Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,578 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

   Inheritance Tax

   I worry that this Labour Government are living in some sort of parallel universe. I met one of my manufacturing businesses in Keighley recently, which employs nearly 250 people. It has already worked out that its business property relief liability over and above the £2.5 million threshold is about £1 million. The advice it received is either to sell plant or machinery to mitigate that liability imposed on it by this Government, or to sell shares in its business. Either way, people are losing control of their business, or losing productivity from having to sell plant or machinery, and that is the result of a choice that has been made by this Labour Government. How can the Minister sit there and describe those as fair choices to the bosses of that business, when up to 250 people are now likely to be exposed to the risk of losing their jobs in my constituency?

   Hansard source
2. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

   Inheritance Tax

   Like all Members of the House, I am sure, I do an incredible amount of outreach with many of the family businesses that we are lucky to represent as constituency MPs, <span id="459" class="column-number" data-column-number="459"></span>from our manufacturers and engineers, to those in our garden centres and breweries, and our hoteliers and farmers. They are telling me constantly that, from the last two Budgets alone, business and operating businesses in this country is difficult. We have seen an increase in employer national insurance, an increase in the minimum wage, and everyone over and above that minimum wage wanting the increased differential. Business rates now apply much more strongly than they ever did under the previous Conservative Government. The Employment Rights Act 2025 effectively now makes it much more challenging for an employer to take on an individual and offer that young person an opportunity. My inbox—like, I am sure, those of many hon. Friends and probably of Labour Members—has been filled with emails from people representing those with disabilities or special educational needs, who are now struggling to get a job because of the Employment Rights Act, which makes it much more difficult. It is challenging. Then, of course, we have the additional issue of the changes to inheritance tax, which impact all family businesses. A huge amount of pressure was rightly put on the Government, initially to increase the threshold, but ultimately in wanting 100% relief for agricultural and business properties. We saw movement from the threshold of £1 million to £2.5 million, and we now have the bizarre scenario that for someone who is married, the threshold will be £5 million—the first time we have ever seen a differential under IHT. The reality of that scenario is stifled investment, because many manufacturing and engineering businesses in my constituency are now saying, “Rather than investing in growth as we wanted to do and had programmed in over the next five or 10 years, we are stopping that. We now have to think about mitigating a tax liability at 20% over and above the £2.5 million, which we were not programming into place.” Ultimately, that is having an impact on growth in my Keighley constituency.

   Hansard source
3. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

   Inheritance Tax

   My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, because that was exactly the narrative that his farmers put to me when I was lucky enough to visit them in Norfolk late last week. If someone is running a family business, the rate of return on their capital might be 1%, but they are lucky if they are getting that. Therefore, there is no return, yet when a valuation of that farm is made on death—not just of the farmland; there might be a farmhouse, a cottage or two, growing crops, stocks in store, machinery and livestock—they are well above that threshold of £2.5 million or £5 million if they are married, and the farming business is then subject to a liability. That is tough, which is why I was so shocked when not one Liberal Democrat MP voted <span id="460" class="column-number" data-column-number="460"></span>against the implementation of the fertiliser tax, which has made it much more difficult for those family farming businesses. Then there was the cliff edge in April 2026, when no real warning was given to many of those family businesses. A cruel cliff edge existed, and as a matter of fact—it gives me no pleasure to say this—lives have been lost as a result of the decisions that this Labour Government have made. There has been suicide recorded in coroner’s reports as a result of this Labour Government’s choices through the implementation of inheritance tax changes.

   Hansard source
4. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

   Inheritance Tax

   That is absolutely right. It is good to see the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) in his place. I hope that he will intervene in the debate and make it clear that he is also advocating for this cruel tax to be scrapped, just as the Conservatives are doing. There is hope when at least one Labour Member is willing to be bold enough to stand up against this Labour Government.

   Hansard source
5. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

   Inheritance Tax

   I also regret the fact that I am talking about that issue. However, many farming representatives, including those from the National Farmers’ Union, the Country Land and Business Association and the Tenant Farmers Association, gave clear warnings to this Government that if the cliff edge associated with this tax became a reality in April 2026, there would be emotional consequences, such as anxiety. I regret that I have raised the matter, but unfortunately it is absolutely the case that suicide has taken place. There will be a moment of hope in two weeks’ time when the Budget comes before the House: the Government could bring in 100% relief of APR and business property relief again. I urge the Government to do so and to listen to those strong calls from the industry. The hon. Gentleman asks where I was during austerity. Well, I have been a Member of Parliament for only six and a bit years. Before that, I was not in this place making any of those decisions. There are also issues around the changes to the implementation of inheritance tax. The first payment of the tax will be due within six months of death, but the <span id="461" class="column-number" data-column-number="461"></span>asset base will first have to be valued, so inevitably there will be challenges. The district valuers do not have the capacity to deal with the level of challenge that will come from those handling the probate valuations that will inevitably have to take place. It worries me that, as the IHT debate has taken place in the House over the past two years, hardly any Labour MPs have stood up and advocated for the manufacturing, engineering and hotelier businesses that, I suspect, employ many of their constituents, providing them with their salaries and with opportunities to continue in a working environment. That worries me because I feel that the narrative has been lost to Labour Members. We have got time before the Budget for that narrative to change, and I firmly stand with the Conservative position that 100% relief for APR and BPR must be put back in place, and I ask the Government to listen and do something about it.

   Hansard source
6. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

   Inheritance Tax

   Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister’s long-term mentor Lord Blunkett, who last month at the Countryside Alliance’s rural reset conference said that the Prime Minister should use his time in the premiership to change the inheritance tax on farms because that was a mistake that the Labour party had made?

   Hansard source
7. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

   Inheritance Tax

   I wonder whether the hon. Lady might like to comment on the fact that from next April pensions will be included in <span id="444" class="column-number" data-column-number="444"></span>what is being described as “inherited wealth”. Does she agree that pensions are not inherited wealth, but money that has been earned and set aside by those doing the right thing? Now there will be a cost to ordinary families when they hand that money down.

   Hansard source
8. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

   Inheritance Tax

   I thank the hon. Member from my neighbouring county for giving way. I think his constituents would be quite shocked at him accusing the Conservatives of being ideological. Where is the aspiration for someone in Austell and this Cornwall constituency to grow those family businesses and to expand their family farms? Ultimately, his constituency is incredibly similar to mine, and I am in no doubt that some of the properties there <span id="458" class="column-number" data-column-number="458"></span>are incredibly expensive but the salaries are not high. I challenge him; his constituents will have heard him say that they are fine with that, and that he is just tackling us from a point of ideology.

   Hansard source
9. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

   Inheritance Tax

   I will follow on from my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), who set out a huge amount of what I will talk about, not least about the constant referral to the wealthy that we have heard in this debate. Frankly, it is offensive to any person out there who is working and, in many cases, not earning very much money, but saving a lot of it and working tirelessly to be able to buy a property, to invest in a business and to do the right thing. Frankly, the one thing that I will take away from this debate is the massive generalisation that anyone we represent is somehow wealthy, and anyone Labour Members represent is somehow not. It is a complete fallacy, and it shows a complete disdain for working people. Indeed, we heard the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) imply that anyone who was not relying solely on the state pension was earning a lot, which is preposterous. Buying a home is the biggest financial commitment that many families will ever make. It involves decades of saving, mortgage repayments and sacrifices along the way. The Conservative pledge to abolish inheritance tax on the family home would ensure that families were not penalised for passing on the home that they had worked so hard to own, often at the expense of doing other things. We know full well that people on benefits are able to get all sorts of discounts. It is the hard-working families across the country who do not go to theme parks at discounted rates, because they are paying a mortgage or, indeed, saving for one in the first place. We will also raise the general inheritance tax allowance to £500,000 per person, or £1 million for a married couple. Crucially, this increased allowance will also benefit those who are unmarried or do not have children. Currently, a single person has an inheritance tax limit of only £325,000, which I think is completely wrong. There are many single people out there who work hard, and who sometimes have money that they have themselves inherited and on which they have also paid tax at multiple points. I hear from single constituents on my patch who are just so frustrated at being expected, time and again, to pay tax in order to pay for everyone else. Our proposal would give them greater freedom to leave more of what they have earned to the people who matter most to them, whether that person is a sibling, a niece or nephew, or another loved one. As I have said, this is not about the very wealthy who already use trusts and other mechanisms to protect their assets. This is about helping normal families who have seen the price of their family home shoot up over the years, tipping them over the threshold for inheritance tax through no fault of their own. Indeed, in my own Conservative constituency—the so-called wealthy area South West Devon—the Plymouth median salary is £36,500 pounds. Plymouth is generally seen as being quite poor, but in the West Devon and South Hams part of my constituency the median salary is between £26,500 and £30,000. These are hardly wealthy people. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) has rightly said, inheritance tax has “become a tax for normal people who live on new build estates, not fancy people who have estates.”<span id="467" class="column-number" data-column-number="467"></span> Just 2.7% of homes were faced with an inheritance tax bill in 2009-10, but that could rise to 8.2% in 2029-30, according to research by Oxford Economics. This issue is particularly relevant in the South Hams part of my constituency, where the average home costs £355,000, the third highest figure in the south-west. In Wembury, Brixton and Newton Ferrers, the median property sold for more than £360,000 in the last year, rising to more than £520,000 for detached homes. In Ivybridge, a property was recently sold for almost £420,000. Many of these properties were bought decades ago for considerably less, yet the basic inheritance tax threshold has remained frozen. Others have already mentioned the pension increase whereby pension funds will be included in inheritance tax calculations. Scrapping inheritance tax on family homes is about strengthening the social contract, which is, in the great words of Edmund Burke, the indivisible bond between those who came before us, those who are here today, and those who will follow. Conservatives want to protect that partnership. We are backing parents who save responsibly and want their children and grandchildren to benefit from the sacrifices that they have made.

   Hansard source
10. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Inheritance Tax

    I think that is called general taxation, and these people have paid that throughout their working lives. Why are we now targeting them at the point at which they die, or indeed inherit money? I just do not think that is a workable opinion, and I deeply disagree. The Conservatives want to protect the social contract. We are backing parents who have saved responsibly, and who want their children and grandchildren to benefit from the sacrifices they have made. As we have heard, that stands in stark contrast to Labour, which is widening the inheritance tax net ever further by sucking in family farms, pensions and family businesses. As Conservatives, we believe that hard work should be rewarded. Families who have done the right thing should be able to pass something on to the next generation.

    Hansard source
11. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Peter Fortune

    Draft Code of Practice on Access and Unfair Practices During the Recognition and Derecognition Process

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. The Conservatives opposed the Employment Rights Act at every stage of its legislative journey and remain steadfastly opposed to that Act, elements of which this code serves to implement. The Employment Rights Act 2025 burdens employers with 330 pages of red tape: the single largest increase in employment regulation in a generation. As a direct result, we have seen reduced hiring, job cuts and huge costs to businesses. Even the Government’s own assessment of the Act admits that it will cost business billions. We are not opposed to the Employment Rights Act because we want to see workers stripped of their rights. We are opposed because of the damage it will do to businesses up and down the country. The code of practice is one piece of a much larger picture but an important one. Before turning to that, I will touch on the consultation that the Minister mentioned. <span id="5" class="column-number" data-column-number="5"></span>Over 920 responses were received to the Government’s consultation, with over 80% of those coming from employers and their representative organisations. On the proposals to increase the frequency of access meetings from once every 10 working days to once every five, 98% of the respondents disagreed. Some 97% of respondents disagreed with the proposal to increase the minimum meeting duration from 30 minutes to 45 minutes. When asked if the code adequately reflects digital communication in the workplace, 94% said no. On the question of whether the code adequately explains the role of the CAC, 96% said no. When asked if section D of the code provides sufficient guidance on access arrangements, 97% said no. Finally, some 96% said that the code’s unfair practices guidance was insufficient. The consultation on the code of practice is damning. On virtually every substantive question put to the consultation respondents, the overwhelming majority of them expressed concern or disagreement, or called for a significant revision. The Minister has said that the Government listened and made amendments. I will be fair and acknowledge that some clarifications have been made, particularly on digital access. That is welcome, but on the issues that matter most to small and medium-sized businesses, the Government have noted the near-unanimous concerns of the consultation responses and chosen to disregard those concerns and force the code through against that advice. On the duration and frequency of access meetings, I would appreciate if the Minister would outline why the overwhelming view of the consultation respondents has been ignored. Will the Minister also outline if any assessment has been made of the extra costs that employers will incur in facilitating the increased frequency of access meetings? The consultation response makes clear that the majority of respondents—57%—were from relatively small organisations of between 10 and 49 staff. Those are not large corporations with dedicated human resources and legal teams. For many businesses the code will put serious demands on time and limited resources. On unfair practice complaints, the code makes significant shifts. The CAC will now be able to uphold unfair practice complaints without the need to show that the practice actually affected the outcome of the ballot. We recognise that the old test may have been difficult to satisfy in the time allowed, and that did lead to some genuine complaints falling, but does the Minister not think that removing the need to prove an impact on the result of the ballot risks opening the door to vexatious claims to disrupt the process? Will the Minister outline if any safeguards are in place to prevent that? Another significant issue is that it is still unclear to many employers what constitutes unfair practice. In the consultation, employers consistently raised their concerns about the lack of clear examples and case studies of what constitutes an unfair practice and about the uncertainty that lack creates. The Government’s response stated that it was not appropriate to include examples in the code because it is the CAC’s role to make judgments on a case-by-case basis. Surely some basic examples could be provided to employers. Will the Minister outline now what an unfair practice is? The Conservative party will continue to make the case for balanced employment rights that protect workers without unduly punishing the businesses that employ <span id="6" class="column-number" data-column-number="6"></span>them. The code of practice fails to do that. It creates even more uncertainty for businesses and makes employing people even harder than the Employment Rights Act already made it. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s responses to my questions, but I am afraid that we cannot support this code of practice.

    Hansard source
12. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Peter Fortune

    Engagements

    It has been 43 days since the Prime Minister received a letter signed by all Opposition parties expressing support for the Lobular Moon Shot Project, which seeks funding to fight the insidious disease that is lobular breast cancer. Sadly, no response has been received. When the Prime Minister was the Mayor of Greater Manchester, he committed to supporting the Lobular Moon Shot Project. Will he reaffirm that commitment from the Dispatch Box?

    Hansard source
13. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Peter Fortune

    Inheritance Tax

    You cannot tax your way to prosperity—that is something that I, as a Conservative, believe. Not only do I believe it, but it has been demonstrated time and again in countries across the globe. When this Government first entered office, under the previous Prime Minister, we were told that one of their central focuses would be to go for growth. We all know that Governments cannot conjure growth out of thin air. It is the Government’s job to create the right environment for businesses big and small to drive growth, but this Government spent their first period in office piling cost after cost on to British businesses, including through the national insurance increase and the Employment Rights Act 2025, delivering a regulatory burden that keeps growing. Take pubs, for example, which have been some of the businesses hardest hit by this Government. Since 2023, we have seen nearly 700 pubs close. In my own constituency of Bromley and Biggin Hill, we have been lucky to retain the number of pubs that we have—that is through no inconsiderable effort by myself.

    Hansard source
14. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Peter Fortune

    Inheritance Tax

    Labour Members are proving once again that they are desperate to talk about the past because they have no plan for the future. Talking about the pubs in my constituency, we have seen a significant decrease in the number of people employed by them. The British Beer &amp; Pub Association estimates that in Bromley and Biggin Hill, we have gone from around 1,150 people employed in pubs in 2023 to around 800 now. That reduction seems to have hit young people the hardest, with the number of 16 to 24-year-olds employed in the industry down by 200—half the figure in 2023. Nationally, we have seen total gross value added from pubs and breweries fall from £47 billion in 2023 to £30.8 billion, and the Government’s tax take fall from £17 billion to £3.2 billion. Higher taxation and regulation are strangling an industry and leaving the Government with less money in the end.

    Hansard source
15. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Peter Fortune

    Inheritance Tax

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right: you tax something to stop it happening, and if you tax jobs, they stop being created.

    Hansard source
16. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Peter Fortune

    Inheritance Tax

    The hon. Gentleman is being too generous: he plays cricket; I sort of stand there and get hit by the ball. One has to look at taxation in the round, and if we look at the impact of things like the national insurance costs, we can see that it is getting more and more difficult for businesses to survive on the high street. If we want to see economic growth that will strengthen our local communities, strengthen high streets and deliver real opportunities for young people, we need a fundamental change in approach. That fundamentally different approach was outlined perfectly by the Leader of the Opposition and the rest of the shadow Cabinet in Birmingham last week. It is absolutely right that people should be able to leave assets such as family farms, businesses and homes to their direct descendants without being taxed. I warmly welcome our plans to abolish inheritance tax on family homes, rewarding a lifetime of hard work instead of punishing those who have scrimped and saved their whole life. Halving employer national insurance for those aged 21 to 24 is exactly the bold policy we need to get young people back into work. Bill Perera, a McDonald’s franchisee in my constituency, has highlighted the employer national insurance increase as the very reason he is struggling to employ more young people. Halving it will greatly assist the hospitality and leisure businesses that give many people their first job. We know the need to tackle the unsustainable welfare budget, and our savings plan will save £71 billion by doing exactly that. This will allow us to pay for our commitments, such as 3% on defence spending by 2030, while reducing the deficit by £35.5 billion against 2029-30 forecasts. The distinction between the Opposition and the Government could not be clearer. We are setting out a comprehensive plan to get our country back to work, grow the economy and make our communities stronger. The Government have no real plan, and they have floundered in their first few years in office and failed to deliver. The next Conservative Government will deliver. They will deliver a stronger economy and a stronger country.

    Hansard source
17. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Inheritance Tax

    The hon. Lady is making an excellent case for her leadership campaign. If the Liberal Democrats got into government and put these policies forward, does she believe that the leader of the Liberal Democrats would be there to do it?

    Hansard source
18. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Inheritance Tax

    In the hon. Lady’s view, what would be the greatest thing to increase growth and business growth in this country? Would it be rejoining the European Union, or would it be halving national insurance contributions by businesses for people aged 18 to 24?

    Hansard source
19. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Inheritance Tax

    The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Government’s pledge to reduce energy bills. When he stood at the election, did he exalt the policy of reducing <span id="456" class="column-number" data-column-number="456"></span>energy bills by £300 that was put forward by the former Prime Minister? Now that that has been reduced to £45, has he apologised for the bit that he has not delivered on?

    Hansard source
20. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Patrick Spencer

    Inheritance Tax

    Where is the fairness in rightly reducing an earning couple’s tax bill over time so that they can accrue capital and buy a house, only for it to be taxed when they want to leave it to their children?

    Hansard source
21. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Patrick Spencer

    Inheritance Tax

    If it is okay with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am going to approach this debate in two sections. First, let me paint a picture of the reality faced by residents in my constituency. I am blessed to represent a constituency that has everything—yes, rural communities made up of farms large and small, but also towns populated with small and medium-sized independent businesses that hon. Members should visit, such as Simpson’s Sweets and Bulstrodes of Framlingham, Luxmoore of Framsden, Buckle Shipping of Blakenham, the Lion pub of Debenham and Milsoms of Kesgrave. Many of those businesses are family owned and run, <span id="442" class="column-number" data-column-number="442"></span>and many of those family businesses are made up of parents working with children, nephews, nieces, brothers, sisters and even grandchildren. There is a palpable love and passion among family members working for something that their parents, uncles and grandparents built. There is care for customers and a profound camaraderie among team members that is so hard to replicate. These businesses are not just great places to work; they provide world-beating products and services. Dingley Dell in my constituency sells pork products—<em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> It is a real place. It sells products to the Oberoi Hotel in New Delhi.

    Hansard source
22. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Patrick Spencer

    Inheritance Tax

    I am happy to report that the black Labrador population of Suffolk is thriving. SEERS Medical in Debenham sells medical equipment around the world. Such businesses are invaluable to our economy and society. They not only provide jobs, but pay their taxes, which supports critical public services. We need businesses to boost productivity and to supercharge social mobility. For so many of my local businesses, there is an unquestionable sadness that the current Government seek to penalise them for wanting to keep a business in the family. That cannot be truer for families of farmers who have tended to land for generations, waking up early and dedicating unimaginable hours, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. Now they are told that they have to give that up, because this Prime Minister does not have the temerity to get to grips with the welfare budget and because this Labour regime cannot bring itself to stand up to the civil service unions that want to work four days a week for more pay. Yes, everyone heard that right: this Government want to tax the farmers and the entrepreneurs who work seven days a week so that civil servants in London can work four days a week. The Labour party was founded to protect workers’ rights, but workers in my constituency feel abandoned by this Government. The iniquity of this social and economic contract negates the utter lunacy that seems to govern the Government’s approach to our public finances. I would welcome anyone in this Chamber, or anyone in this country, making a reasonable argument that public spending in its current form, with interest rates at record levels and rising, is sustainable. We have a debt-to-GDP ratio of approximately 100%, with £3 trillion in debt outstanding. We borrowed more than £134 billion last year alone. As a percentage of GDP, we spend as much now as we did at the height of the global financial crisis when we were bailing out banks, and as much as we did during the mid-1970s. By complete coincidence, that was the last time we had a proper left-wing Government like this one in place. How many warnings from the International Monetary Fund do we have to put up with until the Government suddenly take note and realise that they cannot borrow and spend their way out of a crisis? In June 2026, September 2026 and just earlier this week, international economists have said enough is enough.

    Hansard source
23. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Patrick Spencer

    Inheritance Tax

    I will not. The Government have a chance to U-turn. It is a move with which they are now all too familiar. They should show some gumption and cut welfare, grow a backbone and not let the slackers in Whitehall get away with a four-day working week. The Government should cut taxes on the productive half of our economy, allowing businesses and families to pass the homes that they worked and saved for on to their children. The Prime Minister loves a football analogy. This is the biggest open goal he will ever face in his career. He should do the right thing: cut taxes, cut spending and support businesses.

    Hansard source
24. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    I inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected any amendments.

    Hansard source
25. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    Order. There is one person speaking at this moment, and that is the only voice I wish to hear.

    Hansard source
26. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    Order. Because this is going to be a long debate, I must say that we should be hearing no “you” or “yours”.

    Hansard source
27. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    I call the Minister.

    Hansard source
28. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    Unfortunately, the Front Bench speeches went on for quite some time, so Back Benchers will begin with a six-minute speaking limit. I call on the Liberal Democrat spokesperson also to respect the amount of time that we have for the debate.<span id="388" class="column-number" data-column-number="388"></span>

    Hansard source
29. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    Order. Ten minutes is a guide, not a target that the hon. Gentleman has to reach.

    Hansard source
30. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    Order. Back Benchers are on a speaking limit of six minutes.

    Hansard source
31. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    We have had so many interventions that I am going to have to drop the time limit on Back-Bench speeches to five minutes.

    Hansard source
32. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    I think that is a no—the right hon. and learned Lady has finished her speech.

    Hansard source
33. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    I thank the right hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. Given that he is so experienced, I assume that, within protocol, he has <span id="404" class="column-number" data-column-number="404"></span>also mentioned to the Prime Minister that he was going to raise this matter—or I will accept that as something he will be doing incredibly quickly. The content of Ministers’ speeches and answers are not a matter for the Chair, but those on the Treasury Front Bench will have heard that point; I am sure that they will do everything they can to make sure that it gets to where it should, and that the appropriate action is taken. The right hon. Member can, of course, take more advice from the Clerks if needed.

    Hansard source
34. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    I am afraid that we have further time constraints. Back Benchers are now on four minutes—and, Mr Jopp, I do not wish to hear you speaking from a sedentary position.<span id="406" class="column-number" data-column-number="406"></span>

    Hansard source
35. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    I call the Father of the House.

    Hansard source
36. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    Order. Sir John Hayes and Sir Julian Lewis, is everybody calm or does anybody need to leave the Chamber? I call Pete Wishart.

    Hansard source
37. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    Order. I call Shivani Raja.

    Hansard source
38. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    Order.

    Hansard source
39. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    Order. Nor will you give way to a Member who has just come into the Chamber.

    Hansard source
40. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

    I call the shadow Home Secretary.

    Hansard source