Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Richard Tice Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince)—I say that just to up his constituency’s mention count. Around 48,000 households in my constituency households will benefit from the council tax rebate for those in bands A to D. I am assuming the Government took this approach because it is a simple way of getting the money into people’s pockets, but how that works will need a lot of unpicking. It is an instructive figure, in fact, because people think that London’s streets are paved with gold, but one in two children in my constituency are living in poverty, it is among the top three for the pensioners deprivation index, and it has a very high level of deprivation overall, while there are also challenges with the cost of living.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

The hon. Lady may not have read the Budget Red Book, but GDP growth is forecast to reduce from 1.6% back in March to just 1% in 2027, and indeed GDP per capita is also forecast to reduce from 1.3% to 0.9%, so the numbers in the forecasts are actually getting worse, not better.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

As the hon. Gentleman rightly highlights, I have not had time in the moments since the Chancellor sat down to go through every graph in the Red Book or, indeed, the OBR’s forecast. Obviously, the Chancellor laid out the figures very clearly at the Dispatch Box, and we will be raising these issues in the Committee. It is easy to pick one measure that has gone down, but sometimes the figure will go up in a later year, and despite the headwinds, there is some room for optimism.

Let me let me be very clear—I think the Chancellor would expect me to say nothing less, as Chair of not only the Treasury Committee, but the Liaison Committee—that Chairs of Select Committees see our role as robust scrutineers of the work of the Government of the day, whichever party is in power and whichever party we are from, as a core part of what we do. There will be nowhere for the Chancellor to hide when he comes before us on 11 November, but I am sure he is robust enough to be prepared and to take on all comers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Budget will continue to make Britain more resilient, by supporting people and businesses in the current moment and investing in the future. In an increasingly uncertain and changing world, this Government are steadying the ship. The Budget will help families with the pressures they face now and invest in the long term to bring down the cost of living, making life easier and better for working people.

I welcome much of what has been announced. However, while members of the mineworkers’ pension scheme in my constituency are much better off as a result of the measures taken by this Government two years ago—and have seen further improvements with the position that the Chancellor has taken today—there will still be disappointment that the Government have not decided to return all the surpluses from the scheme to its members. Mineworkers paid a large health price for their commitment to keeping the lights on over many decades, and each day of delay means that more mineworkers die without receiving the full fruits of their industry and community’s commitment to our nation.

Turning to the positive news announced today, we have the second fastest growth in the G7, our growth forecast has been upgraded once again by the IMF and, as was generously acknowledged by the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), the FTSE has risen modestly. I remember being on the Opposition Benches when Kwasi Kwarteng was delivering his Budget and seeing hundreds of thousands of pounds—millions, even—crashing off the value of the stock market. It is important to acknowledge that those who have an independent view of this, outside of the political sphere, have welcomed this Budget, which is a sure sign that this Government are on the right track.

At every single Budget under this Government, the Conservatives have predicted catastrophe, and yet every time the economic figures have come out, they have been more positive than their predictions. We have seen measures today meaning that 43,800 Chesterfield households will receive £100 towards their energy bills this winter; a £50 reduction because of the changes in VAT; fewer pensioners being brought into paying tax; positive support for self-employed partners; a welcome increase in the threshold for small business rate relief up to £18,000, meaning that 54% of businesses in the east midlands will now pay no business rates; and no rises for the next two years on business rates.

The Government have made that economic progress at the same time as building huge amounts of home-grown renewable energy capacity; holding failing water companies to account; reviving council house building; bringing down national health service waiting times; introducing record increases in the national minimum wage; bringing more people into work than ever before; making record investments in our national health service; and bringing half a million children out of poverty. That is the difference that a Labour Government have made.

Possibly the greatest endorsement of this Budget is how weak the Opposition have been on it. When Opposition Members get to their feet to say, “Well, I think you could have been a bit more ambitious,” we know that they do not really have a line to attack us on. That is a very strong endorsement of this Budget. Of course, there is much more to be done.

I should say that while the Leader of the Opposition was making what we all know to be a difficult speech—apparently some facts were redacted in the copy she received—which is why her critique was so weak, but at least she turned up to make that speech. The leader of the Reform party did not even bother turning up to the Budget. It is extraordinary.

[Richard Tice]

I’m here!

[Mr Perkins]

I was under the impression that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) was still the leader of the Reform party. Why did he bother seeking re-election? He never turns up to this place. He is mystifying.

There is so much more to be done. Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and Trump’s ill-advised war on Iran have driven up fuel prices, energy prices and the cost of fertiliser, creating a cost of living crisis across the globe to which we are not immune. In that context, I welcome the Chancellor’s priorities of boosting Britain’s resilience and bringing down energy costs for good.

Climate change and biodiversity loss continue to be clear and present threats to Britain’s security and prosperity, with droughts at home and across the globe reducing crop yields and driving up food prices. The Climate Change Committee has been absolutely clear that climate impacts could cost the UK economy £10.7 billion over the next year in lower tax revenue alone because of lower productivity due to extreme heat or disruptions from flooding. Every independent analysis tells us that, because of the cost it will have on our economy, taking action on climate change is far cheaper than not acting.

Just a few weeks after a summer of wildfires and drought, when extreme heat caused more than 3,000 excess deaths in the United Kingdom in May and June alone, we need to be really cautious about anything that can lead to higher emissions. While I welcome the Chancellor’s desire to see data centres here in the UK, we need to be very careful that we do that in a way that does not damage our climate commitment.

Land managers and farmers are central to preparing the UK for the impacts of climate change. Investing in UK farming will also help to protect farmers from global events, in turn helping to shield consumers from rising food costs. Yet just a few weeks ago, the window for applications on the sustainable farming incentive was open for just six hours before it was fully subscribed. It is great that this Government are getting that money out the door and to farmers. It also shows the immense appetite for this funding and for nature-friendly farming. It is important that the Government take every step that they can to provide more support for farmers who are doing things the right way.

In conclusion, this is a Budget of stability and of hope for working people and small businesses. It is a Budget that supports entrepreneurs. It was extraordinary to hear the Leader of the Opposition say that this Budget does nothing for business when it specifically supports entrepreneurs and risk-takers in our economy. This Budget is progressive—it has the most value for those with the lowest income—and it takes the serious decisions to address the collapse in our economy caused by the Conservatives. It continues to deliver growth while reducing, over several years, the debt-to-GDP ratio of our country. For all those reasons, it is a Budget that I am very pleased to support.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Poorer—that is what every household in the country is, including in my constituency of Boston and Skegness. This year alone, real household disposable income is down 0.8%, and every single year between now and the end of this parliamentary term, the average household’s real disposable income is down compared to what the OBR forecast just six months ago. Let us look at the other main economic data: GDP growth for 2027 is forecast to be down once again—from 1.6% to 1%—under this failing Labour Government; and GDP growth per capita is forecast to be down from 1.3% to 0.9%.

And let us just look at what is up, shall we? Government borrowing in this financial year alone is up almost £20 billion compared to what the OBR forecast just six months ago. Over the lifetime of this Budget book for the next five years, Government borrowing will be over £65 billion more than the OBR forecast just six months ago. This is a Government who are completely out of control in terms of spending. That is why the bond markets are applying what is known internationally as “the moron premium” to the United Kingdom under this Labour Government.

Credit where credit is due, this Chancellor does know where the real problems are and he has tried to do a little bit. He understands that there is a crisis with energy bills, which are now forecast to go up by an extra £466 per household in January, and then by another £200 per household in April—all because of the madness of net zero and the rush to renewables, which is happening as we speak. Every single day, NESO is having to tweak and twiddle the dials and add balancing costs to the tune of some £50 million. That is ten times what it was just a few years ago. Next year, it will cost £200 per household for the balancing costs on the grid alone. This is completely out of control. The Chancellor has shuffled the cards in the pack. He has moved a bit from bills to general taxation, but he has not dealt with the real crux of the crisis, which is that the rush to renewables is driving up all our household energy bills at a catastrophically high rate.

Now, I am constructive sort of guy, so I want to give credit where credit is due, so let me say that the Government have done the right thing in approving Jackdaw—but they need to go further. Ministers know in their heart of hearts that they need to approve the oilfield at Rosebank—the Prime Minister was tempted to confirm it at question time today—and grant many more licences in the North sea, because that is our energy treasure; that is where the jobs are and where the growth is. This Government are completely failing on growth. The energy crisis is getting worse, and everybody needs to understand that. If we use our energy treasure, the bills will come down.

If we look at property and housing—again, credit where credit is due—the Chancellor has eased regulations to try to build more homes on brownfield sites. I think he might have read the teal paper I released in September on how to reduce the cost of construction and get more things built. He is right to remove the need for biodiversity requirements on brownfield sites, but there is so much more to do to reduce the construction cost of the new homes that I think we all agree we need to build. There is a £15,000 to £20,000 increase in the cost of homes because of unnecessary regulations, but again the Chancellor has not grasped the real opportunities to go for it and reduce the cost of building. That is what we need. We all agree that we need more affordable social housing, but to do that we have to reduce and remove unnecessary restrictions and the delays in getting planning consents.

We now know that the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has given up on her 1.5 million target. In reality, we will be lucky to get to half that number—750,000 homes instead of 1.5 million. These are the lost opportunities from a Government obsessed with regulation, obsessed with process and obsessed with bureaucracy. They cannot do the right thing to deregulate and get some growth.

[Mike Martin]

The hon. Member seems to be extolling the benefits of building houses, so can he explain why the Reform party in Tunbridge Wells is campaigning to restrict house building?

[Richard Tice]

Far from it—we are actually trying to build more houses on brownfield sites, because that is what we should do all over the country, including in the great town of Tunbridge Wells. We need to make it easier to build on brownfield sites. At the moment, house builders are giving up all over the country because the costs are too high.

I think the Chancellor has been looking at some of our excellent Reform policies, but while he is right to lift the income tax threshold for pensioners, he could have gone much further and lifted it for everybody—up to our recommended level of £15,000—by being more dramatic about cutting the vast amount of wasteful spending on welfare and cutting foreign aid to overseas nations that do not need it. Those are the differences between the right things to do and the lost opportunities of this Government.

I think the Chancellor has listened to another Reform policy, which is to lift the threshold on business rates, but he has not gone far enough. While the £18,000 threshold is better than £12,000, it needs to be much higher. That is another lost opportunity.

We have a nation of voters, and every household who looks at this Budget book and listens to the Budget will say, “No, thanks. Every single year between now and 2030-31 we’re all getting poorer than the OBR forecast just six months ago.” People feel it and they sense it. They know that their money is being wasted on bureaucracy and unnecessary quangos—more taskforces and quangos have been set up during this Budget. It could have been so much better. I feel that this Chancellor has just not had the courage or the strength. He has not risen to the occasion. He has tried, but it is not good enough. We are facing a financial crisis and an energy crisis, and we need a Government who do the right thing—a Government who cut our bills. This Budget is a lost opportunity.

Ukraine and Russia

Richard Tice Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for once again raising this issue with me. It is now on the record, but his constituents should know that he has been actively campaigning around the corridors of this place too. The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), will be very pleased to meet him to discuss his constituency issue.

I say to the whole House that there is a big opportunity through defence investment to reindustrialise this country and create jobs, growth and opportunities. Members will see the commitment of this Government, Prime Minister, Chancellor and Defence Secretary reflected not just in words, but in deeds in the coming weeks and months.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

I welcome the Secretary of State to his place; I knew it would not be long before we saw him back on the Front Bench. I have urged the Government before to use the frozen Russian Central Bank assets. It may be difficult, as he has just said to another hon. Member, but that does not mean it is impossible. Given the leadership that the United Kingdom has shown, can I urge the Secretary of State to lead the way in turning the difficult into the possible?

[Mr Francois]

Speaking of foreign donations.

Defence Investment Plan

Richard Tice Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

For a moment, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman had been listening to my speeches at defence dinners, which I was really pleased about. Unfortunately, he misheard me, or has not quite got that right. Let me be very clear: UK-based firms that hire people in Britain, pay their taxes and invest in skills in Britain are the ones that we are backing in the defence investment plan. I am not interested in brass plaques. Where we have to send contracts abroad, either to buy the technologies that we do not make in the UK or for the exquisite capabilities that we buy from single sources—he can probably think of a few examples from his time as a Defence Minister—we are also introducing an offsets regime, which will ensure that British companies benefit in that way as well. It is a model that has worked well in Australia, Norway and a number of other countries. We have announced progress on that and consulted on that, too. Not only are we investing in British-based firms, but we are ensuring that when we do buy from abroad, there is a benefit for UK industry as well.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

As Mr Speaker noted earlier, the mood of the House is very much that the long-awaited defence investment plan must not be produced this Friday, yet the Minister is still unable to provide that confirmation. Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask Mr Speaker whether he would consider an emergency sitting of Parliament on Friday if it is produced then.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

These questions are supposed to be to the Minister, not to the Chair, but no doubt Mr Speaker will have heard that one. He has made his views very clear, as has the Chamber. Was there actually a question in there, Mr Tice? Would you like to have another attempt at a question?

[Richard Tice]

Can the Minister confirm whether the plan will be produced on Friday—yes or no?

[Luke Pollard]

I say to the hon. Gentleman very clearly that we will publish the defence investment plan before the NATO summit. He has written to me a number of times when he has not liked my answers from the Dispatch Box. I really do hope that Reform can take defence more seriously and not try to dodge the important connections that we now know exist between senior Reform figures and Russia because of the bribes that the Welsh leader of Reform took from Russia. It is really important that we expose that in the public domain, because no UK party should ever be in hock to Russia.

Strategic Defence Review: Funding

Richard Tice Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for not only his question, but the work he does. He is a quiet and determined champion for Sandhurst and people who train in his constituency. There is a real opportunity with the increasing defence investment that we are making to renew the facilities not just in Sandhurst, but in military accommodation and bases across the United Kingdom and further afield. It is not just infrastructure that we are increasing. I am especially proud to be part of a Government, and a ministerial team with the Defence Secretary, that are increasing support for childcare for those who serve, because it is our people, not just our equipment, that we should focus on, and that is what the defence investment plan will do.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Does the Minister accept and agree with the mood of the majority of the British people, and I think the mood of this House, which is to accelerate defence spending to 3% of GDP in this Parliament, not the next Parliament? Can the Minister confirm that the year-long delayed defence investment plan will arrive before the summer holidays?

[Luke Pollard]

Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman would like to give some of the money that his former Reform leader in Wales got from Russia to the defence budget, we would have a wee bit more than we have today.

New Medium Helicopter Contract

Richard Tice Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

The hon. Gentleman comes from a background of knowledge in this respect. As part of the defence investment plan, the military have set out their needs, and they are being matched against the funding of the platforms that we have and the platforms that we want to purchase. As part of that, he will be aware of the SDR objective to move to greater autonomy in our platforms; indeed, a number of projects—including ones by Leonardo—are working to build that up. The new picture of crewed and autonomous platforms will be published as part of the defence investment plan.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Can the Minister confirm whether the rumours are true that one reason for the delay in the medium-lift helicopter is that there has been a rearguard action in the Army to buy US Black Hawks instead? If he will not give a timeline for the defence investment plan, will he at least confirm that it will include a medium-lift helicopter—yes or no?

[Luke Pollard]

We have been very clear in the defence industrial strategy and the strategic defence review that we want more of a rising defence budget to go to British companies. That is changing the way in which defence procures, and it is the right change that we need to see as we bring more strategic autonomy back to the UK and as we friendshore and onshore more capabilities in these more difficult times. I am afraid that I will not be able to give the hon. Gentleman the full details, because they will be set out in the defence investment plan, as he has heard from my previous answers.

Ukraine and Wider Operational Update

Richard Tice Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend speaks with great military insight and authority on the challenges of the deployment and the operation, which was conducted in some of the most extreme weather and seas that any military force can face. He is right to point out that this is a bad ship; it was sanctioned by the US in 2024, it has changed its flag five times in the last five years, and it turned off its transporter for almost two weeks on 17 December, so that no one could track its whereabouts. Last month, it was sailing with a false flag, before heading to Russia—it is very telling which country reportedly sent out a warship to try to escort it into a Russian port. No one should be in any doubt about the purpose of the US operation or the legal basis for doing so.

In relation to the question about the support for the deployment and the potential multinational force for Ukraine, I think the most serious equivocation has come from the leader of the Reform party. When he was asked about that today, he simply said, “Forget it.” Let me say to the two representatives from his party who are in the Chamber, the hon. Members for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) and for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice)—

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

That is not what he said!

[John Healey]

He did.

Let me say that that is an insult to Ukrainians. It does not do justice to the sentiment of the British people, who recognise the fight of the Ukrainian people and want to see them prevail, and above all want to see a peace that will last.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

I do agree with my hon. Friend. The actions she speaks of bring discredit on that party—the party of Putin—and bring discredit on this country. I also welcome her comments on the importance of cross-party support and support throughout the United Kingdom for the actions we are taking to support Ukraine.

[Richard Tice]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. We congratulate all those involved in taking and boarding the rogue ship in the Atlantic. I also congratulate the Prime Minister and the Government on securing from the US the strongest security guarantees and the strongest commitments. That is clearly good news.

On the leadership of the coalition of the willing, many will be questioning why 37 of the 39 countries have not committed to put boots on the ground. Can I just gently correct the Secretary of State? What my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) said about putting boots and kit into Ukraine was that, to ensure we can do that on a long-term and durable basis, the Government need to increase their defence spending earlier and faster than currently planned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

Unlike the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), I am very concerned that the leader of Reform UK has gone on television today to reject sending British troops to Ukraine to help secure a sustainable peace—

[Richard Tice]

That is not what he said.

[Alex Ballinger]

That is exactly what he said. Does the Secretary of State agree that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) should be ashamed, because we owe so much to the Ukrainian people who have fought so hard to secure democracy in Europe, and that this shows for real how much closer the leader of Reform is to Putin’s priorities than to the priorities of the UK?

[Richard Tice]

You are inadvertently misleading the House—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. We do not need chuntering from the Back Benches, and I can determine whether the House has or has not been misled.

Ukraine

Richard Tice Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

This Christmas is a difficult time, because we tend to think of family, those people we have lost and the people we miss. Not only have many of our Ukrainian friends lost homes and family members, but there is uncertainty about their friends and family members on the frontline and those who remain in Ukraine and occupied Ukraine. I thank everyone in our communities who have welcomed in Ukrainians. We will continue to support our Ukrainian friends at home and abroad. I wish all Ukrainians a very merry Christmas and, hopefully, a peaceful new year.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement and reiterate Reform’s strong support, with all parties in this House, for Ukraine, its sovereignty and its independence against the dictator Putin. The Minister knows that I have spoken frequently about using the frozen central assets, and I am encouraged by his words today, but can I urge him to go further? Ukrainian friends of mine have reinforced the strength of the negotiating leverage of such assets. This Government therefore have the opportunity to show real leadership in the coalition of the willing by committing unilaterally to using those frozen central assets.

[Luke Pollard]

In the spirit of Christmas, may I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for this effort? It is so important that we can, as much as possible, present a cross-party, unified voice. The steps that he has taken, especially to address the pollution of Russian bribes in his own party, are important steps forward. Hopefully, Russian bribes will never, ever again be taken by people in his party or anyone else’s.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise the issue of frozen Russian assets, and it is important that the UK moves with our international allies in this respect. That has been our approach from the start. I hope that we are nearly at the point where progress can be made. He is right to say just how important it is to use those assets as leverage in peace, as well as to use the value of those assets, and the interest from them, to support Ukraine in the fight against Putin’s illegal invasion.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Richard Tice Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will make some progress, but I will take Members’ interventions in just a wee moment. [Interruption.] The shadow Foreign Secretary will get a go in a moment, but if she wants to continue shouting at me, she is more than welcome to do so; I will make some progress in the meantime. I hope she understands that this debate is best approached in a good-natured way, and I am certain that she will be doing so, with less shouting.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Luke Pollard]

As I just mentioned—the hon. Gentleman might have missed it—I will give way in a moment, but I will now make some progress.

Courts and international bodies were already making decisions that undermined our position. Others would have followed suit, taking us down a path towards making the base inoperable. This Government will not allow that to happen. There has been a wealth of misinformation on these legal points, and those who have suggested that the UK should simply ignore international law fail to recognise the true impacts of these cascading adverse rulings, which would have not only impeded our ability to control and operate the base, but would have swiftly undermined our ability to control the waters, the air and the electromagnetic spectrum on which the base relies. Such rulings would have fundamentally undermined the very capabilities that make the base so uniquely valuable to the UK and the US, our allies.

This treaty eliminates that legal threat. Under the treaty, the UK will retain all the rights and authorities necessary for full operational control of Diego Garcia. It provides for unrestricted use of the base.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

It is good that the hon. Member has read the detail of the treaty. As he will know that, at the end of the initial 99-year lease, a first refusal will be offered to the United Kingdom. That is the right place to be, and that offer will mean—as he describes it, in four generations’ time—there is a decision for this House to take about what it wants to do based on the circumstances at the time. This gives us first refusal, so we can conceivably see that full control of the UK-US base on Diego Garcia could extend well beyond the 99 years I have mentioned.

[Richard Tice]

Does the Minister accept that we owned the freehold of the Chagos islands, and does he agree with me that in the mid-1960s we paid Mauritius £3 million in old money—some 80 million quid in today’s money—to cede all future claims over sovereignty?

[Luke Pollard]

The legal analysis that this Government have received, and indeed that the last Government received, showed that the position of UK sovereignty over the Diego Garcia military base was putting the base’s operation at risk. The reason why the last Government began the negotiations was to secure the continuing operation of the base, and it is the reason why we are doing so. Securing the future operation of that base is the primary concern of this Government. Indeed, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), it was the primary concern of the last Government as well. That is what this deal secures, and it is really important that that is understood clearly: the base is what matters in relation to its continuing operation, and that is what this deal secures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

I will return to that point in a minute.

On top of what else is wrong with this surrender deal, it is a fundamental betrayal of the British Chagossian community, whose rights have been ignored and neglected. I pay tribute to them. They have joined us today in the Gallery. If I remember rightly, this is the fifth or sixth time they have joined us to show how strongly they feel about the deal.

The deal undermines the defence and security interests of this country, and it brings a risk of the destruction of the unique marine environment and a failure to protect the future of the marine protected area. From refusing to grant this House a meaningful debate and vote on the treaty when it came, to the scenes in the Mauritius National Assembly—I hope Labour MPs watched the debates in the Assembly, where the Prime Minister was gloating about how easy it was to secure concession after concession from the Labour Government—and the deceit, misinformation and gaslighting of the British people through to the £35 billion cost to hard-working British taxpayers, which will be used to fund tax cuts in Mauritius.

[Richard Tice]

I am most grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary for giving way. The Minister described the deal as an investment. Does the right hon. Lady agree that it would be helpful to educate him that a freehold is an investment and a lease is a liability?

[Priti Patel]

Exactly right. On top of that, there is the whole issue of the liabilities, costs and everything else that goes with it. The hon. Gentleman makes a fundamental, important point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank the Minister for intervening and for that clarification. When I read the words “expeditiously inform”, I was left in a somewhat uncertain state as to what that actually meant. There must be no fettering of our ability to operate from the base.

[Richard Tice]

We have heard today that this deal—this supposed investment that is actually a liability—is essential to the defence of our realm. Yet the Defence Committee has not studied that investment or liability. I think the British people have a right to know why not.

[Mr Dhesi]

I have already stated, on two occasions, the various reasons why our Committee has not looked into this particular aspect. The matter has been given extensive airing in various other contexts, and we have been given assurances that there will be no fettering of our ability to operate from the base in the defence and security of the UK and its allies. I also point out to the hon. Member that during the Defence Committee’s recent visit to our most trusted and closest ally, the US, during various discussions and on numerous occasions when we raised the matter with very senior individuals in the US, whether on Capitol hill, in the State Department or at the Pentagon, they were supportive of the deal. I am sure that other Committee Members, when they discuss this, can attest to that.

Ukraine

Richard Tice Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

The short answer is yes. The slightly longer answer is that we are already working hard with Ukraine on some of these questions of joint ventures and joint industrial partnerships. Indeed, when President Zelensky visited Downing Street in June, our Prime Minister declared that this area of reinforcing our industrial connections and joint enterprise will help Ukraine in the fight now and help develop Ukrainian industry, but could also bring benefits to us and our armed forces in the future.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State and all those involved on the Type 26 frigate deal, which is great news for all and for economic growth. I reiterate our continuing support for Ukraine, and also for this Government and the Secretary of State in working with other world leaders in trying to secure a ceasefire. I suppose we should not be surprised by Putin’s appalling continuation of the bombing of Ukraine. May I urge the Secretary of State to work with other world leaders to use the leverage, which I think we still have, of the $300 billion-worth of frozen central bank assets that could help in the negotiations with Putin?

[John Healey]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I note his view on the frozen Russian assets, and I welcome his declaration of support for Ukraine and his condemnation of Vladimir Putin. The all-party nature of the support for Ukraine in this House is very important, and it is particularly welcome that he is here and makes that clear for the Reform party.

Diego Garcia Military Base

Richard Tice Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I do, indeed, and I have to say that I am relieved my hon. Friend has not asked me to name all 50-plus islands in the archipelago.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

The Mauritians have never ever owned the Chagos islands. When they gained independence from the United Kingdom in the 1960s, the UK paid them millions of pounds to cede any future claims over the sovereignty of the Chagos islands. The Defence Secretary has confirmed the strategic importance of the Chagos islands, and we all agree on that, but the truth is that this is the worst ever deal in history by this country. Over 100 years we are paying, with inflation, over £40 billion to give away a strategically important security asset. The truth is, and I confirm it now, that when Reform wins the next general election, we will rip up this deal—tear it up—and stop all future payments. It is a disgrace.

[John Healey]

That is total rubbish—not just the hon. Member’s figures, but his assertion. Our closest ally, which has taken the closest look at the deal we have negotiated, sees this as the way we can secure the joint operations and the control of this base. Through this deal, we can jointly guarantee that for the next century and beyond. We have gone over the cost, and it is less than 0.2% of the defence budget. For this, we get the security of being able to continue operating an intelligence and defence base doing activities and operations that we simply could not do anywhere else. This is a good investment for Britain, and Britain is safer today because of the deal we have struck.