Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
Like me, the hon. Gentleman represents a constituency in the south-west where hospitality businesses of all sorts will be very heavily hit by this Budget. They have seen rate increases. They have seen increases in alcohol duty, increases in the minimum wage and national insurance increases. Some of them are literally going to be taxed out of existence. This Government say they support small businesses. That could not be further from the truth.
Building on the question from the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), police and crime commissioners were able to act as a strong independent voice for commissioners. In what has been outlined so far, there is not really a voice for victims in local areas. What will the Secretary of State do to make sure that is remedied?
The Chagossians have been treated appallingly by successive Governments—we all accept that. To me, it is unconscionable that, for the first time since the first world war, a colonial people is being transferred from one colonial power to another 1,000 miles away with no control. I think there should be a referendum, but we are where we are. Does the Minister recognise that it would lighten the whole atmosphere if there was an absolute right of return for all Chagossians, with them not having to take Mauritian citizenship and being fully in control of their own trust fund? In other words, they have a right to self-determination like any other people on earth.
I am curious to know in what respect our existing laws were insufficient to deal with this appalling case. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the best way to reassure the public on electoral resilience is never again to delay local council or mayoral elections?
I am intervening on the hon. Gentleman because we both represent rural constituencies—he in Wales and me in Lincolnshire. Our constituencies are very different in their rural aspect, but both are affected equally badly by the family farm tax. Many of my farms may be larger than his, but their income is still quite marginal. So many of us representing rural areas cannot understand why the Government have not been prepared to compromise, listen to the NFU and, if necessary, take more resources from the big estates but preserve our family farms.
My hon. Friend was brought up in a notable local farming family in my constituency, and the reason why the House is listening to him is that he has been bred into farming and knows about farming. Would he like to say what, from his own family’s experience, this means for farmers in Lincolnshire? Some people say that Lincolnshire is full of large estates and all the rest of it. No, it is full of working farms, and he can speak with authority on this subject.
The Minister gave his estimate of the number of farms that would be affected by the new tax, which I am quite sure is an underestimate. Notwithstanding that, though, the chilling effect on agricultural investment has been felt across the entire sector as people seek to avoid their farm reaching the threshold for the new tax.
Will my right hon. Friend give way before he moves on?
This attack on investment extends well beyond agriculture and family farms; it is an attack on every family undertaking and every family business in the land. It is bonkers.
It is striking that the Government, despite deriding 14 years of Conservative Government, want to follow the example of the previous Government on just this matter. May I just point out that the former Foreign Secretary, the noble Lord Cameron, decided that the negotiations were not in the national interest and not in the interests of the Chagossian people, and that they should be suspended? May I recommend that the Minister follows our example on that?
23. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the proposal to restrict the right to a jury trial for certain offences on the rule of law.
When the Lord Chancellor made his statement on jury trials last week, he said that an impact assessment would be published with the legislation. Given how powerful a defender of jury trials he has been in the past, will he publish the evidence and the modelling that he has seen since coming to office that caused him to change his mind?
I absolve the Minister entirely from responsibility for this statement, as he is not the Africa Minister, but is the so-called new approach for Africa not rather like the old strategy—which was so well set out in the White Paper published by the former Prime Minister in November 2023, with its emphasis on investment—but with much less development investment and much less influence? Will the Minister confirm that bilateral programmes are being cut to ribbons across Africa? Does he realise that in major African institutions there is genuine amazement and astonishment that a Labour Government, for the first time ever in the Labour party’s history, have slashed development aid? Does he appreciate that as Britain and America are withdrawing from Africa, it is Russia and China that are taking our place?
As a former elections Minister, I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. I wonder if he would reflect on two points, together with his hon. Friend the Security Minister, with regard to the defending democracy taskforce. First, the Electoral Commission has plenty of influence, but it possibly needs more financial resource and sharper teeth that it can deploy more quickly. Would he reflect on that and ask Sir Philip to advise on that point? Secondly, the response of our police across the country is, at best, patchy when it comes to their interpretation of their key and pivotal role in defending democracy and ensuring that it works fairly and well for all of us. Through the taskforce, can he ensure that there is a more uniform approach from the police on this issue?
Under the Justice Secretary’s plans to slash jury trials, he is giving magistrates more serious cases. However, he also plans to scrap the automatic right to appeal—a vital safety valve in courtrooms where justice is delivered at pace by volunteers. Last year, 5,000 cases from magistrates courts were appealed, of which more than 40% were upheld. Given that very high rate of successful appeals, will the Secretary of State be honest with the public and concede that curtailing appeals will unquestionably lead to miscarriages of justice?
If the Secretary of State maintains that this change will not lead to miscarriages of justice, he must be expecting the same number of cases to be appealed. In which case, there is no point doing it in the first place. The truth, deep down, is that the Government are willing to tolerate some miscarriages of justice to save a paltry sum of money, yet all the while the solution is staring us in the face. Since the Justice Secretary announced his plan on 2 December, 640 sitting days have been missed. It is the end of term. The Justice Secretary’s report card is marked “improvement required”. Will he reflect over Christmas and make scrapping his plan to slash jury trials a new year’s resolution that we can all support?
I commend the Justice Secretary on the Government’s decision to extend whole-life orders to those who kill prison officers. Two weeks ago, I had the privilege of meeting the parents of Lenny Scott when they came to Parliament. It is absolutely right that we extend whole-life orders to cases in which brave prison officers are killed, either in the course of their duties, or in the exceptional circumstances that faced Lenny Scott after he had left the service. The Justice Secretary can be assured of the support of Conservative Members. Two weeks ago, the Justice Secretary appeared on Sky News and revealed that 12 more prisoners had been mistakenly released, and that two remained on the run. I have two very simple questions: since then, how many prisoners have been mistakenly released, and how many more remain on the run?
In all the years that I have been in the House, I have never known a Secretary of State fail to answer the first question from his opposite number, but that says a lot about the man. The Justice Secretary was fine answering questions in the media two weeks ago, when the police investigation was under way, but now he says—or his Minister says, in his stead—that it would be inappropriate to comment in the House of Commons. What utter nonsense! Does he seriously think anyone is buying that excuse? He either does not know the details, or he is covering up his failure, both of which are a dereliction of duty. How on earth can the public assist in the manhunts that are presumably under way across our country and clear up his mess if he will not publish the names or mugshots of the prisoners mistakenly released? Once again, he is endangering the British public.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. When I first supported my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) in applying for this debate, there was an ongoing planning application in Silsden in my constituency, to reopen a local quarry at Horn Crag. I am pleased to say that since then the application has been rejected—not only at the initial stage, but on appeal. While Horn Crag quarry may no longer be a current threat to Silsden, the whole experience throws up many issues relating to quarries and our wider planning system. I met a number of Silsden residents, my neighbours on the ground, who had fought tooth and nail to have their voices heard by Bradford council and the Planning Inspectorate. It was only after considerable effort on their part that their concerns—about the environment, the impact on nature, air quality, complex site operations, ecology, drainage, potential water pollution challenges and congestion through Silsden and Addingham—were heeded. It is easy to understand their passion and anger when we consider the broader planning context in Silsden. The town has been inundated with hundreds of new homes in just the last 10 years, and many of those strongly opposed proposals went through without Bradford council even batting an eye. Many were expecting the Horn Crag quarry application to be simply another case of the council ignoring local wishes. People might accuse those Silsden residents of nimbyism, but when the Isherwood family made a proposal for a new farm shop on the outskirts of the town, which was well supported by many local people, it was rejected by the same planning authority that had no issue with approving a huge number of new houses across Silsden. While stopping Horn Crag quarry was a definite win for those residents, it will not be enough to restore local people’s confidence in our planning system. That is why I think it is really important that we continue to have these debates in the Houses of Parliament, to explore how the planning system for quarries can better reflect local views and provide assurance to local planners that schemes are suitable. It is clear, from the many contributions that we have had today, that the system is currently not fit for purpose. It is also clear that many quarry applications are not sufficiently considering the impacts on air quality, water quality, noise and vibration. What has not yet been mentioned in the debate is the possibility of requiring a bond when quarry developers put forward an application. That money, which will have been negotiated by a local authority in putting the bond in place, will then be able to provide financial reassurance that, if a quarry operator goes bust, restoration and aftercare can still take place. However, when bonds are being negotiated, they are not being negotiated robustly enough to deal with current economic pressures and inflationary challenges. When things go wrong, the bond should be there to provide reassurance. It is frustrating that, when landfill sites are not considered, bonds are not put in place at the start, and I would like the system to reflect that. I am concerned that the legislation currently going through the House is not dealing with the challenges. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill that has been put forward by this Labour Government, alongside the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, is actually having negative implications on environmental mitigation, as well as the ability of local people to have their say as part of the planning application. No one wants to say no to any development, and of course quarries are needed, but we must ensure that we have robust ways to manage their undesirable consequences, and that local people are brought along as part of that process. At the moment, I feel that they are not. I am just glad that, in the case of Silsden, common sense prevailed.
Will the Minister give way?
Will the Minister give way on that point?
Great, that is very kind of the Minister. Seven days ago, the Campaign to Protect Rural England commented that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which is working its way through the House, will have a detrimental impact on environmental regulation and reduce the influence of local people and their ability to have their views heard when quarry applications are put forward. I wonder whether the Minister might like to comment on that.
I am not quite sure whether the Minister believes what he is reading, because UKHospitality has already done the sums on the impact that this Budget is having on many hard-working hospitality businesses across Keighley and Ilkley. Indeed, it has calculated that over the next three years, hospitality businesses in my constituency will have to pay on average an additional £13,690 per annum. Can the Minister say what the Budget will mean for the growth of hard-working hospitality businesses in my constituency?
Business property relief impacts many family businesses across the country. What does the Minister say to Fibreline in my constituency, which has worked out that its BPR liability is about £850,000? The company employs 250 people in Keighley whose jobs are potentially at risk as a result of the business not being able to mitigate an inheritance tax liability that this Government are imposing on it.
This comes down to choices. The tax revenue that will be raised from the changes to APR and BPR is about £500 million. On the other hand, the Government are saying, “We are going to spend £1.8 billion on a roll-out of mandatory digital ID, and £47 billion on the Chagos deal.” This is about choices and how the Government not only raise revenue, but spend it.
rose—
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
I am not quite sure whether the hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) has read the Budget. He said that those with the broadest shoulders must bear the pain, but those on the basic rate of income tax will be paying an additional £220 a year in income tax as a result of this Budget. I am not quite sure that those with the broadest shoulders will be paying that level of tax. Growth is down, inflation is up, taxes are up, unemployment is up, borrowing is up and interest debt is up. This Budget, coupled with the last one, is £66 billion of tax raising. As we speak, there are farmers outside this Chamber once again, and I know that they are in the Public Gallery as well. Why? Because of the changes that this Government continue to press ahead with through the family farm tax and the family business tax.
I absolutely agree. This Budget has an impact not only on our farming community, but on the wider agricultural supply chain and the many businesses that support our farming community. Why? Because bringing in a threshold of £1 million will impact nearly every family farming business. Let us look at the figures. The average size of a farming business in England is about 200 acres. When valuing farmland, there may be a farmhouse, a cottage or two, livestock, agricultural machinery, growing crops and crops in store, which will put it well above the £1 million threshold, thereby exposing the farming business to an IHT liability that kicks in at 20% of the value over and above £1 million. The Government will say that they have permitted some allowances, but that does not take into account the value of those businesses. This is going to have a hugely detrimental impact not only on those family businesses, but on the wider agricultural supply chain.
I absolutely agree, because the value of farmland in Northern Ireland is far greater than the average rate per acre in England or, dare I say, anywhere else in Great Britain. That is why Northern Ireland farmers are going to be absolutely decimated as a result of the changes that this Labour Government are bringing in.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, I was in Dumfries and Galloway just last week to speak to farming businesses that will be impacted by the changes that this Labour Government are bringing in. He hits on a very important point, because the NFU, the Country Land and Business Association, the Tenant Farmers Association and the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers have over the past year continually tried to put forward progressive options for this Government to listen to and engage with, but they have not listened. That just shows the naivety associated with this Government. Indeed, at the Liaison Committee yesterday, the Prime Minister himself acknowledged that he was aware of farmers who have worked all their lives within the farming community and who are considering taking their own lives. Despite that knowledge, he wanted to crack on with this policy regardless. It is callous and heartless, and it just shows what this Government are about.
Absolutely. All I advocate, as I am sure my right hon. Friend does, is that this Government simply engage with and listen to our farming community. It is not just our farming community that is hit by the IHT changes; it is family businesses more widely.
The hon. Member makes an excellent point, and not only Cornish farmers, but those right across the country are being impacted by this Government’s decisions. He also makes the excellent point that many of our farming businesses are incredibly highly geared, given the level of debt associated with their businesses, and are not returning a level of income to even contribute towards paying an IHT liability at 20% over and above the £1 million threshold. They will therefore be subject to a death tax that they will simply be unable to pay.
The point to make quite clearly is that every single farming business will, in one way or another, be impacted by the £1 million threshold kicking in. Why? Because for an arable farm in Lincolnshire, Cambridgeshire or wherever it is, the price of feed wheat is still at about the same price it was 20 years ago, but the costs of all the inputs have been rising. Not only are such businesses subject to cash-flow challenges as a result of this Government removing the delinked payments —dramatically dropping them to £600—as well as removing the sustainable farming incentive and bringing in the fertiliser tax or the double cab pick-up tax, but they will be impacted by the changes to inheritance tax. That impact will be felt by hill farmers in Keighley and Ilkley; arable farmers in Lincolnshire or, dare I say it, down in Cornwall; and farmers wherever there are, even those subject to high land values in Northern Ireland. This Government must listen to our farming community right now, because whether farmers come down today or tomorrow to make noise with their tractors outside, I hope they continue coming to make sure that this Government listen. It is not just our farming community that is impacted by the IHT changes. This has an impact on our family businesses, our hospitality businesses, our breweries and our manufacturing and engineering businesses. That is why I simply cannot understand why we have not heard from Back-Bench Labour MPs representing urban constituencies, who may be representing a manufacturing or engineering business, a hospitality business or a hotelier. Why on earth have those with such family businesses in their constituencies not been loud and proud in making noises to the Chancellor about the negative impacts these IHT changes will have on our many family businesses?
I do agree with the hon. Member that the Government must get their own house in order before implementing strategies that are impacting many of our hard-working businesses. The changes to BPR are detrimental. Why? I would use the example of a business in my constituency that has already worked out that its liability after the changes to BPR is about £800,000. The business is owned by the fourth generation, who are in their late 80s. They have been told that the only way to pay a BPR liability, should a death occur after April 2026, is to sell plant or machinery, or to sell shares in their business, either way losing control of their business or not being able to keep their business productive. That demonstrates how uninformed the Government are about the changes they will be making. I think I have made my point. [Interruption.] The Minister sits on the Front Bench laughing away, but had she had the time to go outside and engage with our farming community, or at least get around the table with Back-Bench Labour MPs and Opposition Members who have been consistently raising this issue over the last year, she might not be sitting there smiling away; she might be able to come to the Dispatch Box in her winding-up speech to give some sort of positive conclusion and hope to those many businesses who will be impacted by this disastrous Labour Government.
The NHS has finally issued a call for evidence regarding a clinical pathway for adults who wish to detransition. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is a welcome and long-overdue first step, and that the NHS must continue making serious efforts to improve care for detransitioners?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I will be brief because we are running out of time. Detransitioners are an often marginalised and misunderstood group. Ritchie Herron is a civil servant who underwent gender surgery in 2018 in order to live as a woman. That involved rearranging tissue in the genital area to create a vaginal opening. When he decided to detransition, he was concerned that specialists were unable to advise him clearly about the correct dosages of hormones that he should take during the process to avoid increasing his risk of osteoporosis. In brief, I simply ask the Minister what her Department is doing to look at how the NHS supports those who are detransitioning? That is not to say that those who are transitioning should not be able to access the support that they need, but what is the NHS doing to support those who want to detransition, especially those who experienced puberty blockers at a young age?
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on the rights of British Chagossians to access the trust fund and resettle on the Chagos archipelago.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. We have basically just heard from the Minister that the Government’s betrayal of the British Chagossian community continues. We have just had more details on how bad this deal is for the Chagossian community. Labour’s surrender of British sovereign territory means that future decisions on access to and resettlement on most of the archipelago, the ancestral home of Chagossians, are now left in the hands of—guess what?—a foreign Government. Can the Minister confirm if British Chagossians will need to become Mauritian citizens to have any hope of being entitled to or eligible for resettlement under the future resettlement programme? That is a simple yes or no—it sounds like the answer is an absolute yes. This is a country that, until only weeks ago, had an offence on its statute books of “misrepresenting the sovereignty of Mauritius”, and it is a country from which hundreds of Chagossians have fled to Britain in recent weeks. By the way, housing this community across the country is adding to the pressure on local authorities. Does the Minister recognise the sheer madness of this plan? The Government have confirmed that, despite this Government giving the Government of Mauritius £40 million of British taxpayers’ money for the trust fund, Britain has no proper representation on the board and no control over how the funds are spent. There will be just one UK-based Chagossian representative on the board, chosen not by the British Chagossian community, but—guess what?—by the Prime Minister of Mauritius. Can the Minister tell us if he thinks this is acceptable, and did the Government—I cannot say the Minister specifically—press for greater Chagossian and British representation on the board? Can he tell us exactly what UK delegations have been doing in Mauritius this year, who they have met and what has been discussed? On the so-called contact group, why have the Government refused to seek the views of the British Chagossian community on this surrender treaty? They have instead chosen to outsource this vital function to a House of Lords Select Committee, whose survey, as we have seen online, has been open to manipulation by and interference from the Mauritian Government. It is no wonder that the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has called the Government out for their betrayal of the Chagossian community. That is massively embarrassing, particularly when we have a Government of human rights lawyers. What is the Minister’s response to this UN committee? Will he suspend the ratification of this appalling treaty, which is what the UN calls for, and importantly, say sorry to hard-pressed taxpayers in this country, who are forking out £35 billion for this shameful betrayal?
I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for securing this important urgent question. May I say that I do not think it is acceptable for the Minister to just regurgitate the written ministerial statement from yesterday? There are some fundamental issues about what should be the Government’s strategy. First and foremost, it was wrong to simply say that the approach that the Government inherited was wrong. I should know that, having recapitalised the Commonwealth Development Corporation, with British International Investment now having a huge amount of annual investment and reinvestment every single year on economic development in Africa. Fundamentally, whether it is from Gavi, the Global Fund or the sustainable development goals, these are founding principles that are now being advanced across Africa, and the Government really should do much more to stand up and defend them. In the written ministerial statement yesterday there was no reference to China’s belt and road debt traps, Russia’s nefarious activities or the Wagner Group in Africa. Yet before our eyes, we see the axis of authoritarian states pillaging African countries for its natural resources. Where is the substance for a plan of action to counter the growing influence of that axis? As we have already heard, there is also scant regard in the Government’s plan for the Commonwealth and its role in upholding democracy, capacity building and freedoms. Why is that the case? Are the Government working with the new secretary-general on her economic vision, which would clearly benefit the UK and Africa? We do not know how the Government intend to support the African Union or rise to the challenges in the continent, and sadly, we are seeing so much conflict right now. Can the Minister explain what the UK will do to leverage our conflict resolution expertise to good effect? Finally, on illegal migration, can I remind the Minister and the Government that they intentionally tore up engagement with a key Commonwealth partner? Rwanda sought to provide leadership on illegal migration and stop young men leaving the continent at great risk because it wanted to create an economic development partnership with the UK. That surely speaks to some of the serious challenges that this Government now need to pick up and confront.