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
My husband is a farmer and runs businesses. He feels a huge responsibility not just in building his business, but to the people he employs. Those people will be affected if the business does not grow or does not invest because he is worried about this tax.
Does the hon. Gentleman understand that the bank of mum and dad comes from the hard work of mum and dad so that they can pass things on to their children?
This is, without doubt, one of the most important debates we can have, because it goes to the heart of a simple question: when someone works hard, saves diligently, builds a business, a family farm or buys a family home and wants to plan for their children’s future, why are they penalised by this Government? Why is their success targeted? And when will fairness be restored, so that those who work hard to achieve success are rewarded, not attacked and subject to the politics of envy? The answer, I hope, will be after the next election. Labour’s answer is always the same. Its instinct is to ask, “Who can we tax?” That is not me saying that, but the Work and Pensions Secretary, who admitted that every conversation he had had with Labour Back-Bench MPs was them asking who they can tax to pay for increased welfare spending. It is constituencies like Runnymede and Weybridge that are firmly in their sights. I can picture them now, sitting high in their Whitehall ivory tower, looking for new ways to tax and spend. Surrey and the south-west comes into their sights: the successful businesses, the skilled workforce and the resulting high house prices. Rather than looking to replicate that growth and success, they simply look at their spreadsheet. They see a house price. They see something they think they can tax. But people’s assets are not lottery winnings. They are the product of decades of hard work, discipline and sacrifice. To tax wealth and savings in this way is not fairness; it is a penalty on individual responsibility. It sends a damaging message that those who work hard, build a business, and save for their and their family’s future will be punished for doing so. I believe in fairness, not redistribution. At the next election, the country will be offered a clear choice: a Labour Government whose priorities put welfare spending above our country’s defence and whose commitment to raising taxation will bankrupt our children’s future; or a Conservative party that believes aspiration should be rewarded, not targeted, that savings belong to the individual not the state, and that planning for the future should be encouraged, not penalised. Whether it is an increase in taxation on savings and investments, increased taxation on businesses, the mansion tax or the family farm tax, Labour’s approach is to tax success. Labour is asset-stripping our country, and targeting the very people and businesses that create growth, prosperity and opportunity. At the next general election, the choice could not be clearer: a Labour party, facilitated by the Liberal Democrats, that sees taxpayers as targets; or a Conservative party that backs enterprise and rewards hard work, and stands up for those who want to build a better future for their children. People’s money is their own. It is not the Government’s money that Labour has not taxed yet.
Is it not the case that those on the Labour Benches have entirely missed the point? Dealing with the problem once it has arrived in our communities will not do. We need something fundamental that deals with the problem, which, admittedly, did not arrive in 2024—it is of relatively long standing. We need a solution, just like the Rwanda solution, which was on the cusp of being implemented at the general election. The first thing that the Labour party did on coming into office was to can that.
Lord Wolfson has put that beyond fear of peradventure in his report—we have to leave the ECHR—but does my hon. Friend agree with me that that is not enough? Some of the countries to which we want to send people back will not take them, particularly Pakistan. Do we not need to get real with the Government of Pakistan and say, “If you refuse to co-operate with this, you can forget about visas and foreign aid”?
The Minister is talking about Rwanda, but she did not give the scheme a chance to generate results. On day one, the previous Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, canned it, without any prospect of it showing demonstrable results. Looking back, does she think that was wise?
Would the Minister like to look at the way the previous Government dealt with illegal Albanian migrants? It was hugely successful, yet this Government do not appear to have learnt any lessons from that. They are persisting with allowing illegal migrants to remain here indefinitely without any realistic prospect of being returned, and there is no meaningful pressure on Governments, particularly Pakistan, to take people back.
I am grateful to the Minister; he is being very generous. If he was a farmer with a relatively small farm—probably pretty marginal at, say, 300 acres and worth about £3 million—would he consider improving his farm and investing in capital to upgrade it, with the expensive kit now necessary to produce any sort of return on the land these days, or would he think, particularly if he was getting on in years, that that money would simply be top-sliced by the Treasury?
What would the hon. Lady say to her constituents about this subject? I have been looking on Rightmove at houses prices in St Albans, where a very nice but semi-detached house in Carlisle Avenue is on the market for £1.4 million. She has just dissed those people by saying they will not be a priority for tax cuts at the next general election. Can she advise how they should vote?
The hon. Lady made the point that the Scottish Parliament should decide. Does she not agree that it should be the local planning authorities that decide? They should be given proper devolution, which would allow the local communities to decide whether they want nuclear or not.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart, and I welcome the Minister to her place. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for bringing forward this debate. I also welcome the Scottish Liberal Democrats getting off the fence and finally backing new nuclear.
The Prime Minister mentioned déjà vu at Prime Minister’s questions, and I must say I am suffering from a bit of the same. I fondly remember many debates in the Scottish Parliament in which I made the case for new nuclear in Scotland, but it was always blocked by the SNP. I have always maintained that we should have an energy mix, and nuclear is vital for our baseload when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow. Without nuclear, it will be a real struggle for the Scottish Government to get to net zero. I will refer to some of the contributions today. The hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire was right to point out skills and opportunities. This could be a real path for oil and gas workers to make that transition. Another key thing mentioned was grid stability, which I had not thought of. The inertia from the large power stations that we have just now is vital to keeping the grid stable. It would be good to hear from the Minister what plans there are to replace that once Torness closes. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) described the renaissance of nuclear and all the benefits, but Scotland is being left behind just now in relation to jobs, skills and local economies. Instead, the SNP wants to carpet-bomb our countryside with monster pylons and battery storage.
That is a brilliant point, because we would probably be building new nuclear power stations where the grid already is. We already have the grid connection at Hunterston and at Torness. It is exactly why we should be backing new nuclear. It is clear that the SNP’s effective ban on new nuclear power is holding Scotland back, in terms of both our energy transition and our economy. Right now, Scotland has the most expensive and vulnerable grid in the UK, and much of that is down to the fact that the SNP has turned its back on nuclear. When I was an MSP, I was fortunate enough to visit Hunterston B. What a wasted opportunity that is. It has the grid connection and the space—it is all there; it just needs the political will to make it happen so that we can have Hunterston C. As we progress to sourcing more and more of our energy from renewables such as wind, the problem of intermittency will only get worse. The irony is that the SNP’s irrational opposition to new nuclear means that a future Scotland would be completely reliant on English nuclear power when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. Luckily, we have a UK grid, so we share the power with our neighbours, and Scotland will not face blackouts because of SNP failures. But while our shared grid means that Scotland will not miss out on imported nuclear energy, thanks to the SNP’s blind opposition we are missing out on thousands of jobs and billions of pounds of investment. During my visit to Hunterston, I met the young graduates and apprentices there. It was heartbreaking to hear that, to have a future in nuclear, they were going to have to move away from Scotland—talented young people in highly paid jobs moving away because of the SNP’s dogma. It is interesting to hear that one in 10 people at Hinkley Point C are Scots. What makes the SNP’s luddite approach totally senseless is that people in Scotland want new nuclear. We have heard it again this afternoon. Sixty per cent of the Scottish public are in favour of building new nuclear power stations to replace those being decommissioned. East Lothian, Dumfries and Galloway and Highland councils have all called for new nuclear development. Many of the jobs and much of the investment that could be generated by new nuclear would go to some of Scotland’s most deprived communities. We are in desperate need of thriving local industries, yet the SNP, which loves to talk about devolution, has overruled those local wishes. For far too long, the SNP has weaponised devolved powers over planning to block new nuclear, which of course is a reserved issue. The SNP’s bizarre opposition to this clean and consistent energy goes against science, against all common sense and against the wishes of the Scottish public. The clear cross-party consensus from the Scottish MPs in the Chamber—apart from the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) and the SNP, of course—shows just how backward John Swinney’s position really is. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to this important debate. I very much hope that nuclear energy will have a bright future in Scotland. If we are to transition beyond fossil fuels in the long term, nuclear will be a vital part of our energy mix. Scotland must not miss out as a result of the SNP luddites.
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I sought to intervene on the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) because I agree with his point about the unfairness of asylum dispersal. For my constituents, two thirds of whom are in Hillingdon, which, because of Heathrow airport, has the highest number of asylum seekers per capita of any local authority in the country and has borne for decades the consequences of the asylum dispersal policies, the issue is of huge importance. I invite the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich and the Minister to call to mind the name of the Member of this House who created the asylum dispersal system, which placed asylum seekers in accommodation in the cheapest parts of the country to make taxpayers’ money go further. I worked with that Member of Parliament when I was involved in local government. When he introduced it, he was the hon. Member for Leigh. Now he is the right hon. Member for Makerfield. Members who criticise that system might like to reflect that their party, like ours, has been hearing for many years that the British people expect us to do better on this issue. Nobody has a monopoly on virtue when it comes to dealing with the asylum system, particularly the right hon. Member for Makerfield, who I hope will reflect, now that he is Prime Minister, on the importance of rebuilding the system that had so many flaws when he first put it into effect many years ago. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that this issue is hugely important to you. The relentless campaigning you have done on behalf of your constituents around Crowborough reflects the campaigning that many of us have needed to do. In my case, lessons have been learned by my constituents about the consequences of the huge numbers arriving at Heathrow. In more recent years, the asylum system has become even more overloaded with new applications, as people are driven on coaches from Dover and Kent to Home Office asylum accommodation in close proximity to Heathrow airport, placed there by the then Minister, now Prime Minister. More recently, that pressure has been added to by the significant number of Chagossians in Mauritius fleeing the consequences of the Government’s deal and needing to be supported by the local authority. This really matters to constituents. Following the murder of Wayne Broadhurst, killed while walking his dog in nearby Hillingdon about a year ago by Afghan refugee Dawood Safi, the community has done marvels to come together and show its hospitality and welcome for people who are genuinely vulnerable. But there is exasperation, and we need to see serious progress. In the spirit of holding the Government to account, I have some questions for the Minister. It is clear from a number of Members’ points that this is about not just the ECHR but the refugee convention and, in particular, the Human Rights Act 1998. Having visited the court in Strasbourg, I know that in the last 16 years only one case there involving immigration matters has gone against the British Government, but we have cases day after day within our own courts. The ECHR has no jurisdiction over borders; it covers immigration, but not borders. Every day at Heathrow, people arrive as undocumented migrants—without a visa or whatever is required—and are turned away, unable to access the process, which causes such frustration and leaves them stranded in our system for many years. That sovereignty of decision making at the border is an asset that we have not used sufficiently. The Opposition’s borders plan has set out the much broader range of initiatives that we need to take, but will the Minister, given the pressure on my constituents, consider a different approach to sovereignty? It would be a case of simply saying to those who arrive on small boats, “We will not let you cross our border. You have no documentation. You will not be allowed to access that system at all, and we will not accept that continued pressure on our courts, local authorities, health services and the other parts of the system.” At the same time, the Government should consider, as I have advocated previously, introducing an asylum visa and simply saying, “If you arrive to work, get married or for family reunion, you have to have a visa to cross our border,” with asylum as the sole exception. We are an island. People who come to our country know in advance that they are going to make that journey. There is ample opportunity for them to seek permission. I have total sympathy, having been on the French beaches and seen the footage that the French police have. We need to ensure we deal with this robustly. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that this issue is something that you and I share. Given the way the system operates, we need to ensure full consultation and planning. Some communities are playing host to thousands of people who may be stuck in some sort of limbo for a long time and who will acquire through that process rights to housing locally, so we need a more effective system in place for planning, and it needs to be addressed by this Government. We need a much more robust approach to borders, but there are things this Government could do today that would make the situation for my constituents and yours, Madam Deputy Speaker, so much better.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) on securing this important and timely debate. The devastating floods that struck Nepal on 26 August have brought unimaginable suffering to communities across the country. More than 1,400 people lost their lives, thousands remain missing and entire communities have been swept away. Homes, roads, bridges and vital infrastructure have been destroyed, leaving families displaced and livelihoods devastated. On behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, I extend my deepest condolences to the people of Nepal, to those who have lost loved ones and to everyone still waiting for news of missing family members. I also extend our condolences to the people impacted by the further flash floods in the past few days. Our thoughts are particularly with the families of the British nationals who remain unaccounted for after the August floods. I visited Nepal last year on a development visit, and I saw just how deep and enduring the ties between Britain and Nepal are. I visited communities that had been devastated by horrible events in years gone by, and seeing their fear really brought home the effect that such events have. As British nationals who do not see such events, trying to get our minds around that is difficult, but we must try. Our relationship with Nepal has been forged through generations of friendship, about which a number of Members have talked powerfully, and through shared service and the extraordinary contributions of the Gurkhas. I served in the military with a number of Gurkhas, and I saw how kind, honest and hardy they are. We have heard a number of brilliant and very pressing contributions. The hon. Member for Reading Central really brought the issue home. It is difficult to comprehend the numbers, but 84,000 people have been affected, 32,000 of whom are children. He spoke powerfully about our deep friendship with Nepal. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said that in periods of devastation, we often see humanity at its best. He talked about his community and the various faith groups that are raising money to address the tragedy. I commend his constituents. The right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) and the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), who, as former International Development Ministers, both have deep expertise in this field, brought home the point about the effects of anthropogenic climate change. We are seeing those effects; although they might not be globally equitable at the moment, countries like Nepal are experiencing them. We have to work here in the UK to ensure that, on the international stage, we push big emitters to bring down global carbon emissions and reduce the effects in places such as Nepal. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) talked about acts of heroism, large and small, both in Nepal and back here at home. The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) raised an interesting point, which is something I saw on my trip to Nepal last year. With Nepal being wedged between India and China, which both have significant development output into Nepal, it is important that we work with those two countries to ensure that we are not duplicating efforts or working towards different goals. At these moments, our bonds of friendship matter enormously. I acknowledge the work undertaken by the British embassy in Kathmandu. Our consular teams, humanitarian organisations and emergency responders have worked tirelessly in exceptionally difficult circumstances. The Government were right to provide every possible support to British nationals and their families while working closely with the Nepalese authorities and search and rescue teams. We welcome the deployment of the UK’s rapid deployment team and the announcement of £5 million in emergency humanitarian assistance. However, the situation has now entered a particularly difficult and distressing new phase. Following the Nepalese Government’s decision to end formal search and rescue operations, thousands of families have been left without answers about the fate of their loved ones. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister would address several questions. First, reports indicate that 33 British citizens still remain missing. Will the Minister confirm the latest verified figure, and explain what further consular and diplomatic steps are being taken to establish their whereabouts? What representations have been made to the Nepalese authorities following the decision to end formal search operations? What arrangements are in place to ensure that any human remains discovered during reconstruction are properly identified and families informed? Secondly, many face the painful uncertainty of not knowing what happened to their loved ones, which is compounded by the complex legal and administrative processes surrounding missing persons and death certificates. What practical assistance is the FCDO providing to help British families navigate those processes? Will dedicated consular support and family liaison arrangements remain in place for as long as they are needed? Thirdly, will the Minister update the House on the delivery of the £5 million emergency assistance package? How much has been disbursed, and what assessment has been made of its effectiveness? How are the Government ensuring that assistance reaches isolated communities, particularly those in the affected valleys, where damaged infrastructure continues to hinder access? When we were in Nepal, we met the Gurkha Welfare Trust and saw the work that it does, going out into remote areas and ensuring that Gurkhas who have served the UK military receive their pensions. That is paramount, and the FCDO and the MOD must ensure that that work is still happening. We would also welcome clarification on whether British humanitarian specialists remain deployed, and what further assistance is being provided to Nepal as it moves towards recovery and reconstruction. As ever, it is right that Britain responds to such devastating and exceptional circumstances, the scale of which is almost unimaginable to us here in the UK. Our country has a proud tradition of standing alongside international and close friends, and we have made the case for that repeatedly today. In a time of crisis, we should continue to take that responsibility very seriously. Equally, it is right that His Majesty’s official Opposition ask these questions of the Government—not to diminish the importance of the support being provided, but to ensure that there is clarity about the Government’s priorities, transparency about how British assistance is being delivered and accountability for the outcomes it achieves. In a crisis of this magnitude, it is essential that assistance is properly targeted, that it reaches those in greatest need and that there is a clear understanding of how requirements are changing as the immediate emergency gives way to recovery. Can the Minister therefore set out how the FCDO is assessing the effectiveness of the UK’s response and what criteria will inform decisions about any further assistance, particularly in the light of the renewed flooding? Ultimately, our response must be judged not simply by the money committed but by the difference it makes to those affected. I will conclude by reaffirming the Opposition’s solidarity with the people of Nepal. Britain has a proud and long-standing close friendship with Nepal. We must continue to stand alongside its people through this tragedy and the aftermath. I hope the Minister can provide the reassurance that British families and the wider Nepalese community so desperately need.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I commend the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for securing this debate, and I very much welcome the Minister to her place. The Magnox reactor at Chapelcross, near Annan, provided highly skilled employment for five decades, supported families, sustained communities and helped to power the country. Like many people living locally, I am deeply frustrated that the possibility of a new nuclear plant on that site has been all but ruled out by dogmatic SNP policy—dogma that runs counter to the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the International Energy Agency, the EU’s Joint Research Centre and the OECD, among others. Mr Stuart, you will recall that when we first entered Parliament in 2005, nuclear was perceived as a declining industry, but as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on nuclear energy, I have seen at first hand the renaissance that the industry is going through. Sadly, that is happening only in England and Wales, where billions of pounds are being invested, new technologies are being developed, supply chains are growing and thousands of skilled jobs are being created. Scotland, once at the forefront of nuclear generation, is being left behind. That is the only conclusion that any reasonable person can reach when they look at the facts. The hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire set out the numbers, but I think they are worth repeating. Since 2014, England has added more than 47,000 civil nuclear jobs; Scotland has added just 661. Scotland has missed out on almost 5,000 jobs, while many highly skilled Scots have little choice but to travel south to work on projects that could just as easily be taking place at home. Many people from the Annan area, for example, travel daily to west Cumbria when they would much rather be working closer to home. While Scotland misses out on jobs, investment and opportunities, what do communities such as mine hear from the Scottish Government? The answer always seems to be more of the same: more pylons, more wind turbines, more solar panels, more substations, more battery storage and more expensive energy, none of which brings substantive employment to the communities actually impacted. When it comes to the skilled jobs, apprenticeships and long-term investment that nuclear can bring, though, the answer from the SNP is an unequivocal no. Dumfries and Galloway council, like East Lothian council and others, has called on the Scottish Government to take a fresh look at nuclear, because they recognise the opportunities that nuclear could bring to their communities. The irony is that Scotland has some of the best potential nuclear sites anywhere in the United Kingdom. A recent technical assessment by Great British Energy—Nuclear concluded that sites including Torness, Hunterston and Dounreay all have high potential for future nuclear development, if the Scottish Government were willing to reconsider their position. Chapelcross would be ideal for a small modular reactor, and I very much continue to campaign for that to happen in my constituency. What is the alternative? A grid that is becoming increasingly expensive and volatile—Scotland now spends £1.5 billion a year balancing the electricity system, five times what it spent before Hunterston B was retired. The communities I represent know that the country needs reliable power. They also want good, stable jobs. They understand and have seen for more than five decades that that all comes with a nuclear power station.
How will the Minister persuade the SNP to change its position? If it does not do so, there will not be any nuclear in Scotland, because there will be no investment. Even if there were a Labour Administration in Scotland, people would know that it could change, and we only got nuclear investment in the UK when people understood that both Labour and the Conservatives backed it.
Q8. The Leader of the Opposition has made her position on doing deals with other parties crystal-clear. Will the Prime Minister make it equally clear, following the Green party’s descent into the most abhorrent antisemitism, that he will rule out co-operating with it?
No case more powerfully illustrates the gravity of this matter than that of Rhiannon Whyte. I met Rhiannon’s mum Siobhan a few weeks ago and heard her story. Rhiannon was 27 years old. She worked in an asylum hotel, and one night after leaving work, she was followed by a Sudanese illegal immigrant who entered the country by small boat in late July 2024. This man murdered Rhiannon by stabbing her 23 times. He left her for dead on a station platform, and was later filmed laughing about it. This terrible crime is by no means isolated. Many other illegal small boat migrants living in asylum accommodation have committed terrible offences against women and girls. A 31-year-old woman on a Brighton beach was gang-raped by two Iranians and an Egyptian who entered the country by small boat. A 12-year-old girl was abducted and raped by an Afghan illegal immigrant. A woman was abducted and raped by an Egyptian asylum seeker—again, an illegal immigrant—in Hyde Park, barely a mile from where we now stand. It turns out that that man also had criminal convictions for Islamist terrorism in Egypt. An Ethiopian illegal immigrant sexually assaulted a young teenage girl in Epping. Two Iranian nationals—again, illegal immigrants who entered the country by small boat—have now been charged with preparing terror attacks against Manchester’s Jewish community.
Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. The fact that they have been charged is a matter of public record; I will not say anything beyond that. In another case, an illegal small boat migrant who entered the country is fighting extradition back to Germany, where he is wanted for rape. He is also linked to ISIS. In case after case—
I am repeating what has been publicly reported today, but I will of course take account of your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. In case after case, we have seen women and girls attacked by illegal small boat migrants. The data, I am afraid, is very clear: two of the three most predominant nationalities are Afghan and Eritrean. The data that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) referred to—data produced using freedom of information requests to the Ministry of Justice—shows that Afghan males are 22 times more likely than average to commit sex assaults, and for Eritrean men, the number is similar. That, of course, is why just a few weeks ago, the Government felt it necessary to produce a leaflet asking these illegal migrants to kindly not rape women and girls. The Government themselves know it is a problem, which is why they produced those leaflets. It is why mothers and grandmothers in Piddington are so concerned about the safety of their daughters and granddaughters. It is why parents in Crowborough are so concerned as well, because these threats are real, these crimes have happened, and these convictions have taken place. The data is clear. What my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings says is true: these men come from cultures that are alien to ours, where women are not respected. This is an immigration crisis, a border security crisis, a public safety crisis, and a crisis for women and girls. The Government are allowing 92% of small boat migrants to stay; only 8% have been deported. Yes, there are slightly fewer asylum hotels, but only because the Government are moving the illegal immigrants into flats instead—they are up by 12% since the election. To save places such as Piddington, Crowborough, Linton-on-Ouse and Wethersfield and towns and villages up and down the country, the solution is not, as the Prime Minister said, to distribute illegal immigrants equitably across the country. It is instead to deport people who enter our country illegally, and to do so within a week of their arrival. If we did so, we would need no accommodation anywhere, whether in flats, hotels or military sites, because we would not be accommodating illegal immigrants at all. It would also deter the crossings. If the people who are leaving France—which, by the way, is a safe country; nobody needs to flee war in France—knew that they would be rapidly deported, either to their country of origin or to a safe third country such as Rwanda, the crossings would soon stop. When Australia did something similar in September 2013, its illegal maritime crossings, which had been running at levels similar to ours, stopped within about three months. It is a solution, if only the Government would grasp it. To do that, though, it is necessary to leave the ECHR. What started in 1950 as a very well-intentioned piece of human rights legislation has subsequently been stretched and distorted beyond all recognition. Clauses that were originally intended to prevent the horrors of the second world war are now expansively interpreted to mean that rapists cannot be sent back to their country of origin because of their supposed family rights. Under article 3, which is unqualified and cannot be amended in domestic legislation, a Zimbabwean rapist was not sent back to Zimbabwe because he might face hostility there. An Iraqi drug dealer was not sent back to Iraq because he had apparently become too westernised. What started off as a sensible set of protections has been stretched beyond recognition—beyond anything common sense would recognise—and it is preventing successive Governments, the last Government as much as this one, from deporting people who cannot be here. That is why there are 21,000 serious foreign criminals still in this country. It is why the Home Office knows of 412,000 people with no right to be here who cannot be deported. Leaving the ECHR is a necessary, but not sufficient, step. We need to do it in order to control our borders, but on its own, it is not enough. We would also have to amend domestic legislation—for example, to ban asylum claims by illegal immigrants, abolish the immigration tribunal and immigration legal aid, restrict judicial review of immigration matters to all but the narrowest grounds, and end modern slavery claims being used as a basis to oppose deportation. All of these measures would need to be taken as well as leaving the ECHR, but without leaving the ECHR none of those measures is possible.
I am just going to just finish. I know that Ministers are trying hard with their Bill, but they are essentially tinkering at the edges. That was tried by the last Government and to be honest it did not work, because these legal structures prevent robust action to defend our borders. Before concluding, I will just say that were we to leave the ECHR, which I fervently believe we must do to save places like Piddington, to protect our women and girls and to protect our borders, we would not be returning to the dark ages. Rights existed in this country long before the 1998 Human Rights Act and long before the 1950 convention was entered into. Common-law jurisdictions such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada have perfectly respectable human rights records without needing to rely on the ECHR. Indeed, this Parliament can legislate to protect human rights in whatever manner it sees fit. What is true is that we cannot protect our borders and we cannot deport illegal immigrants and foreign criminals while we are inside the ECHR. If we are serious about border protection and protecting Piddington, Crowborough and other similar places up and down this country, we need to take that necessary step. We must leave the ECHR, reform our domestic laws and restore border control to this country.
I will now announce the results of today’s deferred Divisions. On the draft ACAS Code of Practice on Time Off for Trade Union Duties and Activities, the Ayes were 328, the Noes were 114, so the Ayes have it. On the draft Code of Practice on the Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces, the Ayes were 326, the Noes were 115, so the Ayes have it. On the draft Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) Regulations 2026, the Ayes were 326, the Noes were 115, so the Ayes have it. On the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (Calculation of CBAM Rate and Determination of Carbon Price Relief) Regulations 2026, the Ayes were 319, the Noes were 115, so the Ayes have it. [The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]
I remind all Members planning to speak in this debate that it is a courtesy of the House that they return for the wind-ups. I inform the House that the Speaker has not selected the amendment.
Can I—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member is going to make a point of order, he might at least listen to the response. As he ought to know, as an experienced parliamentarian, that is not a matter for the Chair. He has, however, made his point.
As the right hon. Member will know, that is not a matter for the Chair, but I thank him for putting it on the record.
Far too often, whistleblowers are protected when they initially blow the whistle on fraud, economic crime and the like, but are eased out of organisations unfairly later. What further protection can the Solicitor General offer people who do the right thing and blow the whistle on crime?
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you will agree with me that there are few instincts more human than wanting to leave something behind for your children: a home you have paid for, for over 30 years, perhaps; a farm your grandfather worked before you; or maybe a business you built from nothing. I know that Members on the Conservative Benches know all about all three. On this side of the House, we believe that hard work should be rewarded. On the Labour side of the House, as we have heard over the past few years and today, they simply cannot resist their natural instincts to penalise aspirational homeowners, farmers and business owners. Let us remember that inheritance tax was once something that only the very wealthiest had to think about. But not anymore. The nil-rate band has been £325,000 since 2009, and this Government have frozen it all the way up to 2031. Over the same period, we know that house prices have soared right across the country. The result is that receipts have hit a record £8.2 billion and the Office for Budget Responsibility expects them to reach almost £14 billion by the end of the decade. Analysis by Tax Policy Associates suggests that by next year around one in five pensioner households will face a bill if they die. That was not in contemplation when inheritance tax was first envisaged. From April next year, because the party opposite cannot get enough of hoovering up people’s wealth, unspent pensions will also be dragged into the liability. That is not a tax on the super-rich; it is a tax on hard-working constituents right across the country, including those in three-bedroom semi-detached houses where they have raised their children and, as we have heard today, including families in Carlisle Avenue in St Albans, no less.
I am impressed by the hon. Lady’s research between the intervention earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) and her making that point now. I might add that constituents on that street may have been duped by some Lib Dem bar graphs. Mid Bedfordshire is a rural constituency with many farming families, as is the case right across the country. They were told in October 2024 that the Government were coming for the land that they have worked for generations. Thanks to their hard work, campaigning and pressure from the Opposition, the Government retreated last December and raised the threshold to £2.5 million. Those farming families are grateful for that, but it does not go far enough. Despite debate after debate in this House, the Government still do not seem to understand that a farmer earning a small yield from land worth millions on paper only, cannot cover the inheritance tax liability unless they sell the land. If the Government would prefer farmers to sell their land rather than farming it, they should just say so. If not, they should acknowledge that the incentives their family farm tax creates are simply wrong. Under their plans, a 20% charge still applies on land that often yields only 1% or 2% a year, but that is vital for them to help feed the nation. The rules have changed twice in 14 months. A farm or business succession cannot be planned over a generation when the tax rules change every Budget. The same is true of a family business. The engineering firm, the builder’s merchant, the garden centre—up and down the country, great family businesses cannot plan their succession when they do not have certainty in the rules.
My hon. Friend makes a superb point. The Conservative Benches find it beyond all comprehension as to why the Government would target small family businesses and farms in the way that they have. I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. When an owner of a small business or a farm dies unexpectedly, the family should be focused on keeping the business going and the staff in work, not on raising a tax bill by selling off pieces of the business until there is nothing left. The Government cannot talk about growth and then take apart small businesses because an owner has died. That is completely the wrong approach. What will we do in Government? A Conservative Government will abolish inheritance tax on the family home; that is the right thing to do. We will replace today’s complicated allowances with a single £500,000 allowance per person—£1 million per couple. We will restore agricultural and business property relief in full, so that no family farm or firm is broken up to fund Labour’s welfare spending. The Prime Minister says we cannot have national security without social security—an absolutely shocking statement. But we cannot have either without economic security; without an economy where people create jobs, expand businesses, buy homes and feel the benefits of doing so. Our reforms would ensure that welfare works for British citizens, that people with lower-level mental health conditions get treatment rather than being written off with a cheque, that more assessments are done face to face, and that the obligation to look for work means something. Getting people into work is good for them, good for their families and good for the taxpayer. In two weeks’ time the Chancellor will deliver his first Budget. I know that Conservative Members are really looking forward to that day. The Chancellor has a choice: he can keep taxing work, savings and inheritance—taxing everything people own that is not nailed down and more besides, perhaps; let us see—to pay for a welfare bill that is truly out of control, or he can change course, get a grip on spending and help to power the engines of growth that will make us all richer. I know which choice families in Mid Bedfordshire would make.
I thank the Minister for giving way and for setting out her arguments. I am just wondering whether she will actually come on to Piddington and the impact on the residents there—we have people in the Gallery today. This issue is about the impact on women and girls there. I would be interested to know how many Ministers have actually been to Piddington and spoken to the residents themselves directly.
The first duty of any Government is to keep their citizens safe, and nowhere is that duty more important than across our communities and in the protection of women and girls, who have a right to feel safe, and a right to expect the Government to do everything in their power to protect them. Today’s debate is an opportunity to send a clear message that we will not accept policies that put our communities at risk, and that we are prepared to take the difficult decisions necessary to restore control of our borders. The grooming gang scandal is a national disgrace. Girls, some as young as 11, were raped, abused and trafficked by organised gangs, and when they cried out for help, too often they were ignored, disbelieved or dismissed. Those in positions of authority, whose first responsibility was to protect them, failed them appallingly. We must never allow that to happen again. That means putting victims first, listening to their experiences, and having the courage to confront uncomfortable truths, however difficult they may be. In July, I raised the case of Shabir Ahmed, the Rochdale grooming gang ringleader, directly with the then Foreign Secretary. She agreed that every possible lever should be explored to secure his deportation, yet three months later, he remains in the UK. When the law protects the man who raped a child rather than the child he raped, something is profoundly wrong, and this House must have the power, and the determination, to put that right. Our rights in this country long predate the ECHR. Under our Conservative borders plan, we will leave it, with illegal arrivals removed within a week, every foreign criminal deported, and an end to the cycle of last-minute claims that let dangerous men run down the clock. What is this Government’s answer? It is to house over 1,200 single men at MOD Bicester, next to Piddington, which is a village of just 350 people, with limited local infrastructure and services. The way these plans have been imposed on a small rural community has left many others fearing that they could be next. In villages such as Audlem in my constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury, residents have raised serious concerns about the future of the old grammar school site. When I asked Ministers whether any site in Audlem had been approved for asylum accommodation, the Government failed to give me a straight answer, and when I asked about the suitability of rural locations, I was told that the Home Office does not even record asylum accommodation according to whether it is in a rural area. Many of the concerns raised in Piddington are equally relevant to Audlem. Small rural villages simply do not have the infrastructure to accommodate what would realistically be an influx of young men. My constituents deserve clarity. They deserve straight answers about the future of that site, and above all they deserve an immigration system that tackles illegal arrivals in the first place. That means a credible deterrent, and that is delivered by leaving the ECHR. That is why I wholeheartedly support the motion, because whether it is Piddington, Audlem, or communities across the country, people deserve to feel safe in their homes and communities. Above all, we owe it to every woman and girl in this country to do everything in our power to protect them.
I beg to move, That this House calls on the Government to cut public spending in order to abolish Inheritance Tax on family homes, farms and businesses. There is a divide the size of Manchester’s Etihad arena in British politics today: between those who want to tax family farms, and those who do not; between those who want to tax family businesses, and those who do not; and now, between those who want to tax family homes, and those who do not. Not content with the highest tax burden in peacetime history, in their first Budget the Government chose to impose inheritance tax on farmers and family businesses. The Conservatives would scrap the family farm tax and the family business tax, and we would abolish inheritance tax on the family home. That is because we believe that people who work hard and save hard should keep the rewards, rather than seeing them sold and snaffled up to pay a taxman who refuses to make hard choices and to cut welfare. We will hear later from the shadow Secretary of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins); she has been a stalwart defender of Britain’s farmers, who this Government have attacked. I will speak briefly to the family businesses that this Government are also attacking. Many of them are small businesses: people who get up every day and take on the responsibility of hiring—often hiring young people—of making payroll and of creating growth in this country.
My right hon. and learned Friend is exactly right. The original reason for the exemption in death duties that previous Labour Governments respected was that generational aspect—the fact that a business or farm does not necessarily produce the cash flow necessary to hand over an enormous part of that value when, tragically, death takes place. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle will pick up on that point later. I will move on to businesses, which, as Members across the House will know, are far more numerous than the farms who we know are impacted. Inheritance tax affects businesses in every one of our constituencies, on every one of our high streets and in every one of our trading estates. Often they are businesses that have been in the same family for multiple generations. This is causing extreme jeopardy, to the point that people are having to take action right now to protect those family interests. Edmund Burke, a man much beloved on the Opposition Benches, said that society is a partnership “between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are yet to be born.” There could be no better manifestation of that than Britain’s family businesses, which are rooted in their local community and provide jobs down the generations. Yet this Government are hellbent on breaking them up and forcing them to sell the pieces to pay an inheritance tax bill that they should never have to face. We Conservatives are on the side of family businesses.
My right hon. Friend is quite right. I urge every Member of this House to spend time with family businesses in their constituency; there are excellent organisations such as Family Business UK that would be delighted to make the introduction. My right hon. Friend is also absolutely right about the relative dearth on the Government Benches of business and private sector experience and of an understanding of how the economy works. However, that is capable of remediation, if only Government Ministers and Members were to seek to educate themselves on the benefits to their constituencies and constituents of family businesses. We Conservatives will not let a spiteful, prejudiced Labour party destroy those family businesses, which is why we will—
I would be delighted to give way and for the hon. Member to talk about the family business contribution in his own constituency, and why he will therefore be supporting the Opposition motion this afternoon.
There have been exemptions for family business far beyond that. This goes across multiple generations—the origins date back to the 1960s, and every Labour Government under every Labour Prime Minister have understood the contribution of family businesses, including to those in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. We could, of course, talk about many of the other headwinds that business face, but I would then be deviating from the subject of debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that many colleagues want to speak this afternoon, so I will not talk about the higher energy costs, or the costs of hiring, or the red tape that this Government have imposed or the national insurance jobs tax, among many other things. We will not talk about any of those things, Madam Deputy Speaker! Inheritance tax more generally was once a tax paid by the privileged few—the super-rich, a tiny sliver of a minority of taxpayers and estates. Today, however—these are independent numbers that the Government will understand—inheritance tax is a tax on ordinary middle-class families in every corner of our country. I invite the Minister to challenge these numbers when he eventually responds. By 2030, one in six families will face an inheritance tax bill. At the start of previous decades, that was one family in 20. The scope of this tax has dragged so many more people into its terrible net, and it is only getting worse. One in five homes last year was sold at a price above the threshold where an inheritance tax liability would arise.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. Very few of us will not be aware of the challenges of the care sector from meeting constituents at our surgeries. It is why I regret the fact that one of the first actions of this Government on coming into office was to reject the consensus around the Dilnot review, which would have moved that conversation forward. We on this side of the House will continue to engage with ideas that the Prime Minister puts forward, but none of that takes away from the iniquity of inheritance tax, which is a double tax, often as a result of earned income, and sometimes even a triple tax as a result of businesses. As I said, the scope and breadth of inheritance tax is dragging more people into its net all the time. There is a fundamental difference between the Government and Opposition on this issue, and I am very keen to hear what our colleagues in the Liberal Democrat party have to say on the matter. The Conservatives believe that our homes are special. They are not just another asset to be taxed by a Government who refuse to cut out-of-control welfare. They are where we feel safe with our families, where our young take their first steps, and where we spend religious festivals and precious family moments. That is why so many of the policies we have announced recently focus precisely on those family homes. We would make it cheaper to buy a first home for young people by removing gold-plated regulation, saving £50,000 from the price of an average new-build home, because we are the party that believes in home ownership. We would make it cheaper to buy by abolishing stamp duty on people’s primary residences and would make homes cheaper to live in by scrapping Labour’s tax on family homes—the so-called mansion tax that, in truth, applies in many parts of the country to flats and ordinary suburban homes. It applies in Birmingham, in Bristol, in Nottingham, in Edinburgh and, yes, in Manchester too. We are the party that prioritises home ownership, and now we are committed to making it free for people to pass on their family home to direct descendants. The Government should follow our plan: no tax to buy a home, no tax to live in a home, and no tax to pass on a home to family. If the Chancellor is looking for ideas for his Budget in two weeks’ time, he can have that one for free. If the Minister takes that back, maybe he will become the Chancellor. But we all know what Labour will choose: more welfare. Labour is not the party of home ownership. That is a Conservative value, not Labour’s. We are the party of home ownership; they are the party of welfare, and we know how many people are on out-of-work benefits in Britain today. Even the leader of the Liberal Democrats—this week at least—can see that taxing family homes is wrong. Just two years ago he told the BBC, when they still wanted to hear from him, that “lots of people’s homes in many areas of the country are quite valuable, and they end up being clobbered by inheritance tax…I think that’s unfair”. We shall see whether his colleagues—current colleagues—agree with him and which Lobby they end up in today. We will see whether they are useful helpers of the Government or willing to stand up for their constituents who are being over-taxed by this Government. We would take the majority of families out of inheritance tax, abolish the truly awful family farm tax and abolish the anti-growth family business tax—and, when we can afford it within our fiscal rules, we would abolish inheritance tax entirely, because we do believe that it is an immoral tax.
My right hon. Friend is right. I do not think that any fair-minded person in the United Kingdom today would say, “The problem is that we have too many successful companies. Too many companies are setting up, being founded and listing on our stock exchanges; our economy is growing somehow too fast; we have not got enough young people to fill the jobs available; and the economy does not have enough debt.” Therefore, were there a measure that would allow productive capital to flow down the generations to allow enterprises across communities in all our countries to help our economy grow, we might think the Government would clutch on to it like a sinking man clings to a life raft. Perhaps we will get that damascene conversion from the Minister today—perhaps we will hear it in two weeks’ time—but I rather fear not. That is why so many other countries in our situation—those many economies that are growing faster than ours—do not impose multi-generational taxes on businesses. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister why it is that he and his Government single out family businesses—not those owned by private equity, those owned by international domiciled corporations, or even listed companies—for this iniquitous measure. I would love to hear that, as we all would on the Conservative Benches.
As I have said many times in the House, I think the G7 is the wrong comparator peer group. We are not the fastest growing member of the G7. If the hon. Member took the time to read more than the headlines handed out by the Labour Whips, he would know that yesterday the International Monetary Fund downgraded the growth forecast for our wonderful country and enterprise for 2027. That is what Labour is doing to our economy: it has reduced the rate of growth. While the G7 largely consists of relatively sclerotic economies that suffer from the same levels of indebtedness and lack of growth as the United Kingdom, in the meantime the G20 is coming up on the outside track. Those are the more prosperous countries, and they are building airports, building infrastructure and forming capital. Their companies are taking on the world and their young people have more job opportunities. Not that the Labour Government have any interest in calibrating, counting and identifying those who are leaving, but that is why the flow of wealth creators and ambitious young people is not to our wonderful country, with its history and heritage, but from our country to those economies that are successfully growing faster than ours. One of the reasons for that—to conclude—is that those countries are more understanding of family businesses, more understanding of family farms, and more sympathetic and on the side of those who work hard to create wealth and a better life for themselves, for their family and for the next generation.