next generation. That's why inheritance tax matters. As we have heard, when someone dies, 40% of their money and property is taken by the taxman. If the total value exceeds 325,000 by raising the threshold. Hon. Members from all sides of this House have accused us from cutting off cutting taxes for the wealthiest in our society.

Well, I can tell them that the constituents that I represent in Broxbourne are certainly not some of the wealthiest in our society. In fact, there are parts of my constituency that rank amongst among the most deprived in the UK. But despite that, average house prices across Broxbourne are 433,000 houses. Just over the threshold in my constituency include a two bed maisonette in Cheshunt, a two bed bungalow in Hoddesdon. Madam Deputy Speaker, those properties are not mansions. Home owners in Broxbourne have worked hard to live in those places, and it's not their fault that property values have risen by more than 10% in the last five years, and on those trends are pulling more and more ordinary families into paying inheritance tax.

And what's making it worse is Labour are freezing the threshold until 2031. By then, 1 in 6 families will be faced with paying an inheritance tax bill. I believe this is wrong. And as my hon. Friend, the Shadow Secretary of State has set out, that we would completely abolish inheritance tax on the family home and raise the threshold to £1 million for a couple. We have a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clear plan. We have. I will give way. I just wondered because I've not read it anywhere. Is there a cap on the on the value of that family home which is which is going to be exempt? For example, would the penthouse at one Hyde Park, which sold for around 175 million, be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sold for around 175 million, be completely exempt. If the. Hon. Member listens to my speech, it is not the people's fault. If it is not the people's fault. If you work hard and buy a family home, you have no idea what that value of that family home is going to be when you die. That is why we are exempting the family home from the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

inheritance tax. We have. We. I will give way. I'm grateful to my hon. Friend. He'll remember that the Social Democratic centre left party in Sweden abolished inheritance tax Sweden abolished inheritance tax years ago because they'd gone down the journey of this envy filled, left wing socialist approach, and they'd found it was counterproductive. It led to complexity, it reduced wealth in the country. And afterwards our business thrived. And even the Communist Party, in the face of the facts in Sweden 20 years ago, could see how wrong it was.

It's a shame understand.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my friend for that intervention. He's absolutely right. This is a tax on aspiration. If we This is a tax on aspiration. If we want to unlock the next generation of entrepreneurs, if we want to back, if we want to back. No, I won't, I won't give up. I've taken won't, I won't give up. I've taken a number of interventions and there are a number of colleagues that want to speak. There are a number of colleagues that want to speak. of colleagues that want to speak.

If we want to unlock the next generation of entrepreneurs, if we want to back the people that put blood, sweat and tears go out to blood, sweat and tears go out to work every day to make our country great and what it is today, then this is what we need to do. And we have a clear we have a clear plan to pay for it. Cut government spending by £71 billion, including cutting the overseas aid to £1 billion a year. We would reduce welfare spending by six by £36 billion, and we would support young people into work rather than a life on benefits.

Alongside our pledges to scrap the family farm tax, scrap the family business tax. These are bold changes that will get our economy growing, enabling key people to keep and pass on more of their own money is how we encourage people to invest, take risks and create new opportunities. Inheritance tax is not the only example. I regularly speak to constituents who feel they are better off financially to refuse a promotion, or to refuse more hours at work, because it doesn't make sense for them to work harder and get less.

I've spoken to self-employed tradespeople who turn down work because there are too close to the VAT threshold. This just cannot be right. It's absolutely crazy. When I speak to businesses and I speak to people who work that turn down employment, that turn down taking on business because they will be worse off paying more taxes under this Labour government until we shift the incentives in our economy, incentives that make a life on benefits more attractive than getting a job, incentives that will put off businesses from creating new jobs.

We will never improve the situation that our country faces. Labour have a choice on the Budget. On the 28th of October. They can copy the clear plan that we've set out to make savings and cut welfare, or they can continue down the same road. But sadly, Madam Deputy listening.

18:30

Dr Ben Spencer MP (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)

- -

Yeah, and with an immediate four minute time limit, Doctor Ben Spencer. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is without doubt one of the most important debates we can have, because it goes to the heart of a simple question. When someone works simple question. When someone works hard, saves diligently, builds a business, a family farm, or buys a business, a family farm, or buys a family home and wants to plan for their children's future, why are they penalised by this government? Why is their success targeted? And when will fairness be restored so that those who work hard to achieve success are rewarded, not attacked and subjected to the politics of envy? The answer I hope my Deputy election.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Labour's answer is always the same. Their instinct is to ask who can we tax? That's not me saying it. It's the Work and Pensions Secretary himself who admitted that Secretary himself who admitted that every conversation he had had with backbench Labour MPs was them asking who they can tax to pay for increased welfare spending. And it's constituencies like Runnymede and Weybridge that are firmly in their sights. I can picture it now, Madam Deputy Speaker. Sitting high in the Whitehall ivory tower, looking for new ways to tax and spend, Surrey on the south west, comes into their sights.

The successful businesses, the skilled workforce, the resulting high house prices and rather than looking to replicate that growth and success, they simply look at their spreadsheet. They see a house price. They see something they think they can tax. But people's assets are not lottery winnings. They're the product of decades of hard work, discipline and sacrifice. To tax wealth and savings in this way is not fairness. It's a penalty on individual responsibility. And it sends a damaging message that those who work hard build a business, save for their and their family's future, will be punished for doing so.

I believe in fairness, not redistribution. And at the next election, the country will be offered a clear choice. A Labour government whose priorities put welfare spending above our country's defence, and whose commitment to raising taxation will bankrupt our children's future. Or a Conservative Party that believes aspiration should be rewarded, not targeted, that savings belong to the individual, not the state. We're planning for the future as encouraged, not penalised. Whether it's the increase in taxation on savings and investments, increased taxation on businesses, the mansion tax, the family farm tax.

Labour's approach is to tax success. Labour is asset stripping our country and targeting the very people and businesses that create growth, prosperity and opportunity. And at the next general election, the choice could not be clearer. A Labour Party facilitated by the Liberal Democrats that sees taxpayers at targets, or a Conservative Party that backs enterprise and rewards hard work and stands up for those who want to build a better future for their children. Madam Deputy Speaker, people's money is their own.

It's not the government's money that Labour haven't taxed yet.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Hear, hear. Very very good. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. If we want our children to have a better life than us. If we want them to enjoy a better standard of them to enjoy a better standard of living than ourselves, to enjoy better health care, to live in a better environment than it is better environment than it is necessary to grow our economy. Conservatives understand that Conservatives understand that governments do not create growth. A wise government will try and create the conditions for growth, and then stand back and allow individuals, families, partnerships and businesses to do their best to work hard to provide goods and services that people want to buy and thus improve the world we live in.

Creating wealth is hard work. Now, I don't suppose that many members opposite are aware of this, because so few of them have ever worked in the private sector. It is quite remarkable that my hon. Friend the Shadow Chancellor has more experience in the private sector 23 years, I believe, than the whole of the Cabinet put together. This government often talks about supporting business. Yet time and again it does the opposite. Higher national insurance charges that make it more expensive to employ

18:35

Sir Ashley Fox MP (Bridgwater, Conservative)

- -

people. 350 pages of the Unemployment Rights Act further drive up the cost of labour. Their drive up the cost of labour. Their plans for a tourist tax eagerly embraced by the Liberal Democrats, embraced by the Liberal Democrats, which will place additional burdens on our tourism sector, made up largely of family businesses. Instead of helping local enterprises flourish, this government's first instinct is to ask how much more can we tax them? And we know this because the Work and Pensions Secretary has told us that his colleagues are always asking him to pay more benefits to more people.

Conservatives understand that the drive, innovation and hard work of family farms and family businesses do more to create jobs, train apprentices and sustain communities than government ever could. Now, my constituency in Bridgwater sits in the heart of rural Somerset and, as is overwhelmingly a small business economy, more than 99% of the businesses in Somerset employ fewer than 250 employees. These businesses are rooted in the places they serve. They support local sports teams, support village events and provide opportunities for local people.

For those of us representing rural communities, it is small scale family businesses that underpin our local economies. They grow our food. They make up our high streets. And they support tourism and more. And this makes the fact that the government feels no remorse in penalising their hard work in the name of subsidising those who avoid it. Even more depressing. Conservatives are on the side of those who work hard, who save, who invest, who create jobs and wealth. And we will reward those that do the right thing.

That is why we will abolish inheritance tax on family homes, family farms and family businesses. We will restore fairness to a system that has been neglected. Those who play by the rules. Because when a business is passes from one generation to the next, we should be helping it grow and continue a legacy, not forcing it to sell assets to pay a tax bill. I'll give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way. The motion says family homes. It doesn't specifically say family doesn't specifically say family farms or family businesses. But you said family businesses. How would for the purposes of a piece of for the purposes of a piece of legislation, somebody does define a family business.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

family business. It does specifically refer to family businesses. If if he if he reads it, it's agricultural reads it, it's agricultural property relief and business property relief. They are agricultural and business assets that form part of an estate. And we will reverse Labour's family farms and family business tax. We believe that allowing families to retain and reinvest their assets, supports growth, encourages long term planning and strengthens local communities. It will actively put money in pockets rather than take out more.

And if we want a prosperous Britain, we must back the people who have invested their lives in the community, building businesses, farms and homes that can be passed to the next generation.

18:39

Rt Hon Victoria Atkins MP (Louth and Horncastle, Conservative)

- -

18:50

Dan Tomlinson MP (Chipping Barnet, Labour)

- -

19:01

Division

19:15

Points of Order

19:17

Adjournment: Potential merits of disregarding compensation from the War Pension and Armed Forces Compensation schemes in the calculation of benefit entitlements

19:34

Torsten Bell MP (Swansea West, Labour)

- -

raised it, I think, a month into my time as the Minister for pensions, when I met him and his constituents, the late Staff Sergeant Pauline

19:34

Josh Babarinde MP (Eastbourne, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Cole, and members of his team, who it's nice to hear him paying tribute to today, who have obviously worked hard on this issue.

19:34

Torsten Bell MP (Swansea West, Labour)

- -

11:00

Oral questions: Attorney General

This debate has concluded

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page