What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
The national planning policy framework is 130 pages long. The London plan is over 500 pages long. The mayor’s guidance to the London plan is over 2,000 pages long. Will the Prime Minister concede that because of that, added to the increase in taxes that his Government are putting on businesses and employers, 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?
Does my hon. Friend fear, like I do, that we will see so many more family firms being sold, and often sold to foreign buyers—people who have no interest in investing for the long term and investing in local communities?
Our hearts go out to the people of Piddington. We heard a very moving speech from the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), and we of course agree with everything that he says on that. Perhaps I may share with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, my own experience of the unsuitability of large military bases to house migrants. After failed projects for former RAF bases in Lincolnshire, we worked for years to get massive regeneration into RAF Scampton. The whole scheme was ready to go to raise perhaps £300 million of investment. Then I received an invitation from the then Home Secretary, my personal friend, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman). She summoned me into her grand office and she said to me, “All this regeneration is going to vanish, and I am going to put 2,000 migrants in there.” That was right next to hundreds of people who had bought their home next to that site, 100 yards away. I fought that battle for two years, and the right hon. and learned Lady was followed by the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) who, as his enemies might say, was even more ruthless. He was even more determined to put the migrants in. I am now looking at the Minister, and I have to thank this Government, and particularly my personal friend the right hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), because Scampton is only five miles from Lincoln. They realised, following the National Audit Office report and after £64 million had been wasted on trying to convert a hundred buildings, including listed buildings, and a runway on an 800-acre site, that the scheme was rubbish. It was condemned by the NAO as a complete waste of money and we have seen them off, so I thank the Minister for the latest deal that has been announced to try to get a world-class defence company in there. These large military bases simply do not work for this purpose and they are no deterrent. If someone is in some hell-hole like Eritrea, are they really worried about whether they will end up in Piddington, Scampton or Bicester? Of course not, so as a deterrent it simply does not work. Frankly, it would be better to find some isolated place, to surround it to make it secure and to detain people there in portacabins. The trouble is that we cannot do that, because of the Human Rights Act 1998, the European convention on human rights and the refugee convention. That is the problem that we have always faced: we cannot detain these people. There is no deterrent unless we follow the Opposition’s policy to detain people as they land and deport them within a week. For all that we have heard about the ECHR—I am on the Council of Europe—it simply stops us dealing with the problem. The only solution is offshoring. Everybody knows that and nothing else works. May I end on a positive note? Although we are right to hold the Government to account, they are never going to listen to us about the ECHR, but as I have said, I am on the Council of Europe. Why do we not have a return agreement to countries that are in the Council of Europe but are far distant, such as Armenia, Moldova, Azerbaijan or Serbia? I give this free advice to the Government. No court would ever stop that. Something must be done. This is destroying our political system and it is driving people mad that we cannot control our own borders. The Government must act, and if they do not act, then they will reap the whirlwind.
It is always a pleasure and a privilege to address the Chair, but particularly so when you are in it, Dame Siobhain. With your permission, I will make one contribution dealing with both groups. Clause 1 sets out the statutory powers available to the Minister to secure services and functions with respect to “pregnancy or childbirth…the health and development needs of infants, or…the relationship between parent or carer and infant.” Although the amendment would amend clause 2, it clearly has implications for clause 1. In substance, it would require consideration of “the well-being of infants, parents, carers and prospective parents and carers, and…inequalities between infants, parents, carers and prospective parents and carers.” “Well-being” is defined in the amendment as “physical, mental and emotional health, and…in respect of infants, protection from harm and neglect.” My reading of the powers in clause 1 is that they are clearly inclusive of the wellbeing of infants and parents. The wellbeing of infants and parents must fall within “pregnancy or childbirth…the health and development needs of infants, or…the relationship between parent or carer and infant.” In that respect, I am confident that the amendment would be consistent with the powers granted in clause 1. I am not so sure that equalities comes within those three powers set out in clause 1. I fear that the amendment would leave Ministers making an assessment that included health and wellbeing and inequalities, but with no power to address the issue of inequalities in statutory instruments under clause 1. It is a technical matter on which I defer to the Minister, but that is my take on it.
That is a fair point and undoubtedly a matter for debate. The clause sets out that regulatory powers are to be made by a statutory instrument under the affirmative procedure. Clause 2 sets out the requirement for an assessment and a consultation within that assessment. Amendment 1 would explicitly add the need for health and wellbeing and inequalities to be included in the assessment. I believe that the assessment of need implicitly includes those things—as it should; these are important matters. My argument is that they are implicitly there already. However, it is important that the Minister, when making her assessment, should look beyond demand to how babies and families are faring, especially those that are at risk of doing poorly. I can entirely understand the desire to make explicit that which is implicit in the Bill. After all, if the Bill is doing it anyway, what danger is there of adding an explicit requirement—belt and braces? The difficulty as I see it is that that opens it up to danger on Report, when Members might seek to explicitly add other things that are implicit in the Bill. I have received a number of suggested amendments from organisations representing different aspects of childcare in infancy and pregnancy, which state things that could be added explicitly but that I believe are clearly implicit in the powers the Bill gives to Ministers. That is why I resist the amendment. Clause 3 covers the exercise of functions that ensure the appropriate level of provision. Having made an assessment, the Minister must then make appropriate levels of provision to meet those needs. That concludes my assessment of the first group. Clause 4 concerns the annual reporting power and the laying of a report on provisions and outcomes before Parliament. Clause 5 is about the interpretation of various terms—what we mean by “infant”, “parent”, or “prospective parent or carer”. Clause 6 defines the short title of the Act and sets out the rules for commencement. I commend these clauses to the Committee, but ask that amendment 1 be withdrawn.
Has the hon. Lady considered the impact of section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 and its requirement that Ministers, as an ordinary part of making the assessment, have to include the issue of inequality?
I agree entirely with the force of the argument in favour of equality being included in the Bill. It is important that these issues be addressed. The difference between us is that I think they are already implicit in the Bill. Demand that it be explicit is predicated on future-proofing it. Alas, were a future Government determined to remove equalities and repeal the Equalities Act, they would soon enough repeal the provision within this Bill. The difficulty with Sure Start was that there was no statutory provision, and it was done by administrative fiat without putting legislation before the Commons.
It is quite explicit under clause 4 that the reporting should include outcomes in respect of what is set out in sub-paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) of clause 1(2)(b). That is where there is clearly, in my estimate, an omission of inequalities. I am quite confident that health and wellbeing are included within pregnancy or childbirth, the health and development needs of infants, and the relationship between parent or carer and infant. I am not convinced that the Bill includes powers to make regulations on inequalities, so if there were to be an amendment, in my estimate it would need to address that issue in clause 1.
I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to clause 3(3), which states: “The Secretary of State may determine that different levels of provision are appropriate in different areas.” She makes the point very well that Ministers have to bear in mind exactly what she is drawing the Committee’s attention to.
I am confident that the needs of infants, parents and babies, from conception onwards, would clearly include healthy housing and all those provisions. In my view, that will be implicit in the Minister’s assessment of the needs. If we start being explicit about all these things, the danger is that we would have a very long Bill and a prolonged Report stage.
I thank members of the Committee for their attendance and their contributions. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Lowestoft for tabling amendment 1, which not only enabled the debate we have had but allowed the Minister to make the commitment she has now given to work further on the issue it deals with. After all, achieving such debate and scrutiny of a Bill is one of the principal duties of a Bill Committee. We are all, as a Committee, of one objective, even if we may have detected some minor difference as to how it might best be achieved. I also thank the Minister and her officials for the work that has gone into preparing the Bill and getting it to this stage today, particularly the recent discussions we have had. I also thank the support of staff in my own office who have carried the burden of that. I ask all members of the Committee to put into their diaries Friday 29 January, when we will deal with the Bill’s remaining stages—that is certainly my estimate of when we will do so. I hope that there will not be a Division, but if there were to be it is vital that the Committee should be quorate. Question put and agreed to. Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 2 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill to be reported, without amendment.
How have things changed since that safeguard was written in under the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020? That safeguard was written in in 2020, and the Minister is now saying that we need to remove it. Why?
Will the Minister take another intervention on the same point from me?
My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. Does he agree that his points are compounded by the fact that the Minister has refused, or expressed himself unable, to respond to any of these issues?
Can the Minister just explain how it would cut electricity bills in Northern Ireland by 20%? The Government keep asserting that but have not explained how it would happen.
On a point of order, Mr Efford. The Minister appears to be making assertions that he cannot substantiate. Is that in order?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I want to say a few words, as the Minister did, about the context of these regulations. The history of our relationship with the European Union was that, whenever a Minister brought a proposal to the House to increase the powers of the European Union or to enlarge its activities in our own jurisdiction, it was always, “There’s nothing to see here. This is already being done. This proposal just recognises what is already happening. There is no change.” By increment, we got further and further away from democratic accountability, which led to the British public deciding that they wanted to leave the European Union. This statutory instrument is another chip being taken out of our democratic process. The Northern Ireland protocol and the Windsor framework are about as undemocratic as one could possibly imagine—that is, there is no direct possibility of intervention by the people of Northern Ireland in the lawmaking process for their own Province. Incidentally, if we have dynamic alignment in the UK as a whole, that will apply in the UK. No Member of Parliament, no majority of the House of Commons and no majority of both Houses will have the power to block or stop a new regulation being applied by the European Union if we cement ourselves into a process of dynamic alignment. The sanitary and phytosanitary agreement is meant to generate an extra £10 billion of economic activity in the UK over the period to 2040—I think I have that correct. Well, that adds up to barely more than £700 million a year. That is a peanut in the overall scheme of things. What is holding back the economic activity in this country is excessive regulation and excessive taxation. [Interruption.] I note what you are indicating, Mr Efford. My point is that the trade-offs for agreeing to the SPS agreement are not matched. As the Secretary of State for Business and Trade said recently, were we to join the customs union, it would have an adverse effect on the trading arrangements we have agreed with the rest of the world. These regulations seem to embed Northern Ireland further into an undemocratic regulatory process with the EU, by removing the safeguard of section 15C of the 2018 Act. The Minister has not provided an explanation for why that is going to happen. I reinforce the point made by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim: it is not in the review to which the Minister referred. If it is in the review, please can he quote from it? If it is not, what is the justification for doing it? He has not given an explanation, and it is time that he did.
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is completely iniquitous that family farms have to pay inheritance tax on their assets, and yet if those assets were owned by a foreign company or individual, no inheritance tax would be paid? Why do this Labour Government want to single out British-owned family farms?
If we want our children to have a better life than us, to enjoy a better standard of living than ourselves, to enjoy better healthcare and to live in a better environment, then it is necessary to grow our economy. Conservatives understand that Governments do not create growth. A wise Government will try to create the conditions for growth and then stand back and allow individuals, families, partnerships and businesses to do their best to work hard, provide goods and services that people want to buy, and thus improve the world we live in. Creating wealth is hard work. I do not suppose that many Government Members are aware of that, because so few of them have ever worked in the private sector. It is quite remarkable that 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 talk about supporting business, yet time and again they do the opposite: higher national insurance charges that make it more expensive to employ people; 350 pages of the un-Employment Rights Act to further drive up the cost of labour; plans for a tourist tax—eagerly embraced by the Liberal Democrats—that will place additional burdens on a 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?” We know that because the Work and Pensions Secretary 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 businesses do more to create jobs, train apprentices and sustain communities than Government ever could. My constituency in Bridgwater sits in the heart of rural Somerset; ours is overwhelmingly a small business economy. More than 99% of the businesses in Somerset employ fewer than 250 employees. Those 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, small-scale family businesses underpin our local economies. They grow our food, make up our high streets, support tourism and more. That makes the fact that the Government feel 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, save, invest, and create jobs and wealth. We will reward those who do the right thing. That is why we will abolish inheritance tax on family homes, farms and businesses. We will restore fairness to a system that has neglected those who play by the rules. Because when a business passes from one generation to the next, we should help it grow and continue a legacy, not force it to sell assets to pay a tax bill.
If the hon. Gentleman reads it, the motion does specifically refer to family businesses. It is about agricultural property relief and business property relief—they are agricultural and business assets that form part of an estate. We will reverse Labour’s family farm and family business taxes. The Conservatives 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. 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.
We all understand that the protection of women and girls is a matter that transcends party politics. Today’s debate is not about point scoring, but it is an 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 the 2024 general election and the end of 2025, reaching nearly 65,000 people. I know that Government Members 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 that vast influx is felt right now by teenage girls who are too scared to walk to school alone, and by young women who are filled with fear when travelling home after an evening with friends. That fear is felt by our mothers, sisters, daughters and friends. I have felt that fear myself. Promises from those on the Government Benches to smash the gangs are hollow and empty. The Prime Minister is enjoying his new-found rhetoric of hope, but I encourage him and his ministerial colleagues to visit communities such as 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. In the first instance, I suggest to Government Members that a rural village of 350 people is not a suitable site for more than 1,000 single men. Beyond that, we in this House have the power to make policy decisions that will protect our women and girls. Our Conservative borders plan details just some of the measures that we could take to tackle illegal immigration, including leaving the ECHR and repealing the Human Rights Act, removing it from all immigration-related matters. As it stands, the ECHR is a barrier to common sense. Why are Government Members 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 Government are 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 such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand function effectively without the constraints of the convention, and it is naive to believe that the birthplace of parliamentary democracy cannot do the very same. I agree that our country has been built on legal immigration, but we must be crystal clear that 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 and living off taxpayer money. My constituency is a testament to that distinction. It is one of the most diverse constituencies in the country and one of the most entrepreneurial, with more than 20,000 small and medium-sized enterprises 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 and spend thousands of pounds on visa applications and 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 Members of this House to talk to women who now fear leaving their homes. They should listen to their fathers, brothers and husbands and hear how little hope they feel under this Government’s plans. They should go to Crowborough and see how the Home Office’s occupation of the training camp there is bringing hope to residents in Wealden. When we force more than 1,000—
Although the MOD Bicester site is outside my constituency, it is approximately 11 km from my nearest settlement. I wrote to the Home Secretary on 1 September on behalf of not only female constituents, but Piddington women, who I am so pleased to see in the Gallery today. They contacted me to express their concerns for their safety, and I reiterate that the guidance entitled “Understanding behaviour and expectations in the UK” reinforces their concerns. I have a migrant hotel in my constituency, and we know the issues that come from having migrants in the area. One big question is what they will do with their time. Rural crime is already an issue, and they could be exploited by existing criminal gangs. I ask the Minister: why have stab vests been issued to security staff working at the base in the last month, when they have never been needed before? The site was deemed unsuitable for an open accommodation centre by the Planning Inspectorate and the local authority more than 20 years ago, and little has changed since then. In the early 2000s, the High Court ruled that no more than 750 people could live there, but now the figure is 1,250. The Home Office argues that not using hotels is ensuring the “better use of public money”, but these large accommodation sites could cost £46 million more, according to the National Audit Office. All that could be avoided if only the Government would take a robust approach to our asylum system, which means reviewing our position on the ECHR. As Lord Wolfson’s excellent report highlights, the ECHR places significant legal constraints on the Government’s ability to address issues such as immigration. Other countries across Europe are reconsidering their relationship with the ECHR in the light of immigration issues—countries such as 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.
All those countries have looked at reforming the ECHR. The European Court of Human Rights has expanded the interpretation of human rights. For as long as the Court regards the ECHR as a living instrument such that its decisions—and, in consequence, the decisions of domestic courts—are not constrained by the actual wording of the ECHR, we will have problems.
9. What advice she has given the Government on the potential impact of removing jury trials in certain circumstances on the rule of law.
The Government have finally performed another U-turn, rightly retaining trial by jury following widespread concern in this House. However, the Government still intend to allow judge-only courts for complex cases, yet they have not defined what complex means. That risks mission creep and has attracted significant concern from organisations including the Criminal Bar Association. Why does the Attorney General believe that this lack of clarity is still acceptable?
I worry that this Labour Government are living in some sort of parallel universe. I met one of my manufacturing businesses in Keighley recently, which employs nearly 250 people. It has already worked out that its business property relief liability over and above the £2.5 million threshold is about £1 million. The advice it received is either to sell plant or machinery to mitigate that liability imposed on it by this Government, or to sell shares in its business. Either way, people are losing control of their business, or losing productivity from having to sell plant or machinery, and that is the result of a choice that has been made by this Labour Government. How can the Minister sit there and describe those as fair choices to the bosses of that business, when up to 250 people are now likely to be exposed to the risk of losing their jobs in my constituency?
Like all Members of the House, I am sure, I do an incredible amount of outreach with many of the family businesses that we are lucky to represent as constituency MPs, from our manufacturers and engineers, to those in our garden centres and breweries, and our hoteliers and farmers. They are telling me constantly that, from the last two Budgets alone, business and operating businesses in this country is difficult. We have seen an increase in employer national insurance, an increase in the minimum wage, and everyone over and above that minimum wage wanting the increased differential. Business rates now apply much more strongly than they ever did under the previous Conservative Government. The Employment Rights Act 2025 effectively now makes it much more challenging for an employer to take on an individual and offer that young person an opportunity. My inbox—like, I am sure, those of many hon. Friends and probably of Labour Members—has been filled with emails from people representing those with disabilities or special educational needs, who are now struggling to get a job because of the Employment Rights Act, which makes it much more difficult. It is challenging. Then, of course, we have the additional issue of the changes to inheritance tax, which impact all family businesses. A huge amount of pressure was rightly put on the Government, initially to increase the threshold, but ultimately in wanting 100% relief for agricultural and business properties. We saw movement from the threshold of £1 million to £2.5 million, and we now have the bizarre scenario that for someone who is married, the threshold will be £5 million—the first time we have ever seen a differential under IHT. The reality of that scenario is stifled investment, because many manufacturing and engineering businesses in my constituency are now saying, “Rather than investing in growth as we wanted to do and had programmed in over the next five or 10 years, we are stopping that. We now have to think about mitigating a tax liability at 20% over and above the £2.5 million, which we were not programming into place.” Ultimately, that is having an impact on growth in my Keighley constituency.
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, because that was exactly the narrative that his farmers put to me when I was lucky enough to visit them in Norfolk late last week. If someone is running a family business, the rate of return on their capital might be 1%, but they are lucky if they are getting that. Therefore, there is no return, yet when a valuation of that farm is made on death—not just of the farmland; there might be a farmhouse, a cottage or two, growing crops, stocks in store, machinery and livestock—they are well above that threshold of £2.5 million or £5 million if they are married, and the farming business is then subject to a liability. That is tough, which is why I was so shocked when not one Liberal Democrat MP voted against the implementation of the fertiliser tax, which has made it much more difficult for those family farming businesses. Then there was the cliff edge in April 2026, when no real warning was given to many of those family businesses. A cruel cliff edge existed, and as a matter of fact—it gives me no pleasure to say this—lives have been lost as a result of the decisions that this Labour Government have made. There has been suicide recorded in coroner’s reports as a result of this Labour Government’s choices through the implementation of inheritance tax changes.
That is absolutely right. It is good to see the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) in his place. I hope that he will intervene in the debate and make it clear that he is also advocating for this cruel tax to be scrapped, just as the Conservatives are doing. There is hope when at least one Labour Member is willing to be bold enough to stand up against this Labour Government.
I also regret the fact that I am talking about that issue. However, many farming representatives, including those from the National Farmers’ Union, the Country Land and Business Association and the Tenant Farmers Association, gave clear warnings to this Government that if the cliff edge associated with this tax became a reality in April 2026, there would be emotional consequences, such as anxiety. I regret that I have raised the matter, but unfortunately it is absolutely the case that suicide has taken place. There will be a moment of hope in two weeks’ time when the Budget comes before the House: the Government could bring in 100% relief of APR and business property relief again. I urge the Government to do so and to listen to those strong calls from the industry. The hon. Gentleman asks where I was during austerity. Well, I have been a Member of Parliament for only six and a bit years. Before that, I was not in this place making any of those decisions. There are also issues around the changes to the implementation of inheritance tax. The first payment of the tax will be due within six months of death, but the asset base will first have to be valued, so inevitably there will be challenges. The district valuers do not have the capacity to deal with the level of challenge that will come from those handling the probate valuations that will inevitably have to take place. It worries me that, as the IHT debate has taken place in the House over the past two years, hardly any Labour MPs have stood up and advocated for the manufacturing, engineering and hotelier businesses that, I suspect, employ many of their constituents, providing them with their salaries and with opportunities to continue in a working environment. That worries me because I feel that the narrative has been lost to Labour Members. We have got time before the Budget for that narrative to change, and I firmly stand with the Conservative position that 100% relief for APR and BPR must be put back in place, and I ask the Government to listen and do something about it.
Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister’s long-term mentor Lord Blunkett, who last month at the Countryside Alliance’s rural reset conference said that the Prime Minister should use his time in the premiership to change the inheritance tax on farms because that was a mistake that the Labour party had made?
I wonder whether the hon. Lady might like to comment on the fact that from next April pensions will be included in what is being described as “inherited wealth”. Does she agree that pensions are not inherited wealth, but money that has been earned and set aside by those doing the right thing? Now there will be a cost to ordinary families when they hand that money down.
I thank the hon. Member from my neighbouring county for giving way. I think his constituents would be quite shocked at him accusing the Conservatives of being ideological. Where is the aspiration for someone in Austell and this Cornwall constituency to grow those family businesses and to expand their family farms? Ultimately, his constituency is incredibly similar to mine, and I am in no doubt that some of the properties there are incredibly expensive but the salaries are not high. I challenge him; his constituents will have heard him say that they are fine with that, and that he is just tackling us from a point of ideology.
I will follow on from my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), who set out a huge amount of what I will talk about, not least about the constant referral to the wealthy that we have heard in this debate. Frankly, it is offensive to any person out there who is working and, in many cases, not earning very much money, but saving a lot of it and working tirelessly to be able to buy a property, to invest in a business and to do the right thing. Frankly, the one thing that I will take away from this debate is the massive generalisation that anyone we represent is somehow wealthy, and anyone Labour Members represent is somehow not. It is a complete fallacy, and it shows a complete disdain for working people. Indeed, we heard the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) imply that anyone who was not relying solely on the state pension was earning a lot, which is preposterous. Buying a home is the biggest financial commitment that many families will ever make. It involves decades of saving, mortgage repayments and sacrifices along the way. The Conservative pledge to abolish inheritance tax on the family home would ensure that families were not penalised for passing on the home that they had worked so hard to own, often at the expense of doing other things. We know full well that people on benefits are able to get all sorts of discounts. It is the hard-working families across the country who do not go to theme parks at discounted rates, because they are paying a mortgage or, indeed, saving for one in the first place. We will also raise the general inheritance tax allowance to £500,000 per person, or £1 million for a married couple. Crucially, this increased allowance will also benefit those who are unmarried or do not have children. Currently, a single person has an inheritance tax limit of only £325,000, which I think is completely wrong. There are many single people out there who work hard, and who sometimes have money that they have themselves inherited and on which they have also paid tax at multiple points. I hear from single constituents on my patch who are just so frustrated at being expected, time and again, to pay tax in order to pay for everyone else. Our proposal would give them greater freedom to leave more of what they have earned to the people who matter most to them, whether that person is a sibling, a niece or nephew, or another loved one. As I have said, this is not 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. Indeed, in my own Conservative constituency—the so-called wealthy area South West Devon—the Plymouth median salary is £36,500 pounds. Plymouth is generally seen as being quite poor, but in the West Devon and South Hams part of my constituency the median salary is between £26,500 and £30,000. These are hardly wealthy people. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) has rightly said, inheritance tax has “become a tax for normal people who live on new build estates, not fancy people who have estates.” Just 2.7% of homes were faced with an inheritance tax bill in 2009-10, but that could rise to 8.2% in 2029-30, according to research by Oxford Economics. This issue is particularly relevant in 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 more than £360,000 in the last year, rising to more than £520,000 for detached homes. In Ivybridge, a property was recently sold for almost £420,000. Many of these properties were bought decades ago for considerably less, yet the basic inheritance tax threshold has remained frozen. Others have already mentioned the pension increase whereby pension funds will be included in inheritance tax calculations. Scrapping inheritance tax on family homes is about strengthening the social contract, which is, in the great words of Edmund Burke, the indivisible bond between those who came before us, those who are here today, and those who will follow. Conservatives want to protect that partnership. We are backing parents who save responsibly and want their children and grandchildren to benefit from the sacrifices that they have made.
I think that is called general taxation, and these people have paid that throughout their working lives. Why are we now targeting them at the point at which they die, or indeed inherit money? I just do not think that is a workable opinion, and I deeply disagree. The Conservatives want to protect the social contract. We are backing parents who have saved responsibly, and who want their children and grandchildren to benefit from the sacrifices they have made. As we have heard, that stands in stark contrast to Labour, which is widening the inheritance tax net ever further by sucking in family farms, pensions and family businesses. As Conservatives, we believe that hard work should be rewarded. Families who have done the right thing should be able to pass something on to the next generation.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. The Conservatives opposed the Employment Rights Act at every stage of its legislative journey and remain steadfastly opposed to that Act, elements of which this code serves to implement. The Employment Rights Act 2025 burdens employers with 330 pages of red tape: the single largest increase in employment regulation in a generation. As a direct result, we have seen reduced hiring, job cuts and huge costs to businesses. Even the Government’s own assessment of the Act admits that it will cost business billions. We are not opposed to the Employment Rights Act because we want to see workers stripped of their rights. We are opposed because of the damage it will do to businesses up and down the country. The code of practice is one piece of a much larger picture but an important one. Before turning to that, I will touch on the consultation that the Minister mentioned. Over 920 responses were received to the Government’s consultation, with over 80% of those coming from employers and their representative organisations. On the proposals to increase the frequency of access meetings from once every 10 working days to once every five, 98% of the respondents disagreed. Some 97% of respondents disagreed with the proposal to increase the minimum meeting duration from 30 minutes to 45 minutes. When asked if the code adequately reflects digital communication in the workplace, 94% said no. On the question of whether the code adequately explains the role of the CAC, 96% said no. When asked if section D of the code provides sufficient guidance on access arrangements, 97% said no. Finally, some 96% said that the code’s unfair practices guidance was insufficient. The consultation on the code of practice is damning. On virtually every substantive question put to the consultation respondents, the overwhelming majority of them expressed concern or disagreement, or called for a significant revision. The Minister has said that the Government listened and made amendments. I will be fair and acknowledge that some clarifications have been made, particularly on digital access. That is welcome, but on the issues that matter most to small and medium-sized businesses, the Government have noted the near-unanimous concerns of the consultation responses and chosen to disregard those concerns and force the code through against that advice. On the duration and frequency of access meetings, I would appreciate if the Minister would outline why the overwhelming view of the consultation respondents has been ignored. Will the Minister also outline if any assessment has been made of the extra costs that employers will incur in facilitating the increased frequency of access meetings? The consultation response makes clear that the majority of respondents—57%—were from relatively small organisations of between 10 and 49 staff. Those are not large corporations with dedicated human resources and legal teams. For many businesses the code will put serious demands on time and limited resources. On unfair practice complaints, the code makes significant shifts. The CAC will now be able to uphold unfair practice complaints without the need to show that the practice actually affected the outcome of the ballot. We recognise that the old test may have been difficult to satisfy in the time allowed, and that did lead to some genuine complaints falling, but does the Minister not think that removing the need to prove an impact on the result of the ballot risks opening the door to vexatious claims to disrupt the process? Will the Minister outline if any safeguards are in place to prevent that? Another significant issue is that it is still unclear to many employers what constitutes unfair practice. In the consultation, employers consistently raised their concerns about the lack of clear examples and case studies of what constitutes an unfair practice and about the uncertainty that lack creates. The Government’s response stated that it was not appropriate to include examples in the code because it is the CAC’s role to make judgments on a case-by-case basis. Surely some basic examples could be provided to employers. Will the Minister outline now what an unfair practice is? The Conservative party will continue to make the case for balanced employment rights that protect workers without unduly punishing the businesses that employ them. The code of practice fails to do that. It creates even more uncertainty for businesses and makes employing people even harder than the Employment Rights Act already made it. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s responses to my questions, but I am afraid that we cannot support this code of practice.
It has been 43 days since the Prime Minister received a letter signed by all Opposition parties expressing support for the Lobular Moon Shot 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 the Mayor of Greater Manchester, he committed to supporting the Lobular Moon Shot Project. Will he reaffirm that commitment from the Dispatch Box?
You cannot tax your way to prosperity—that is something that I, as a Conservative, believe. Not only do I believe it, but it has been demonstrated time and again in countries across the globe. When this Government first entered office, under the previous Prime Minister, we were told that one of their central focuses would be to go for growth. We all know that Governments cannot conjure growth out of thin air. It is the Government’s job to create the right environment for businesses big and small to drive growth, but this Government spent their first period in office piling cost after cost on to British businesses, including through the national insurance increase and the Employment Rights Act 2025, delivering a regulatory burden that keeps growing. Take pubs, for example, which have been some of the businesses hardest hit by this Government. Since 2023, we have seen nearly 700 pubs close. In my own constituency of Bromley and Biggin Hill, we have been lucky to retain the number of pubs that we have—that is through no inconsiderable effort by myself.
Labour Members are proving once again that they are desperate to talk about the past because they have no plan for the future. Talking about the pubs in my constituency, we have seen a significant decrease in the number of people employed by them. The British Beer & Pub Association estimates that in Bromley and Biggin Hill, we have gone from around 1,150 people employed in pubs in 2023 to around 800 now. That reduction seems to have hit young people the hardest, with the number of 16 to 24-year-olds employed in the industry down by 200—half the figure in 2023. Nationally, we have seen total gross value added from pubs and breweries fall from £47 billion in 2023 to £30.8 billion, and the Government’s tax take fall from £17 billion to £3.2 billion. Higher taxation and regulation are strangling an industry and leaving the Government with less money in the end.