Budget Resolutions
Tom Tugendhat Excerpts(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell). She caught my eye earlier when she was cheering the Chancellor with great enthusiasm, even more so than her colleagues who were making a pretty good fist of it. I recall cheering a Chancellor during a Budget speech—
Sir Desmond Swayne
Notwithstanding the misgivings that I had, I cheered with gusto. Somewhat later, I found myself on a train to Oxford to defend the Government in the annual Oxford Union debate of no confidence. While on the train, I received the news that the Chancellor who I had been cheering had been sacked—not a particularly good wicket to go out to bat on.
I am confident that those hon. Members who cheered today will fare no better, because the economy is still reeling from the last Budget that the Chancellor delivered, with her wholesale assault on enterprise, family undertakings, initiative and every employer in the land. In fact, business confidence had collapsed significantly before that Budget. It had collapsed in the summer, when the Government warned everyone that things were so bad that they were going to have to get very, very much worse. As a consequence, when the Budget was delivered, we discovered that things were even worse than we had imagined. The Government then announced after that Budget that they had stabilised the economy. It was over; they were not coming back for any more. They trumpeted throughout the past year the fact that we had the highest growth rate in the G7. That is what they inherited, but as their monstrous regiment has proceeded, that growth rate has become more and more anaemic. There is no getting away from the fact that last month the economy shrank.
This summer, the Government repeated the mistake. All we got throughout the summer was horror story after horror story and kites being flown about ghastly taxes that might be imposed on us. That was most unwelcome for businesses planning investment and for anyone planning to take on workers; these interventions move some markets and make others absolutely sclerotic. It is a disaster. When I challenged the Chief Secretary to the Treasury last week with the example of Hugh Dalton, who properly resigned over a Budget leak, I was astounded that he admitted at the Dispatch Box that he had no idea what I was talking about. That is extraordinary. Against that background, there is always the chilling presence of the huge increase in trade union power that is part of the Employment Rights Bill currently before Parliament.
However, the Government’s anti-growth agenda is only half the story. The other half of the problem was expounded excellently by the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). The Government’s bloated expenditure plans have overshot by 4%, and we have this enormous, growing benefits bill. The disaster was that the Government withdrew from their attempts to provide some mild or modest restraint to the growth of that bill, and as my right hon. Friend said, we now face a bill that is running annually at £300 billion—£212 billion of which is for the economic inactivity of 4.3 million people who are under no obligation to work. That number of people is growing at a rate of 130,000 per month. That is completely unsustainable, and it is to be paid for by increasing taxes that disproportionately attack those people who are already contributing the most—the entrepreneurs, the investors and the very people who can take their investment, vision, skills and employment to where the business environment is rather more friendly. They are doing that in droves and to such an extent that even the Business Secretary has remarked on and spotted it. We increasingly face a situation in which fewer and fewer people will be able to pay for the bills of the increasing burden of people who are economically inactive.
As we approach—
Richard Tice
The good news is that when Reform wins more and more elections next May, we will be able to get better value for council tax across the whole country.
I will keep going. Over the next five years, welfare spending will increase by £70 billion per annum. That shows that this is not a Budget for workers; it is a Budget for those on welfare. It reduces the incentive to work, and it reduces the incentive to be an entrepreneur or a small business owner.
Tom Tugendhat
I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman using the figure of £70 billion, and I agree with him. He knows that £30 billion of that results from the rise in the triple lock, so does he agree that the triple lock is simply not affordable?
Richard Tice
The truth is that if we carry on going this way, nothing will be affordable, because this Chancellor is heading us towards bankruptcy as a nation. The reality is that nothing becomes affordable if we go bust under the Minister’s and the Chancellor’s mismanagement of this economy, so we need to change course, because all the data is bad.
I cannot believe the borrowing numbers, Madam Deputy Speaker! The OBR is forecasting that borrowing in this year alone will be some £21 billion higher—
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
It is somewhat depressing to speak after this Budget, which has basically picked the pocket of anybody who is trying to earn any money in this country. It has sent a very clear message to everybody in our country—a message that many people are hearing—which is, “This Government are not on your side. This Government will do everything they can to keep you where you are. They will encourage you to leave the country, rather than invest in it.” We can see that in the numbers. There is £26 billion in extra taxes, and 800,000 people are paying more. This is a welfare Budget, not a work Budget.
Sadly, though, the issue is not just those bald figures; it is what they will do to so many citizens in our country. Among the most tragic bits of this Budget is the £7.5 billion extra tax on the young people who have got themselves a university degree—that is hidden nicely and quietly in the OBR report—but there are also the 1 million young people who will not end up in work. Let us just think about that. It is 1 million young people who will not end up in work for another year, or another year after that. Those 1 million young people, in a few years’ time, will not have a choice, because businesses will not hire them, and the world will not be one that they are adapted to. Worse than that, they will have become, quite literally, slaves of the state, waiting for the man or woman in Whitehall to decide what they get each month and year. They will have become totally dependent. It is a crime to leave our fellow citizens dependent on the state.
Several hon. Members rose—
Tom Tugendhat
Forgive me; I am going to make a little progress.
That is not all of it. This Budget looked hard at fixing the very real political problems faced by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister today, admittedly, but it also looked hard at how they can simply inflate the balloon today; there was nothing about tomorrow. We can see that in the way that farmers are being taxed; it is deliberately punishing investment. We can see it in the investment figures; despite the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) claiming that there has been investment in this country, the investment figures in the UK per capita show a 4% increase. Okay, that is an increase, but the figure is 22% in Canada and 79% in the United States. This is not real growth or serious investment. Sadly, we see the knock-on effects. The right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, said that there was investment in start-ups. Well, I wish there was, but all the decisions made by this Government have convinced anybody with any entrepreneurial spirit to go either to Abu Dhabi, where they are filming some new version of “Auf Wiedersehen, Pet” with British workers who have fled this country, or to the United States, which at least has the capital to invest in start-ups.
All we see is a continuation of the Blair-Brown model of increasing nationalisation of savings—that creeping control that we see spreading over pensions and the insurance market. It has left 60% of our savings in bonds, and only about 40% in equities, which contrasts remarkably with Australia, Canada and the United States, which have 20% in bonds and 80% in equities.
Bill Esterson
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for quoting me, but when backing Liz Truss to be leader of the Tory party he said:
“I have no doubt that we will move with determination to make this country safer and more secure.”
Does that not rather undermine any claim of credibility he makes?
Tom Tugendhat
I will tell the hon. Member the honest truth: Liz Truss was wrong, and I made a mistake. That is the reality; that is what happened. But here is the difference: it is true that what she did put pressure on the economy, but this Chancellor has increased debt to the highest-ever levels and the cost of borrowing to the highest in the G7.
Tom Tugendhat
There is no debate about that, so I will not give way on that point.
The reality is that we are looking at the politics of today and forgetting about tomorrow. We are seeing people left on welfare and not helped into work. We see a pretence at kindness that is actually long-term cruelty. We are failing to recognise that it is not the state, the Government or the civil servants, and certainly not the Minister, who employs people or creates any work, but free individuals freely associating and freely structuring their lives in order to create opportunity for themselves, their family and their community. But guess what? This Government do not believe in that. That is why we now see taxes at their highest-ever level at 38%—the highest since the second world war. This is a remarkable theft of liberty from the British people. Forget about digital ID, which is insane in its own right; this is a genuine theft of the liberty of free citizens to choose what to do with their resources. It is an appalling decision.
We need to look very hard at what the choices are. We can already see where the cost is going. Despite the Home Office estimates a few years ago that asylum seekers would cost £4.5 billion, this OBR report tells us that it will be £15.3 billion. That is a multiple of more than three. We are seeing any number of different areas where the costs are rising. All this would be bad enough in a normal situation where, with a bit of adjustment, we could get back to normal, but the truth is that this is not a normal situation. This is a situation that demands frank honesty.
Let me be honest and lay it on the line. The demographics of this country are going against us. We do not have enough young people for an ageing population. That means, I am afraid, that we do need to look at the triple lock. I know that those on my party’s Front Bench do not agree with me, but I have been clear that we simply cannot afford the level of welfare payments we are making. We need to be clear that health and pensions are now costing too much. We need to be clear that the security situation has changed.
I have heard that we are now raising more for defence—gosh, have I heard that?—but the reality is that it is all on the never-never. The Army is even now talking about cutting the number of soldiers, the Navy is talking about cutting the number of ships, and the Air Force is talking about cutting its numbers too. I have heard that from friends who are serving today, so I look forward to seeing what comes out of the Budget round for them. The reality is that while our enemies are arming, we are talking. It is simply not serious.
For all that I have said, there is one thing that is going so far against us that we are not even on the same field, and that is technology. Looking at the rise of AI across the world, there are only two countries that are serious players: the United States and China. The Unites States is heading for the exquisite, while China is heading for the quotidian. We are seeing a radical change in the way the economy is working, but here we are defending old jobs, punishing ideas and keeping back growth. We have a Government who simply do not understand that we have only a few years in which we can get back into the game. If we miss this chance, we will be like the old Chinese empire: we will have missed the boat, we will have burned our ships, and we will be replaced, as happened after European expansion to the Americas.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for her excellent Budget statement. I would take the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) and his colleagues more seriously on defence spending if the Conservatives had not wasted 14 years and cut back our defences to the bare minimum.
Gurinder Singh Josan
I will make my points.
I will focus on the benefits of the Budget and the choices made by the Chancellor for people in my constituency. It is worth first reminding ourselves of the disgraceful situation in which the Conservative party left the economy in July last year and the scale of the mess the Labour Government are having to deal with. The economy was broken, with high interest rates, high unemployment, borrowing and debt beyond our means, growth stagnating, and strikes across our public services in various sectors. The NHS was on its knees, with record waiting lists and a crisis in midwife services and mental health services—I could go on—and we had a debilitating cost of living crisis, with no plan to make things better for ordinary families in my constituency.
The Labour Government have already done so much to fix the mess, and the change is beginning to be felt in my constituency; I will go through some of those things. My constituents benefited from £20 million of plan for neighbourhoods funding in Smethwick. We have seen wage increases and growth upgraded to 1.5%. Rail fares and prescription charges have been frozen, the fuel duty freeze has been extended and pensions are increasing. We are seeing breakfast clubs and free school meals, along with more GPs and nurses. There is the 10-year NHS plan, and railways are coming back into public ownership—people said that could never be done, but it is happening. We are seeing local control over bus services, new protections for renters, and homes for heroes. We have launched the Border Security Command.
There is over £100 million in Government funding for five new research hubs, including one in Birmingham. We scrapped the ban on onshore wind and unblocked solar schemes—we have new solar schemes for schools in Smethwick. We are having lower business rates, along with the National Wealth Fund and the warm homes plan to deliver lower energy bills, with £150 off bills announced today. The child poverty taskforce was established, and 5,350 children in Smethwick will benefit from the lifting of the two-child limit. Change is happening, and my constituents are benefiting from it, but all that is in the face of a world that is changing around us.
Over the last year, global challenges have impacted the UK in an unprecedented way. We have seen the impact of President Trump’s tariffs, the Ukraine war, Russia and China, and the mess that the Tories made of Brexit. Many Labour Members have understood that the old way of doing things—leaving everything to free markets and global trade—is not working for families and workers in the UK. Essentially, we all want to buy things cheap, so they end up being made abroad, where labour costs and conditions are much lower. That in turn has meant that whole industries in the UK have shut down, with the loss of good quality jobs. Therefore, as well as the choices being made by the Chancellor and this Labour Government to cut NHS waiting lists, cut the debt and cut the cost of living, they are working to ensure that the UK becomes less reliant on other countries and more self-sufficient in defence, energy security and many other areas.
The recall of Parliament in April to save the Scunthorpe steelworks was a defining moment, with the realisation that we cannot be reliant on the US or China for steel and that we need to maintain our own capacity. I see the change delivered in last year’s Budget and this year’s Budget as being about a necessary reindustrialisation of our country to ensure that we are more self-sufficient. If we do that and get it right, we will bring good quality jobs back to our communities that allow people to buy a house and a car and to support their kids through university—the decent standard of living that people aspire to. If we get it right, we will also remove the opportunity for dog-whistle scaremongering by the nakedly populist opportunists in Reform and others who want to take advantage of economic uncertainty to peddle division.
A choice has been made by the Chancellor and this Labour Government to commit to increased defence spending, with an understanding that we will not just buy everything from America; we will make it here. There is also the investment in green energy, nuclear energy, the industrial strategy, semiconductors and AI. All those things will support and deliver growth in our economy.
It is interesting that Conservative Members have talked a lot about growth and business confidence. The Venture Capital Trust Association organised an open letter signed by 250 signatories, which included me and other Members of this and the other House, but the majority of signatories were from various start-ups and businesses, including the founders of Quantexa and Matillion, which are both billion-dollar-valued tech firms. They asked for changes to the VCT and EIS schemes, which have not been updated in more than 10 years. I would take the Opposition more seriously if they had not been asleep on their watch when in power.
The British Private Equity and Venture Capital Association has just said:
“We are delighted to see the Government signalling that the important EIS and VCT incentives will be reformed to support businesses as they scale, as well as early stage investments”.
Business confidence is there. People want to see the change that we are making, which will support growth in our economy. If we get that right, that future will deliver for my constituents and for the UK, and I am proud to stand with the Government on that.
Sammy Wilson
Some of that redistributive impact is the result of taxes being taken off people who are on modest incomes for welfare increases. This is a figure that the Chancellor has quoted in the House time and again: one in seven under-25s is now fully reliant on benefits and is not in work. Where is that money coming from? It is coming from people who are working on a daily basis and, in many cases, for not a great deal of money, but who will be dragged into the tax system.
This is an unfair Budget, because it still relies on taking money from working people who are not mega-rich to pay for some of the Government’s grandiose schemes. Some people may argue that if it works, it is worth doing, but let us look at the record of the previous year. The OBR tells us that the outcome of the Chancellor trying the same tactic last year has been that investment is now predicted to fall as a percentage of GDP. Output growth is going to fall by a sixth, productivity is going to fall from 0.4% to -0.4%. Consumer expenditure is down by 0.5%. People are receiving less and profits for companies are going to fall from 12.5% to 10.75%, all of which will affect investment and economic growth, and undermine the very objective that the Chancellor says she is seeking to achieve.
Of course, many people will argue that that is fine, but we have levels of expenditure that we have to finance, so how do we pay for it? Let us look at some of the decisions that the Government have made over the last year. Welfare payments are going to go up quite substantially to £58 billion over the period of this Parliament. On net zero, environmental taxes are going up by 60%, affecting the profitability of companies, and the renewables obligation next year is going to cost us £3 billion. So net zero, the impact of which we are all experiencing on jobs, is going to lead to further costs. I think many people would question whether those are the kinds of things we should be spending money on at a time when we have an abundance of fossil energy in this country.
Tax avoidance has not been dealt with. I have heard tax avoidance being mentioned every time we have a Budget, including under the previous Government, but it is never dealt with. The Googles and Amazons of this world still sell goods here but do not pay taxes in this country. The budget for welfare in relation to immigration is now predicted to go up to £15 billion. Also, we have had debates in this House time and again about the bases in the Indian ocean that we had possession of. We gave them back to Mauritius and we are paying Mauritius for that. What is Mauritius going to do with the billions that we give them from taxpayers here? It is going to cut its own taxes. We are putting up our taxes in order to allow taxes to be reduced in another country when we did not even need to do it. So there are ways in which the money could have been achieved.
I welcome the announcement about the loan charge. As a vice-chairman of the loan charge and taxpayer fairness all-party parliamentary group, I trust that we will now see the Government treating the ordinary people who are affected by the loan charge in the way in which they treated big business. Businesses were given a concessionary payment of 15%, while some of the ordinary people who were affected were being charged nearly 100%. I hope that the McCann review leads to that being sorted out.
As far as Northern Ireland is concerned, I welcome the Barnett consequentials and I hope that the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Sinn Féin Finance Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly will spend the £370 million wisely—
China Audit
Tom Tugendhat Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
Prime Minister Johnson’s record on China is shocking. It led to the grave embarrassment of having to do a U-turn on Huawei, which would have been able to get into the most delicate of our telecommunications infrastructure. It is because of that that we undertook, while in opposition, to do a full audit. That audit is constantly ongoing, but I hope that my hon. Friend will see its results reflected in the industrial strategy, the national security strategy and, of course, the SDR, which was published recently.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I enjoyed playing buzzword bingo when the right hon. Member presented his statement. I remind him that the rebellion on Huawei was actually led by Conservative Members, not Labour.
May I question the right hon. Gentleman about a meeting, which he referred to with a little more pride than I would have done? It was the meeting with Liu Jianchao, who is personally responsible for Operations Fox Hunt and Sky Net, which, of course, concern transnational repression, the kidnapping of Chinese citizens and their repatriation by force to mainland China. He did not seem quite as ashamed of that as I would have been. Why has he still not made it clear that the first scheme, which the Conservatives left intact and ready to go, will not yet be introduced for the whole of the Chinese state, as it should be? That is what it was designed for. For all the words that we have heard, there is not a single practical outcome. It is all still waffle.
Mr Lammy
I recognise, and it is right to put on the record, that Conservative Members, the right hon. Gentleman among them, have raised significant issues over the past decade or so about the approach to China. That is why, in opposition, we said that we would do a full audit. He will recognise and welcome, I suspect, the extra investment in the intelligence services, and particularly in our national cyber capability. I see him nodding. Those are tangible outcomes. That cannot, on any analysis, be described as waffle.
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
Tom Tugendhat Excerpts(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
My hon. Friend will remember that in the last Parliament we brought in the National Security Act 2023, which introduced huge controls on the nature of an individual’s liberty. The legislation passed through the House over a period of two years and required an entire Department to prepare it. There were considerations with the judiciary, foreign Governments and other services, including the police. The Bill before us allows the state to kill someone. Does he feel that this legislation is therefore somewhat more constrained than other legislation that would normally have been allowed to pass? And yes, it is correct to say that it allows the state—an actor on behalf of the state, at the request of an individual—to take a life. In the English language, that is called killing.
Prisoners of Conscience
Tom Tugendhat Excerpts(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to respond to Members in what has been a fascinating debate. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing it, and I am very grateful for the contributions of other hon. Members. I will try to respond to all the points raised.
The Government stand in solidarity with those who are in prison solely because of their religious or other beliefs, and we call on Governments to ensure that the right to freedom of religion or belief is protected and promoted for all people everywhere. Societies that respect and uphold human rights, including freedom of religion or belief, are generally stronger, more stable and prosperous.
As many in the Chamber have articulated so eloquently, the scale of freedom of religion or belief abuses and violations globally is of grave concern. Article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights states that
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”.
However, the reality faced by many—including the Baha’i community in Yemen and Iran, the Ahmadis in Pakistan, the church members in Nicaragua who have been harassed and arbitrarily detained, and non-Muslims caught up in Sudan’s civil war—is far removed from that principle. Persecution, harassment, discrimination and arbitrary detention are sadly part of daily life for many.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) and the spokesperson for His Majesty’s Opposition, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), both mentioned the current issue of Armenians in detention following the recent conflict with Azerbaijan. Annette Moskofian has had a few mentions, because she is such an ardent believer in freedom of religion or belief, and is the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton.
For those reasons, we are working hard to highlight and address the scale and severity of freedom of religion or belief abuses and violations, including by lobbying for the release of prisoners of conscience. I shall set out some examples. Lorenzo Rosales Fajardo, a pastor and leader of an independent church in Cuba, was imprisoned for participating in peaceful protests in that country. The Foreign Secretary wrote to him in December last year to express solidarity and called on the Cuban authorities to release him. We were delighted to hear that he was released in January. As the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) said, this must not be a counsel of despair; occasionally, we get good news in these cases.
Mubarak Bala has also been mentioned in this debate. A Nigerian atheist and president of the Humanist Association of Nigeria, he was sentenced to 24 years for his belief. We regularly lobbied the Nigerian Government, including through letters to the Kano state governor and calls by Ministers for his release, and we were pleased to hear that he was also freed in January. Of course, there are many other examples, and I will try to set out what we are doing to support them.
The UK is determined to use its extensive diplomatic network to champion freedom of religion or belief on the international stage. As Members have mentioned, our human rights approach is being refreshed by the Minister for human rights in the other place, Lord Collins. He will come to Parliament in the usual way to set out that work when it is completed. I was very pleased to meet my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) earlier this week to discuss his role as the UK special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. To address the Bill proposing that we make that role statutory, while we recognise the benefits of the position, we do not believe that its value would be enhanced by making it statutory. As such, we will continue with the approach taken by the last Government under the excellent Fiona Bruce, maintaining the role as an office within the Foreign Office, but with a strong sense of challenge.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I welcome the tone in which this debate is being conducted. Given that the Minister will not make the special envoy’s role statutory, will she state very clearly that she will not make something else statutory—that she will not reintroduce a blasphemy law in the United Kingdom? She will recognise that the abolition of the blasphemy laws in the 1980s and 1990s meant that people could express whatever belief they happened to hold in a completely free way. That ended a level of oppression that had been possible, although not exercised for many years.
Will the Minister make absolutely clear that in no way will this Government support a blasphemy law, and that they will not allow police to introduce one through the back door by criminalising acts that would otherwise be covered by freedom of expression? Will she make absolutely clear that His Majesty’s Government stand for freedom of religion and non-belief, not just belief, and that that means the freedom to change one’s religion, to reject a previous religion, and to criticise any religion? Does she agree with that?
Catherine West
Of course I agree that freedom of religion or belief, or the right to have no belief at all, is critical and paramount. I know that organisations such as Index on Censorship, which the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) is part of, are very robust in that regard. It is crucial that we have the right to freedom of expression. On the finer points of the right hon. Gentleman’s question, if he would like to write to me, I will be very happy to write back using the particular language that he would prefer.
Oral Answers to Questions
Tom Tugendhat Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Catherine West
The UK continues to support the visit by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and, through initiatives such as the voluntary principles on security and human rights, and the UK-Indonesia critical minerals MOU—signed off by you, Madam Deputy Speaker—the Government promote best practice on sustainability and respect for human rights.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I am delighted to hear that the Minister has been raising human rights concerns with the Government of Indonesia about critical minerals. Would she perhaps have a word with her colleague the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero about the human rights concerns over other critical minerals conversions in China? It is going into a green energy economy that is supposed to have environmental, social and governance accords, yet somehow or other it fails on all of those: it fails because of its coal-powered production, it fails because its products are made by socially undesirable slave labour—I hope she agrees about that—and it fails on governance because there is no oversight. Will she have those same conversations within her own Government?
Catherine West
The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to raise those pressing concerns, and all will be revealed when the China audit comes forward with the specifics on his question.
Oral Answers to Questions
Tom Tugendhat Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Doughty
I recognise my hon. Friend’s long-standing interest in this issue and his strong views on it. Let me be clear. On 28 October, His Majesty’s ambassador to Georgia called on the Central Election Commission to transparently investigate all alleged incidences of election fraud. Following the session of the new Parliament, the embassy again reiterated our concerns about election violations and the need for independent investigation. He is absolutely right that the right to peaceful protest and a free civil society is a key attribute of any modern European democracy and must be respected. We will continue to make that clear.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I first pay tribute to the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall), whose focus on Georgia—not just on free elections in Georgia, but on the spread of Putin’s evil influence across Europe—has been incredibly important. What actions is the Minister taking to push back on Russia’s influence in the region and to push back in Russia itself using his budget for the BBC World Service to broadcast in sub-national languages inside Russia, so that the people of Russia know what is being done in their name and can understand what Putin is doing to them?
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point to the important work the BBC World Service does in this area, in particular through its language services. I have in the past met its fantastic staff who do that important work. It is important that people have access to free, accurate and impartial information, including in their own languages. We have been clear about the extent of Russian interference in Georgia for a long time and we are clear about Russian interference across Europe in democracies. That is why we are working so closely with NATO and EU partners on that very issue.
British Indian Ocean Territory: Negotiations
Tom Tugendhat Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
On Thursday 3 October, my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister and Mauritian Prime Minister Jugnauth made an historic announcement: after two years of negotiations and decades of disagreement, the United Kingdom and Mauritius have reached a political agreement on the future of the British Indian Ocean Territory. The treaty is neither signed nor ratified, but I wanted to update the House on the conclusion of formal negotiations at the earliest opportunity.
Members will appreciate the context. Since its creation, the territory and the joint UK-US military base on Diego Garcia have had a contested existence. [Interruption.] In recent years, the threat has risen significantly. When we came into office, the status quo was clearly not sustainable. [Interruption.] A binding judgment against the UK seemed inevitable, and it was just a matter of time before our only choices would have been abandoning the base altogether or breaking international law.
Mr Speaker
Order. You will all be able to question the Secretary of State, so please just wait for that moment.
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who chairs the all-party group on Gibraltar. We unequivocally support the right of both Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands to self-determination. I was pleased to see the Chief Minister come out categorically and put down some of the false statements that were being made last week.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
The old principle that we used to apply was the Wilson principle—the principle of self-determination—which the Foreign Secretary may remember is the defence of the Falkland Islands and the defence of Gibraltar. He has now just violated that principle by undermining the rights of the Chagossian people in favour of a claim that was abandoned in 1965—it was never really made because it was only administrative, and the islands were never properly governed from Mauritius anyway—and by being in favour of a Court judgment that was advisory, he has sold out the sovereignty of the British people. Truly, nobody apart from a boy called Jack has ever made a worse deal on the way to market, and he has come back with a handful of beans that he is trying to sell as a prize.
Mr Lammy
I have to say that I have always admired the right hon. Gentleman’s eloquence, but I have not always admired his principles. He was part of the last Government—
Oral Answers to Questions
Tom Tugendhat Excerpts(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Tom Tugendhat.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I pay enormous tribute to the United Nations Secretary-General and all those who have been working on opening up the ports in southern Ukraine, and to the British Government for the work they have been doing alongside the Turkish Government to ensure that those shipments have flown. However, what work is the Minister doing with sub-Saharan Africa? Many of the countries we are talking about—not just Pakistan, which the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) rightly named, but many other countries in sub-Saharan Africa—are suffering very severely from the rise in food prices. The World Food Programme has done an enormous amount to make sure that food gets out there, and I pay tribute to its Nobel prize-winning efforts, but Her Majesty’s Government can do more too.
Vicky Ford
As ever, my hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and I thank him for raising the situation in sub-Saharan Africa. The ship that arrived in Djibouti last week with grain from Ukraine going to Ethiopia was welcome, but the situation in east Africa in particular is catastrophic, affecting more than 40 million people. We are a major donor to east Africa: we are expecting to spend £156 million this year, and we have already spent half of that. That money is going into the most urgent priorities, providing food, water, shelter and medicines for millions of people, but we are also leading efforts to bring in other donors, such as the $400 million that we helped to raise through the UN, and pushing the World Bank and others to do more too.
NATO Accession: Sweden and Finland
Tom Tugendhat Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Tom Tugendhat.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for announcing this to the House. It has been an important negotiation and conversation over recent weeks and months. My own meetings with the Prime Minister of Finland and the Foreign Minister of Sweden have been important in assuring me that their commitment is real and that this agreement is fundamental not just to their security, but to ours.
Let us not forget what this is about. NATO is not an overseas adventure; it is fundamentally about the defence of the homes we are lucky to live in and the neighbours and friends we are lucky to live beside. It is about defending the whole of the United Kingdom, all of our coast and, especially in the case of Finland and Sweden, the high north and the Scottish coasts and islands that are so important to the integrity of the United Kingdom. It is fundamentally about defence of the realm.
I pay enormous tribute to my hon. Friend and the whole Foreign Office team who have got this negotiation over the line. Will she now, however, engage in conversations with our Swedish and Finnish partners to ensure that our interoperability goes much deeper, not just into equipment purchase, so that we can end the war in Ukraine quickly and before the winter starts putting extra costs on families across our country?
Vicky Ford
Madam Deputy Speaker, could I ask you a favour? One of the Finnish Ministers is actually in this place and is trying to get access to one of the Galleries, but because we have been rather full they have not been able to get through the House authorities. I am sure all my colleagues would like to welcome the Minister to come and listen. Could you possibly ask for that?
Oral Answers to Questions
Tom Tugendhat Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Tom Tugendhat.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I welcome enormously my right hon. Friend’s words on sexual violence in conflict. We have seen the rape of Bucha, sadly, and the rape of so many other towns and cities around the world, most notably in places such as Ethiopia and Mali. However, will my right hon. Friend also talk about sexual violence not in conflict? There is forced genital mutilation of young women and girls around the world, and an extraordinary level of violence in ordinary life outside conflict. The work that her Department can do in helping communities to defend themselves is not just transforming them, but transforming countries’ economies and futures.