Conservative and Unionist Party: a sourced timeline of public activity, with filters by source type and a sidebar of tracked totals

Conservative and Unionist Party

5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

  1. ParliamentJoy Morrissey

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and when we are back in government, we Conservatives will vote to leave the ECHR. We believe that we should deport illegal immigrants the moment that they arrive. The village of Piddington has a population of only 350, and the 1,300 migrant men will be a blight on their small village—men from cultures where women are treated worse than animals; men who the Government have decided need a leaflet asking them not to rape women and girls.

    Hansard source

  2. ParliamentJoy Morrissey

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    Actually, I went as the Prime Minister’s parliamentary private secretary. We held a Cabinet meeting in Stoke-on-Trent. I was therefore able to see at first hand the developments that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. It is good to remember that, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising it. I raised the issue of the safety of women and girls a few weeks ago, during my first oral questions to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones). I asked two questions, very directly: did the Government agree that men entering this country illegally from countries such as Eritrea, Afghanistan and Sudan pose a direct threat to the safety of women and girls, and did the Government agree that men who enter Britain illegally and need a leaflet telling them not to rape women and girls should instead be deported immediately?

    Hansard source

  3. ParliamentJoy Morrissey

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    I agree with everything that my right hon. Friend has said, and I will echo his comments later in my speech. When we asked legitimate questions about women and girls being under threat, the Minister at the time could not find the answer. Perhaps this Minister can do so today. The women of Piddington deserve our thanks in this House because they have made their voices heard, but they are far from alone. The women of Linton-on-Ouse in North Yorkshire are worried about the 1,200 men who are about to descend on their community. The women of Barnham in Suffolk are facing 1,250 illegal migrant men in their midst. The women of Crowborough in Sussex have been working closely with their excellent local Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Sussex Weald (Ms Ghani), to deal with illegal migrant men who are already in their community. I pay tribute to their very hard-working local MP, who has been battling a coalition of Greens, Liberal Democrats and Labour. The Home Office, interestingly, made an application for housing for 540 asylum seekers, who moved in last January, and has now extended that application to 2030. My hon. Friend the Member for Sussex Weald has been single-handedly battling against the council and the Home Office. She is on the frontline of this issue, and I thank her for raising the voices of women and girls.

    Hansard source

  4. ParliamentJoy Morrissey

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    My right hon. Friend has made an excellent point, but it is not just a case of their values being different from ours; it is a case of their taking advantage of our nature, our culture and our values.

    Hansard source

  5. ParliamentJoy Morrissey

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    Luckily we are under a new leadership. I am waiting to hear—and I would love to hear from the hon. Gentleman—why not one member of the Labour party has responded to the women of Piddington who have written to them about this issue. [Interruption.]

    Hansard source

  6. ParliamentJoy Morrissey

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    The Government have said that middle-class areas need to bear their share, using class as a new weapon to silence concerns. It is a dangerous, lazy approach from a Government who are supposed to unite our country. This is not about class, or race, or anything else that the Labour party wants to use to silence those who are speaking up. That technique was used to silence rape gang victims in our cities and towns, and it is appalling that Labour has not learnt from that scandal. This is about women speaking up about fears for their safety and that of their children. The Prime Minister should listen, and Labour Members should listen. They know that these women and their communities will suffer: they know that because we already have the proof. Communities across this land have seen the lives of their women and girls ruined—ruined by the fundamental failure of this Government to protect them from the threat posed by men who come here illegally.

    Hansard source

  7. ParliamentJoy Morrissey

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    I would ask the hon. Gentleman why the use of houses in multiple occupation for asylum accommodation has increased by 12% since this Government took over, why there has been this movement from hotels to HMOs, and what the long-term solution is.

    Hansard source

  8. ParliamentJoy Morrissey

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    I do agree. You have made an excellent point, which I will bring up later in my speech.

    Hansard source

  9. ParliamentJoy Morrissey

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    In respect of this issue of asylum accommodation, let me give a few examples of men who have raped and assaulted women and girls. Muhammad Sheikhi, a Syrian asylum seeker, came here illegally by boat. He was placed in asylum accommodation, and then sexually assaulted two women in Falkirk. He told police that he was just roaming around. The judge sentenced him to four years, saying that he had “treated these women as though their autonomy, dignity, and bodily integrity counted for nothing.” Three asylum seekers from Iran and Egypt were convicted in April of raping a woman in Brighton. They travelled from their asylum accommodation in Horsham. They kicked her, grabbed her throat, raped her and filmed it. Mohammed Abbas, an illegal migrant claiming to be Palestinian, was put up in a taxpayer-funded house in Cardiff. He broke into a nearby property and exposed himself to two girls, aged 16 and 13, in their bedroom. An Afghan illegal migrant raped a 12-year-old girl in Nuneaton just four months after he arrived here by boat. He abducted her, raped her and filmed her. These are just a few examples.

    Hansard source

  10. ParliamentJoy Morrissey

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    Indeed, and my hon. Friend makes that point very eloquently. It is very important that we stand up for our local communities to protect them from illegal migrant men. I have mentioned just a few of the horrific crimes committed by illegal migrant men—men who should have been deported before they could roam our streets and forever change the lives of young women and girls, and who will pay no notice to a gently worded leaflet that encourages them to understand our cultural values. These men do not care about our values. They are here to take advantage of our welcoming culture.

    Hansard source

  11. ParliamentJoy Morrissey

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    I encourage the hon. Gentleman to come to Piddington to see that there is a very small village right up against what is going to be a very large asylum camp, which has no additional police protection and no additional provision. The men will be allowed to roam free through the village. It will create a safeguarding issue for young children, for girls, and there is no reason why this community should have to suffer just like communities in York and across the country. They are suffering because we are not deporting illegal migrants, and that is why we need to leave the ECHR.

    Hansard source

  12. ParliamentJoy Morrissey

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    My right hon. friend makes an excellent point: we did suggest Rwanda. We Conservatives are committed to leaving the ECHR, so that we can deport foreign nationals who come here illegally within a week. That is why we want to leave the ECHR.

    Hansard source

  13. ParliamentJoy Morrissey

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    I will give way after I make some progress. I have mentioned just a few of the horrific crimes committed by illegal migrant men—men who should have been deported before they could roam our streets. These cases show that the women of Piddington, Linton-on-Ouse and Barnham are right to be concerned. Let me be clear to those on the Labour Benches: when their only political response to hearing of these crimes, and to the legitimate fears raised by women and girls, is to shout “weaponisation”, it says more about them and their priorities than it does about their political opponents. When their only policy response is to launch a talking shop on misogyny, they should recognise how weak that makes them look. When they refuse to meet concerned women, it speaks volumes about their commitment to women and girls. It is not hard to see why such a commitment is lacking. I wrote to the Minister for Women and Equalities to offer to work cross-party and to facilitate a meeting with the women of Piddington. I have not had a response, but I heard in the media that it was a no. She is chair of the Labour party first and Women’s Minister second.

    Hansard source

  14. ParliamentJoy Morrissey

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    None at all, but I do not want to go into that. I have talked about the asylum seeker in Falkirk; it is not just women in England, but those in Scotland and Wales, who have raised concerns about illegal migrants in their midst who are roaming the streets. There is a problem. There is a difference in how these men are treating our women and girls, and people are genuinely afraid. I am sure that lurking somewhere in the Whips-briefed speeches for Labour Members are some of the tired old tunes, so let me save Labour Members some time by engaging with the substance of those points. When they trot out, “14 years!”, I say that they have had two years, and the British people are already desperate for them to stop there. When they say, “Illegal migrant men are not a threat to women and girls; men known to them are”, I say that both things can be true, and I want to tackle both. Why don’t they? Why will they not give us the data on crimes committed against women and girls by men with active asylum claims? The truth is that this Government have a “hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil” approach to this issue. Labour Members do not want to hear the women of Piddington, Linton-on-Ouse or Barnham because of the uncomfortable truth that they will speak. Labour Members do not want to see the data on how significant the problem of illegal migrant men committing crimes against women and children is, for fear of a Pandora’s box being opened. They do not want to speak about this issue because of the ideological capture of their party. It has been captured by people who have placed an obsession with multiculturalism above a cohesive British society. This is about the choices we make as a country.

    Hansard source

  15. ParliamentJoy Morrissey

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    There may be some buyer’s remorse across Oxfordshire; I could not possibly say. I will say that we Conservatives have a very different view from the Liberal Democrats on open borders, immigration and welcoming migrants. That is perhaps coming home to roost across the country, but it is not for me to comment on that; it is for the voters to decide. We have let in men, and we have lost control of them. They have roamed around our streets to rape and assault women and girls, and we have placed them in British jails at our expense. Enough! It is time to be clear that if you come here illegally, you have already broken the law, and you will be deported. The ECHR should no longer be a weapon that left-wing lawyers can use to keep you here, if you arrive illegally. The Government are placing British women and girls in harm’s way. They refuse women even the common courtesy of listening to them when they speak up about their concerns. They just want to be heard. Can the Government please take the time to listen to these women?  The Conservatives have listened to the women who are concerned about their safety, and to the British people. They want action on illegal immigration, not gimmicks and TikTok videos. Our border plan will deliver the control needed and the protections that British women and girls deserve. Our plan is built on clear values and the detailed hard work needed to make it work. If people come here illegally, they cannot claim asylum, and they will be deported within a week. We will take Britain out of the ECHR, and we will establish a removal force to remove illegal immigrants. The choice for the Government and Members across the House is clear: do they believe that thousands of illegal migrant men from cultures that treat women so badly pose a direct threat to the safety of British women and girls, and if not, how many more appalling stories of crimes against women and girls do they need? The Conservatives have heard about enough of these crimes to know that it is time to act. We must not house immigrants who come here illegally. The ECHR has stood in our way for far too long for common sense and for the good of the British people. It is time to leave the ECHR. It is time to put the rights of British people first.

    Hansard source

  16. ParliamentJoy Morrissey

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The shadow Home Secretary has already made the point that we need sanctions and proper ways of enforcement for countries that refuse to take back those claiming asylum here, and he will speak about that later.

    Hansard source

  17. ParliamentJoy Morrissey

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    I would point out that when the right hon. and learned Lady was Home Secretary, in charge of all of these things and making these key decisions, immigration was at record levels. I commend her for calling out many of these issues, but she had the opportunity, while at the helm, to do something. I leave that there; enough said. Finally, let me say this to the women in the Public Gallery, those I met in Piddington and elsewhere, the women who have written to me, and women and girls across Britain who are worried about their safety: I hear you; my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary hears you; the Leader of the Opposition hears you; and the Conservative party hears you. We are here for you, and we will act.

    Hansard source

  18. ParliamentJohn Lamont

    Inheritance Tax

    My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, but I wonder if he spotted this quote? “Although many of my farmers tell me the earlier U-turns made a substantial difference, others are still deeply worried about the impact this policy will have when passing a sustainable farm business to the next generation”. He might be aware that those are the words of the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours)—a Labour Member; they are part of his call for the Labour Government to completely scrap their plans to abolish agricultural property relief. The hon. Gentleman is right: the Labour Government should scrap it completely.

    Hansard source

  19. ParliamentJohn Cooper

    Inheritance Tax

    Nothing illustrates the great divide between rural Britain and this urban-centric Labour Government quite like the family farm tax. This was a comprehensive failure to grasp how intergenerational farming works and a wilful failure to understand that asset-rich does not equate to cash-rich, as evidenced by the hon. Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance), who is sadly not in her place. A chill was sent through rural Dumfries and Galloway by changes to agricultural property relief, for this was not just about farmers but the wider community and the many jobs intertwined with dairy and beef, pigs and sheep, arable and horticulture. Since my election to this place, I have seen military veterans—some of the toughest people I have ever had the privilege to meet—well up, recalling comrades lost and maimed in the service of this country, and a woman in tears because duff pension advice had robbed her. I have had farmers weeping, too—men in their 80s, with hard knocks enough for many lifetimes under their belts. Those proud old men were crying not for themselves and what they thought they might lose in what little time lay ahead, but about what future generations would lose. Many families realise that no child will now take on the stark new financial reality of farming. How incredible was it to sit in this place and watch Ministers giving advice on how to mitigate the damage their own policies were doing? Labour likes to roar about the 14 years we Conservatives had in power, but what were they doing in their 14 years in opposition? Clearly precious little proper planning, because the inheritance tax changes, which were so toxic that no one else would touch them, were dusted off in jig time amid a scramble to be seen to be doing something—anything—in that first 100 days. Inheritance tax is invidious in all its forms: it is the state exacting a last drop from estates, which is gathered despite the taxman’s previous depredations. It is double taxation, for anything in the purview of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on death has already come through the storm of income tax, capital gains tax and VAT. That is why we Conservatives have pledged to reverse the cuts to agricultural property relief, abolish inheritance tax on the family home and raise the individual threshold to £500,000. That would mean that a couple could pass on their main home to direct descendants free from inheritance tax, plus a further £1 million without any inheritance tax liability.

    Hansard source

  20. ParliamentJohn Cooper

    Inheritance Tax

    I thank my hon. Friend, who speaks to farmers far more than Labour Front-Bench Members ever do. Indeed, he knows that this is about fairness. We Conservatives believe in rewarding those who have done the right thing: those who have strived and who have saved. There is further positive news from our plan, as highlighted by the TaxPayers’ Alliance. In October 2024, the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer announced an increase in the interest rate on the late payment of taxes. The rate had been calculated on the Bank of England base rate plus 2.5%, but the Budget saw an increase in the surcharge to 4% above base, so the interest rate on late payment of tax is currently a usurious 7.75%. Asset-heavy, cash-light taxpayers such as farmers are particularly vulnerable to that change as it takes time to convert assets into a form that allows them to pay that balance. Inheritance tax is due six months after death, after which interest is charged daily on unpaid tax. However, executors may struggle to meet the deadline because properties are illiquid assets that can take considerable time to sell, particularly when probate is required. Selling properties quickly may mean accepting a lower price, while waiting for a better offer can result in additional punitive interest charges. The probate process creates further difficulties as executors often need probate to sell inherited properties, yet generally inheritance tax must be paid before probate is granted.

    Hansard source

  21. ParliamentJohn Cooper

    Inheritance Tax

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but he is talking about adding yet more costs on to businesses. I have heard from farmers who tried inheritance planning but were told that the bank would not pass on the working overdraft to young members of the family. It is much more complicated than he pretends. Although HMRC may allow payments in instalments over 10 years or grant credit in certain circumstances, interest can still accrue after six months. That leaves taxpayers with higher bills through no fault of their own. The Conservatives’ allowing family homes to be excluded from inheritance tax, plus the additional £1 million allowance, would restrict the effect of that pernicious interest. Meanwhile, we need to see agriculture not as a dripping roast on which the Treasury may feast, but as a rural powerhouse helping to feed the nation. If this Government were serious about their mantra “food security is national security”, they would halt the family farm tax right now and stop turning the human drama of a death into a financial crisis for the living.

    Hansard source

  22. ParliamentJoe Robertson

    Inheritance Tax

    The Minister is doing so much to protect and help farmers, so is he mystified that they are not queuing up to thank him?

    Hansard source

  23. ParliamentJesse Norman

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In his response to a question at Prime Minister’s questions earlier, the Prime Minister said: “Can I start just by recognising, with the charges that have been laid against the individual responsible for the murder of Ann Widdecombe”. He did not say the individual “accused of” her murder; he spoke of the individual “responsible for” her murder. A man is innocent until proven guilty. The presumption of innocence goes back to Magna Carta and it applies without exception, but the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has just publicly spoken as though a man awaiting trial has already been convicted of murder. It is directly contrary to the rule of law, it is a breach of the presumption of innocence, it is misleading to the House and in any other forum it would be a contempt of court, which could be used to suggest that the defendant had been prejudged on the merits of a case. The Prime Minister needs to apologise. May I ask your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, as to whether the Prime Minister needs to apologise, to withdraw the statement and to correct the record immediately?

    Hansard source

  24. ParliamentJerome Mayhew

    International Law: UK Obligations

    I think I am in the slightly novel position of being fresh to the Dispatch Box myself, but also able to welcome both the Attorney General and the Solicitor General to their new places, which I do with gusto. Last month, the Attorney General published her new “Attorney General’s Legal Guidance”, a direction to all Government lawyers on how to advise Ministers on lawfulness and legal risk, which replaced the advice of Lord Hermer. Across the board, she has removed references to international law. She has removed Lord Hermer’s demand that “the rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law as in national law”; she has removed Lord Hermer’s direction that the Government “should not invite Parliament to legislate contrary to international obligations”; and she has removed the whole paragraph in which Lord Hermer instructed Government lawyers that compliance and respect for international law must be a critical factor in legal advice. She served as Solicitor General under Lord Hermer for a year. What persuaded her that his guidance to Government lawyers was wrong, and that the Conservatives were right all along that his guidance needed to be replaced?

    Hansard source

  25. ParliamentJerome Mayhew

    International Law: UK Obligations

    Having removed Lord Hermer’s focus on the importance of international law, the Attorney General has in fact added a new consideration: whether an international court has jurisdiction. This could have Chagos written all over it. Without express United Kingdom consent, there is no international court with binding jurisdiction over the sovereignty of the Chagos islands. Applying her own legal guidance, does the Attorney General now agree that the decision to cede sovereignty of the Chagos islands has never been a legal imperative forced on the Government, but is instead a political decision, taken by Labour?

    Hansard source

  26. ParliamentJerome Mayhew

    Restriction of Jury Trials: Rule of Law

    Having spent many months arguing for the abolition of most jury trials, can the Attorney General explain to the House how she now thinks that they are indispensable? Does she accept that, while jury trials are indispensable, an Attorney General forced to perform such a spectacular U-turn may not be?

    Hansard source

  27. ParliamentJerome Mayhew

    Engagements

    Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 14 October.

    Hansard source

  28. ParliamentJerome Mayhew

    Engagements

    The Prime Minister sees himself as a man of candour, so will he tell the House whether anyone associated with the running of Manchester City football club raised the charges that they were facing, and have now been found guilty of, with either him or any member of his team?

    Hansard source

  29. ParliamentJerome Mayhew

    Inheritance Tax

    I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, because I have been involved in a family farm and have created a family business—[Interruption.] Thank you. One of the really odd aspects of this issue is that the Government seem to be confusing business assets with personal wealth. How can that possibly be fair?

    Hansard source

  30. ParliamentJames Wild

    Underperforming NHS Trusts: Government Oversight

    I congratulate the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) on securing the debate. I represent the Queen Elizabeth Hospital King’s Lynn trust, which serves 300,000 people across Norfolk, north Cambridgeshire and south Lincolnshire and was ranked 134th out of 134 trusts in the league table released in September last year. That very disappointing result was uncomfortable for the trust and its staff, but transparency can galvanise action. Performance is simply not good enough at the moment. Only 65% of cancer patients are treated within the 62-day timeframe, against the standard of 85%, and only 64% of patients at A&E are seen within four hours. The trust has also heard worrying reports from the Royal College of Surgeons about culture and management weaknesses, and in August the CQC rated emergency care as “requiring improvement”. When the league table was published, I was told by Health Ministers that intensive help would be made available to deliver better care, but it is not clear what extra support has actually been provided. Cancer and elective waiting times have improved slightly. A&E diagnostics have not. There have certainly been more reporting requirements, but they will not drive improved performance and productivity, nor will requiring a 10% budget saving or the current management instability. We had a temporary chief executive and then a supposedly permanent appointment, and there is currently no recruitment for a managing director, with the post being covered by the Norfolk and Waveney University Hospitals Group deputy chief executive. We need visible, active, full-time leadership, on site, to deliver better care. What support is the national performance framework providing? A year on from the league table, how are Ministers holding the trust to account? Dedicated staff are working in a hospital that is not fit for purpose, which is why we secured a commitment, which this Government have honoured, to a new QEH. New facilities and improvements go hand in hand, but it should be about improving services, not removing them. That is why I am extremely concerned about leaked proposals showing that the Norfolk and Waveney University Hospitals Group is considering downgrading A&E, maternity and intensive care unit services. The plans have been drawn up behind closed doors, with no transparency, by organisations that are seemingly unaccountable and that fail to recognise the needs of my constituents and those across the area. Clinicians have warned of the impact on patient safety. The proposals are completely unacceptable and should be ruled out now. Indeed, the group leadership has repeatedly said publicly that it wants more services closer to home. If that is the case, those services must include a proper 24/7, tier 1 A&E; maternity services; and an ICU in King’s Lynn. QEH is at the heart of my community, and we all want to see sustained improvements. I urge the Minister to give my constituents and the staff at the hospital the reassurance they want by ruling out any downgrading of services at QEH on this Government’s watch.

    Hansard source

  31. ParliamentGregory Stafford

    Inheritance Tax

    I know that, like me, my hon. Friend is a champion of his local pubs. I put on the record that one of my local pubs, the Crown in Arford, has just won my “best pub” competition. On my hon. Friend’s point about taxation, we tax cigarettes to stop people smoking. If we tax jobs, we have fewer jobs, and if we tax economic growth, we have less economic growth. Why does he think that Labour does not get this?

    Hansard source

  32. ParliamentGregory Stafford

    Inheritance Tax

    While I am following a vast number of extraordinarily excellent speeches from Opposition Members, unfortunately I am going to have to start with some of the really quite stunning comments from Government Members—comments that clearly demonstrate that the Government have absolutely no clue about what creates wealth in this country, what drives growth in our economy, and what real people who are working hard have to face in Britain every single day. There was no greater example of this than the comments of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), who I notice has just scuttled out of the Chamber. He had the audacity to misquote Churchill and to call the people who are working hard in this country—the people who are grafting hard—the “idle rich”. What a disgraceful thing to say to those people who are building a business! What a disgraceful thing to say to the farmers who are up at the crack of dawn trying to make their businesses work! He should come back to the Chamber and apologise to them, because they deserve an apology. I prefer another Churchill quote. He said: “Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy”, and we have seen a lot of failure, ignorance and envy from Government Members today. The real people who are going to be hit by these taxes are not the idle rich who the hon. Member for Macclesfield mentioned; they are the grafters who put in—people like my father’s family, who ran a business for over a century in Haslemere. They worked hard, took risks, saved, and stood on their own two feet. These are the sort of people who this Labour Government have decided they want to tax to the hilt—to tax out of existence. For decades, business property relief meant that a family firm could pass to the next generation without a bill. This Government ended that. Relief was capped at £1 million in 2024. Only after a backlash did it rise to £2.5 million of combined business and agricultural property relief. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) said, though, businesses are not a bank account. Cash and capital are two different things. A business’s value is in its premises, its machinery, its stock and its good will, not necessarily in its cash, so the people who inherit it must find money from the very businesses that employ their staff and extend growth.

    Hansard source

  33. ParliamentGregory Stafford

    Inheritance Tax

    My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. In my constituency—and, I am sure, in his constituency and across the country—small family businesses are having to make really tough decisions about what they are going to do. He is right that they will often go to foreign firms, because those firms will not be hit by this level of taxes. Hitting British businesses so that they will be sold to foreign ones is an odd focus for this Labour Government. It is extraordinary, and if the Government do not see that, they really must think again. Think of an owner in their 60s deciding whether to buy a new machine or take on another apprentice. Now they must first ask, “What will this do to my tax bill that my children will inherit?”—a tax that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) said, makes owners think twice before investing and building growth.

    Hansard source

  34. ParliamentGregory Stafford

    Inheritance Tax

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and she neatly brings me on to some comments about family farms. She is right: it is not just the people who are running these businesses or those people who might inherit them who will end up losing out, but the employees of those businesses too. That is why we are not getting the growth that Labour claims it wants. With family farms such as Luff’s in Headley, the land, tractors, buildings and a lifetime of labour are passed from generation to generation. The National Farmers Union has calculated that a typical cereals farm making roughly £34,000 a year would face 10 annual instalments of £53,000 a year at the original £1 million threshold. Even at the new threshold, payments of £33,000 a year would swallow nearly all the profit. Essentially, in order to pay, a farmer will have to sell the very fields that earn the living. The Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution found that more than a third of farmers are probably or possibly depressed. The Farming Community Network, which supports more than 10,000 people, says that its helpline has been taking calls linked to the upcoming Budget for weeks. As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) said, this tax has led to suicides. That is a disgrace, and the Government should recognise that and do everything they can to repair the damage that they have done emotionally and economically to our farms. It was only when Ministers were challenged by the shadow Environment Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), that they raised that threshold. If it was right to raise the threshold then, because it was the wrong threshold, can the Government not look at it again and remove it? Moving on briefly to the general inheritance tax points, the nil rate band has been at £325,000 since 2009. Labour has now said that it will freeze it until April 2031. Had that band risen with inflation, it would be at more than half a million pounds today. To dispel the myth that has been put forward by the Government that inheritance tax affects only a small number of people, the OBR expects one in 10 estates to pay by the end of the decade. The Institute for Fiscal Studies puts that figure at one in six. It will not hit just a small number of people. A married couple can pass on up to £1 million if their home goes to their children. That might sound generous, but once we add a family home in my constituency to a lifetime of savings and, from April 2027, their pension pots, it is not a significant amount of money in the grand scheme of things. That is especially important when that pension relief is what we on all sides of this House were telling people to do. We were telling people to save for their future, and the reward for their saving is the Government taking more of it in tax. Households that never thought of themselves as wealthy are being pulled in. Under Labour, aspirational families are hit on the way in and unfortunately they are hit on the way out. As Members have said, the shopkeeper will sell their business to fund retirement and the farmer will sell the fields to try to keep just a small measure of their farm. The Minister on the Treasury Bench must take this message back to the Chancellor: rule out these changes and make things better for our local areas. As the Conservative Opposition, we present an alternative. We will abolish tax on the family home, and we will do that by slashing the welfare bill by £7 billion. It is the first step, and the shadow Chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition have outlined their ambition to go further. It comes down to a fundamental point. On the one side, we have a Government who see a lifetime of savings and a business built over generations as just another tax opportunity. On the other, we have an Opposition who believe that those savings belong to the family who earned them—not the grifters, not the idle rich, but the grafters. They built this country, and unlike Labour, a Conservative Government will let them keep those savings.

    Hansard source

  35. ParliamentGreg Smith

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this motion to the House and for opening this debate in her customarily powerful way. Piddington has the headlines, but it is not just about Piddington; it is also about the women in Oakley, in Marsh Gibbon, in Ludgershall, in Brill, in Boarstall, in Long Crendon and in many other villages just over the Buckinghamshire border that are within walking distance of MOD Bicester site A.

    Hansard source

  36. ParliamentGreg Smith

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    MOD Bicester site A is but a stone’s throw over the Buckinghamshire border into Oxfordshire. While Piddington has captured the headlines, the communities that are concerned and that feel threatened by this proposal, many of which sit in my constituency in Mid Buckinghamshire—small villages and hamlets such as Boarstall, Oakley, Brill, Ludgershall, Marsh Gibbon, Long Crendon, Twyford, Charndon, Poundon, Worminghall, Honeyburge and many others—are all walking distance from MOD Bicester site A. While I have absolute confidence that the real answer to this challenge is the Conservatives’ borders plan, where those who illegally enter the United Kingdom by small boat would be deported within a week, I want to use my time to focus on why the use of MOD Bicester site A simply does not stack up. It is the wrong plan.. It is the wrong site. That goes straight to some of the arguments that the Minister made about cost and location, none of which stack up in reality. This site has to be built entirely from scratch. There is no accommodation there at the moment. This is an entirely modular build on a site where there is no fresh water supply. There is no ability to take the sewage away by anything other than road. If the Government want to look at environmental concerns, we hear that generators will have to burn some 6,000 litres of diesel a day to provide electricity to this site. There is no grid connection to MOD Bicester site A. It is situated along a busy, fast-moving road but we are told, “It’s okay. Those who are housed there will wear high-vis jackets as the HGVs zoom past them.” It is just not a credible site.

    Hansard source

  37. ParliamentGreg Smith

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    Indeed, we heard the Minister and Labour Back Benchers trying to say that this will be cheaper than hotels. Let me tell my hon. Friend and the House what the modelling actually says on the cost of MOD Bicester site A as an asylum camp. If that site persists for five years, the cost will work out at £235.34 per night. If it goes for 10 years, it will be £185.17 per night. The comparator for asylum hotels is £144 a night. The use of MOD Bicester site A is intrinsically incredibly more expensive than using hotels, so this does not offer value to the taxpayer as the Government and the Labour party want us to believe. That is an absolute nonsense that we cannot allow to persist. Of course, from a Government that like to talk about wanting to follow all the rules all the time and so on, they ruled out doing an environmental impact assessment, saying that it was not going to have much of an environmental impact. That is a statutory requirement that anyone wanting to build something should go through. They cannot argue that it will have a minimal environmental impact. There were munition stores on this site, and it is absolutely riddled with asbestos which will be released into the local environment. The wonderful campaign groups—not least “Wrong Plan. Wrong Site.”—have done an incredible amount of work, where they have found rare breeds of bats and newts. I know the Government like to pooh-pooh this, but in reality, the need to pay attention to and do these environmental impact assessments is set down in statute. It is the rules and the law we have, and for the Government to ride roughshod over that is purely unacceptable. I urge the Government to stop, to look at the cost, the environmental impact and the unsuitability of this site on practical grounds, and to withdraw it immediately so that the communities in my constituency, as well as those of our neighbours in Oxfordshire, can breathe once more and live in the peace that they deserve to live in, free from the fear that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) set out in her opening speech, and that we can move on and stop this nonsense.

    Hansard source

  38. ParliamentGraham Stuart

    Underperforming NHS Trusts: Government Oversight

    Last but not least from the Back Benches, I call Adam Dance.

    Hansard source

  39. ParliamentGraham Stuart

    Underperforming NHS Trusts: Government Oversight

    Thanks to the discipline of the speakers so far, there are some extra minutes for the Minister to take interventions if she so chooses.

    Hansard source

  40. ParliamentGraham Stuart

    Underperforming NHS Trusts: Government Oversight

    We will finish at 4.15 pm, so ideally we will allow the wind-up at 4.13 pm.

    Hansard source