5,804 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
My hon. Friend is making an important speech. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) talked earlier about the five cities-worth of people being brought into the country. What that essentially means is that we have to build five more cities to accommodate them. Has that not increased house prices and, in fact, made many young people poorer and meant they find it more difficult to get on the housing ladder?
I am, as always, listening carefully to what the Minister has to say. Has she been listening to the National Crime Agency? It has said clearly that although many of the things she has outlined are important, her list is nevertheless missing one thing: deterrence. Will she explain where deterrence features in her measures?
4. What steps he is taking to ensure adequate legal protections for veterans who served in Northern Ireland during the troubles.
Seven hundred and twenty-two of our soldiers were killed by paramilitary murderers during the troubles. Not one of those deaths will be revisited. Because of the current circumstances, however, hundreds of brave men—who, as the Secretary of State says, served their country with honour, patriotism and integrity—face a sword of Damocles of politically motivated trials hanging over them. I can think of no better example of two-tier justice. Whatever the Government do, they have to take that away, and do so in a way that cannot be circumvented by clever, politically motivated lawyers. Will he give the House an undertaking that he will do that?
It is a pleasure to join this lively debate. Small businesses are the backbone of the economy in my constituency. In fact, 99.9% of businesses in East Hampshire are small or medium-sized enterprises. We over-index in professional services, retail, information and communications, and, of course, agriculture. [Interruption.] I thought there were few Labour Members present before I stood to speak! The biggest sectors for employment are retail, health and care, and manufacturing. [Interruption.] I am starting to get a complex! I have heard from all those sectors, which are worried about the prospects for their businesses and the economy under this Government. We must always remember two things about business. First, contrary to what the hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) said—he is no longer in his place but I know he will return—only business can create the wealth and jobs, make the livelihoods and generate the tax that, in turn, makes the high-quality and brilliant public services that we all so value and on which we rely. There is a second thing that we should always remember about business, and I encourage Ministers to remember it. Accountants talk about the entity principle and describe a business as an entity that is separate from the people who run it. That might be true in an accounting sense, but in a broader sense, businesses are people. They are collections of people coming together to achieve something. The joint stock company was created to share risk among different people, and the way that organisations work within companies is a way of increasing efficiency and productivity, compared with everybody doing their own thing as a sole trader. So, because businesses are ultimately people, there is ultimately no such thing as a tax on a business. Taxes can only ever fall on people. A so-called business tax falls on one or more of three groups of people: the business’s customers, the business’s employees or the business’s owners.
The hon. Lady makes a good point about small businesses, particularly rural small businesses, and I will talk about national insurance contributions and business rates, but let me come back to how taxes on businesses are ultimately taxes on people. Some Labour Members might say that they do not mind a tax on business owners, because they are the capitalists and they can afford it, but we need to remember that the owners of businesses are a mixture of institutional owners—which, by the way, includes your mum’s pension fund—small business owners, who are quite often sole traders, and family businesses. If the owners are not affected, either the customers or the employees will be affected, and I am afraid the effect of the national insurance contributions rise will ultimately be felt by those two groups of people, and particularly by employees, through a mixture of wage suppression over time and possibly some job losses. The bigger effect will not be about job losses; it will be about jobs that are never created in the first place, particularly among the youngest people and those furthest from the labour market.
It will, and I repeat that it can only be one of those three groups. There will be some price increases, and those costs will be felt by customers and consumers, but all the indications are that the big effects will be felt in wage suppression and in employment, which will ultimately mean slower economic growth. In the same way that taxes on business ultimately land on people, taxes that look like they are on people can sometimes have an effect on business. I want to talk briefly about two examples. The first is the family farm tax. This is clearly a desperately ill-conceived measure, although, to be fair to Labour Ministers, they probably did not realise at the time quite what they were doing. However, their Members of Parliament representing rural seats found out very quickly exactly what they were doing and the effect it would have. There is an alternative proposal on the table, which we know has been put to the Treasury by representatives of the sector. As this brilliant Treasury Minister the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell) will be winding up, I am sure—at least I hope—he will find it possible to share with the House the Treasury’s critique of that alternative proposal, the so-called clawback proposal, which would be much fairer, and tell us why the Government are rejecting it. There has been quite a lot of debate in the House on the family farm tax, but somewhat less on the business property relief situation, which is not quite as acute in some ways, but there are a number of parallels and similarities. Business property relief was put in place to level the playing field for family-owned businesses and others, so that people could invest in their family-owned businesses, confident that they could pass it on, within the family, without incurring a tax that applies to no other business ownership model. Typically, these businesses will not have large amounts of net cash or liquid assets that will allow them to settle the tax bill upon the demise of the owner, and there are no listed shares, so there is typically no market for those. There has to be a theoretical valuation, because the shares cannot be valued, and that figure is likely to be considerably higher than the amount that could be realised in the event of a sale. The relief was created specifically to stop family firms having to be broken up; however, the net effect of the changes is that a substantial number of firms in this situation will be bought up, either in whole or in part, by foreign owners or private equity. Is that really what a new Labour Government had in mind?
Forgive me, but I do not have the history at my fingertips. The relief has been recognised over the years, and has been looked at in the past by Treasury officials. I have been a Treasury Minister, and I know that they get presented with various things that could be done, but generally speaking, when many Ministers before you have found good reasons to keep a measure, it is a good idea to wonder what those reasons might be. Overall, this Government’s changes to the business taxation regime will affect many sectors, but particularly those that are labour intensive. We can all name hospitality, retail and care as the three really big-volume employers in the country. In my constituency, I would also mention nurseries, pubs and hair and beauty businesses. Of course, there are sector-specific pressures. For nurseries, for example, the issue is whether the unit rate per child per hour is sufficient. Many of my nurseries say that it is simply not sufficient to cover their costs, at a time when entitlement to nursery care is increasing. In the hair sector, there has long been an issue about those who have created a business that has employees, and their ability to compete with others who are below the VAT threshold. The confluence of four things that the new Government have done is creating a big headache. First of all, the national living wage going up to £12.21 is a good thing in and of itself. We absolutely support a rise in wages for people on lower wages; it is the fact that it is happening at the same time as all the other things that is causing the problem. I will not talk in detail about the national insurance contributions increase, because others have done so, but that will have an effect, particularly on part-time employees, and the Government ought also to acknowledge the gender differential effect of that, which we have heard little about. Today I have heard two Labour MPs say that business rates have gone down for retail and hospitality businesses. One was the Minister. Try telling that to those businesses—
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is going to tell me that he has told that to his local retailers and pubs.
I shall suitably dampen. At a time when the Government are changing the relief from 75% to 40%, try telling those businesses already facing the national insurance contributions increase and all the other cost increases that their bill is being reduced. Clearly, it is going up.
I am conscious that I have gone on for quite a while, and I want to wind up. Fourthly, there is the Employment Rights Bill. On the face of it, who would not like something with that name? It sounds like a positive thing, but the point is the effect that it will have, particularly on seasonal businesses, which might otherwise take somebody on at Christmas or in the summer. Hospitality, travel and events businesses rely on doing that. The Bill will affect the national health service, which will have to deal for the first time with some of those considerations. It turns out that the national health service is a considerable user of zero-hour contracts—by the way, not for someone’s first job, but usually for their second—so that staffing can vary according to the demands of a hospital or clinic. The Minister is a labour—and a Labour—economist, so I would be interested to hear his comments on the shift that we are likely to see from permanent to temporary contracts, and the shift that we are already starting to see in companies that are moving from relying on contracted, salaried employees to relying on agency workers.
Forgive me; I will not. Finally, there is the effect that the measures will have on the removal of job opportunities for those further from the labour market—perhaps those who have been out of work for a long time; ex-offenders, who it feels like more of a risk for an employer to take on; and, most of all, young people. That is the concern with this package of measures: the effect on unemployment, especially youth unemployment. Today we heard the Government make the first of what I hope is a series of U-turns over the winter fuel payment. I ask the Government to look at what is happening, and what will happen to our small businesses and the unemployment statistics, and to please think again.
My hon. Friend is so popular. I am interested by how he is starting this debate, because it chimes with what I am hearing in my constituency, where venues such as pubs, restaurants and cafes, which are such a vital part of the effort to regenerate our high streets and local community spaces, are seeing their margins slashed because of the cost of labour and the increase in business rates. Does he agree that Labour’s jobs tax and the ending of business rates relief is putting the regeneration of our town centres and community spaces at risk?
May I just take my hon. Friend back to what he was saying a moment ago about opportunities for young people? I recently met hair and beauty salons in my constituency. As he knows, they have historically been the most amazing employers of apprentices and have given such wonderful chances to young people. I was worried to hear that the rate at which they are taking on apprentices is dropping off. By 2027, there will be no apprentices left in the sector. It is not just hair and beauty saying that; other sectors in my constituency, such as adult social care and early years education, are saying the same. Is he as worried as I am about the lack of opportunities for our younger generation?
I beg to move, That this House regrets that there have been a record-breaking number of small boat crossings, amounting to over 12,000 this year alone and a lack of action from the Government to tackle this; further regrets that the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill scraps the Government’s ability to remove illegal immigrants to a safe third country, designed as an effective deterrent; and calls on the Government to support the Immigration and Visas Bill introduced by the Shadow Home Secretary, which will prevent foreign nationals, including rape gang perpetrators, from exploiting the courts with spurious human rights claims to avoid deportation, double the residency requirement for Indefinite Leave to Remain and ensure that those who have become a burden can be removed, introduce tighter visa rules for civil partners, allow deportation of all foreign national offenders, and introduce a binding cap on migration, to be set by a vote in Parliament. For decades, the British people have demanded and politicians have promised dramatically lower immigration. For decades, successive Governments, including the last one, have failed to deliver that. That failure over decades has undermined faith and trust in democracy itself, and it is now time to end that failure and deliver what the public want. That is why we have tabled the Immigration and Visas Bill, which presents a serious, credible plan to fix immigration issues. According to Ipsos last week, 67% of the British public think that immigration is too high. The British public are right. There are around 11 million foreign-born people in the UK, and for too long immigration numbers have been far too high. Immigration at that level has serious consequences. Some 48% of social housing in London has a head of household who was not born in the UK. In the last 10 years, migration has absorbed around 50% of new housing supply, and some nationalities are exceptionally dependent on social housing—for example, 72% of Somalis live in social housing compared with only 16% of the population more generally.
I will talk a bit in a moment about the record of the last Government, but I have already said that for decades, under successive Governments—including the last one, but previous ones, too—immigration has been far too high. That is a failure by Governments over a period of decades, and it is now time to listen to the British people and put that right. High levels of immigration, especially when there is not proper integration, undermine social cohesion. A nation state and a society cannot function properly when there are fractures in social cohesion.
I will give way in a minute. In advancing the case that we have a problem with social cohesion and a lack of integration, I will present some evidence—it is not an assertion—in support of that. The most recent census revealed that a million of our fellow citizens do not speak English at all or properly. In one part of east London, 73% of children do not speak English as their first language. Some nationalities have extremely low rates of economic activity or very high rates of economic inactivity. For example, among people born in the middle east and north Africa, economic inactivity rates are 40%. That is double the rate for people born in the UK. Among people born in south and east Asia, the economic inactivity rate is 50% higher than it is for people born in the UK. By contrast, the economic inactivity rate for those born in Australia or New Zealand is only half the level of the UK-born population. I am afraid to say that when it comes to crime and offending, there are some immigrant groups where levels of criminality are very high. For example, Afghans are 20 times more likely to commit sex offences than average. People of Congolese origin are 12 times more likely to commit violence, and Algerians are 18 times more likely to commit theft.
I will give way in just a moment. These figures illustrate that we have a problem with integration, and that is why we need to get these numbers dramatically down, until such time as we can address these issues. Let me turn to the economy, because it has long been thought that net migration is an unalloyed economic good. Indeed, that is one reason why successive Governments of both colours over some decades allowed immigration to get so high and to stay too high. [Interruption.] Both Governments, over many decades. Recent analysis, however, has shown that that belief is simply not true. Office for Budget Responsibility analysis last year showed for the first time that low-wage migration costs the Exchequer money. It is not a net contributor, but a net draw on the Exchequer. It costs other taxpayers money at low-wage levels, particularly where there are large numbers of dependants. It has reduced per capita GDP, which affects the level of affluence enjoyed by the population, and it is one reason that productivity in our economy has flatlined for so long. Businesses have reached for mass low-skill migration instead of investing in technology or automation, or simply becoming more productive. That has all happened while 9 million of our fellow citizens of working age remain economically inactive. Many of those have caring responsibilities, some genuinely cannot work and others are studying, but many of those 9 million—likely more than half—could and in my view should be in the workforce, instead of large numbers of low-wage, low-skilled migrants being imported. It is time for a different approach. We need to end the era of mass low-skilled migration and instead focus on small numbers of very high-skilled workers who should be welcomed. We need to invest more in technology and we need to get more UK residents of working age into work, including by investing in training and by reforming the welfare system. I think somebody wanted to intervene, so I will give way.
I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was listening very carefully. I expressly said that highly skilled migrants do make a contribution and should be welcomed, and when I referred to issues involving social housing, economic inactivity and criminality, I was reading out facts. I was reading out census data published by the Office for National Statistics. Those are facts. The right hon. Gentleman may not like the facts, but they are facts none the less. [Interruption.]
I think he should do that, because the British public have expressed very clear views on this issue, and if we cannot, in this House of all places, lay out the facts—published data—as a way of having an honest debate about it, I do not know where we have got to. That kind of shouting down, saying that it is somehow beyond the pale to discuss these facts, is precisely why we ended up in this mess in the first place. Let me come on to some of the steps taken late in the time of the last Government—[Hon. Members: “Too late!”] Yes, they were too late: that is right. Those steps took effect in April 2023 and April 2024, and they included preventing social care workers and students from bringing dependants, and raising various salary thresholds. The official forecasts published by bodies such as the Office for National Statistics and the Office for Budget Responsibility show that, thanks to those measures, net migration is likely to fall by 500,000 compared to the peak—and those measures are already having an effect. If Members compare the number of visas issued in the second half of last year with the number in the second half of 2022, they will see a 76% reduction in the number of social care visas, a 21% reduction in the number of student visas, an 89% reduction in the number of student dependant visas, and a 45% reduction in the number of skilled worker visas; many of those people were not, in fact, skilled. The truth is, however, that we need to go further, and the White Paper published last Monday does not go far enough. On the Laura Kuenssberg programme, on the Sunday before last, the Home Secretary said that the Government’s measures would have an impact of only 50,000 on net migration, whereas the number accompanying the White Paper was 100,000. Whichever number we take, however, it represents only between one tenth and one fifth of the impact of the measures taken by the last Government. That simply does not go far enough.
I am going to make some progress. I have a question for the Immigration Minister. She is welcome to intervene if she wishes to do so, or else respond in her speech. The last Government set out a plan to increase the salary threshold for family visas to £38,000, which was due to take effect on 1 April this year, just seven or eight weeks ago. The new Government suspended that measure, which will obviously have the effect of increasing immigration. Will the Government implement the increase in the threshold, as set out by the last Government? As I have said, the measures in the White Paper go nowhere near far enough, whereas we have delivered a detailed plan.
Yes, I am. It could create an enormous new loophole. There are potentially around 60 million people eligible for that visa route, and we have no idea at all of the cap. A couple of days ago, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister what a numerical cap might be. Characteristically, he did not answer the question. There is no answer to the question of whether people coming over on the scheme could claim benefits, and no answer to whether they could bring dependants. Some European countries grant citizenship to illegal immigrants just three years after they get asylum, and they would be eligible to come as well. It seems to me that this route could create an enormous loophole in our asylum system.
I intend to talk about both. I have been talking about legal migration, and I will come to illegal migration in a moment. The hon. Gentleman raises our Immigration and Visas Bill, and one of its measures speaks directly to the question of legal migration. The numbers have been far too high for decades, and the only way that this democratically elected House can get a handle on this issue is by having an annual binding vote in Parliament to set a cap on the level of legal migration. When the cap has been reached and the agreed number of visas has been issued, the Government would simply stop issuing any new visas. Never again would we see a situation where migration numbers end up being far higher than expected, because this democratically elected House would decide. The system would be transparent and open, and the level could be set at a number that is far, far lower than anything we have seen in recent history. But when we put that in an amendment to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill last Monday, the Labour party voted against the measure, which would at last give Parliament powers to limit inward migration. I call on the Government to think again and to support our Immigration and Visas Bill, which would provide Parliament with those powers. Let me turn to the question of illegal migration, because the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) has invited me to do so, and it would be churlish not to respond to an invitation of that kind. The main mode of illegal immigration into this country—it is not the only one—is in small boats crossing the channel. First, there is no reason at all for anyone, no matter their circumstances, to cross into the UK by small boat from France, because France is a safe country. France has a well-functioning asylum system, and there is no war going on there. No one is being persecuted in France, and people do not need to get into a rubber dinghy to flee from Calais. Not a single one of the people coming across need to do so for reasons of fleeing persecution, and they should claim asylum in France. The Government’s record in this area is lamentable. When they came into office last July, they cancelled the Rwanda scheme before it even started. Amendment (b), in the name of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, is grossly misleading. It describes the Rwanda scheme as being “in force”, but the scheme was never in force. It was not due to start until 24 July, so the amendment is deeply misleading. Last July, the new Government set out their alternative plan, which was to “smash the gangs”. How is that going? Well, since the election, about 37,000 people have illegally crossed the channel—a 30% increase on the figure for the same period 12 months prior.
Let me just make this point. This year has been the worst in history for illegal channel crossings. Today, an observer has counted 820 illegal immigrants arriving in Dover, which will make this the worst day of the year so far. The plan to smash the gangs is in tatters and is not working. Far from closing down asylum hotels, as the Government promised to do, they are opening them up. As of 31 December, there were 8,000 more asylum hotels than there were a year before.
Yes, of course I would. A number of people have tragically lost their lives crossing the channel, and that is precisely why we need to stop these crossings entirely, as Australia did about 10 years ago. If we can stop the crossings entirely, lives will not be put needlessly at risk and we can avoid tragedy.
No, I do not accept that. First, every single person getting on one of those boats is able to claim asylum in France, and they do not need to get into one of those boats to claim asylum in the UK. Secondly, unless every single person that wants to come to the UK is given a safe and legal route, those people who are not given a place on what would presumably be a capped scheme would none the less try to cross by small boat. So the idea that that is a solution to small boat crossings is manifestly absurd. There are of course safe and legal routes. Some were set up for specific purposes, such as the Ukrainian scheme, the British national overseas scheme, the UK resettlement scheme that saw 25,000 people from Syria resettled here, the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme and the Afghan relocations and assistance policy for Afghanistan, and the refugee family reunion route. There are plenty of safe and legal routes, and as I say, unless every single person who wants to come here is given a safe and legal route, there will still be illegal crossings, which are anyway unnecessary because France is safe and people are able to claim asylum there.
I will make some progress. The Government’s amendment makes reference to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, and the obvious truth is that their Bill will not make a great deal of difference. It creates a Border Security Commander. I know Martin Hewitt and I have every respect for him, but the Border Security Commander has no powers. All the Bill provides are functions, and those functions include preparing an annual report and publishing a strategic priority document. With all due respect to the immigration Minister, I do not think the people smugglers will be very concerned by an annual report or a strategic priority document. The so-called counter-terror-style powers in the Bill amount to confiscating mobile phones and using slightly enhanced surveillance tactics on the criminal gangs. This is a tiny step in the right direction, but the truth is that it will make no difference. As the National Crime Agency has said, law enforcement alone will not fix this problem, because if we dismantle one gang, another will simply pop up in its place. That is what the National Crime Agency assessed a year or two ago. We do know what worked in Australia, which had an even bigger problem than us about 10 years ago, with about 50,000 people crossing to Australia. It set up Operation Sovereign Borders, which entailed a removals deterrent, and they used Nauru rather than Rwanda. In a few months, after only a few thousand people had been removed there, the illegal maritime crossings to Australia stopped entirely. The number went down to zero because the deterrent effect meant that people in Indonesia did not even attempt the crossing in the first place, and because those crossings were stopped, hundreds and hundreds of lives were saved. So it is clear to me that we need a removals deterrent, like Rwanda, to prevent these crossings.
Yes, I completely agree, and I commend my hon. Friend for going to look at the facilities there. Had that scheme been started as intended, on 24 July, the deterrent effect would by now have stopped these crossings. In fact, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees sends people to Rwanda, so it is clearly good enough for them. Other countries, including Germany, are now looking at removals deterrents. It is clear that the Government should restart a proper removals deterrent, and I urge them to do so urgently. We have presented a Bill to this House which contains serious and credible measures to limit legal migration, to take action against illegal migration and to ensure people with no right to be here are removed, including foreign national offenders. One of the most important measures is to repeal the Human Rights Act in relation to immigration matters, because over the years UK judges in the immigration tribunal have adopted evermore expansive definitions of ECHR articles to allow dangerous foreign criminals to remain in this country. There are thousands of examples of the definitions of the articles—not just article 8, but article 3 as well—being stretched and stretched over the years beyond any definition of common sense, and certainly beyond anything contemplated by the framers of the ECHR 70 or so years ago. That is why the Human Rights Act must be repealed so that Parliament decides the rules, not judges applying expansive interpretations. I will give just one example. There was a Zimbabwean paedophile who failed to be deported back to Zimbabwe. A judge—I think using article 3, not article 8—said no, the paedophile could not be sent back to Zimbabwe in case he faced some hostility back in Zimbabwe. What about the rights of children in the United Kingdom to be protected from paedophiles? What about the rights of British citizens to be protected from foreign national offenders? That is why we need to repeal the Human Rights Act in relation to immigration matters. That is why it is in our Bill, and I call on the Government to support it. It is time to deliver what the British public want. The Opposition have developed a credible and detailed Bill to do that. I call on the Government, if they are serious, to support it.
The hon. Lady should correct the record. I never had ministerial responsibility for legal migration, so I would be grateful if she withdrew that.
Before I call the Lib Dem spokesperson, I wish to make it clear that there will be a five-minute time limit for Back-Bench speeches.
Order. The hon. Gentleman did rather incite me to get to my feet, and I am somewhat stunned at his allegation that I have played any part in this.
I know the hon. Member was about to conclude, but it is notable that she decided not to talk about hospitality, leisure and retail businesses, private schools or all sorts of other industries in her constituency. Businesses talking to me are deeply worried about the policies of this Government. Will she reflect on the impact on smaller businesses in retail and hospitality?
I am being closely supervised by the Whips, as I have been told to keep this speech quite short, so there will be no 25 minutes from me. Hard-working British people are losing their jobs. Is it any wonder when every policy that this Government announce seems designed to make it harder for British people to do the right thing—create jobs and grow our economy. We have a tax on job creation; billions of pounds in extra costs through the Employment Rights Bill; and a family business tax, which pushes entrepreneurs and job creators elsewhere. We cannot grow an economy through sheer force of will alone; we need to give the people who build the businesses that employ the workers who power the economy the best possible environment in which to thrive. We have seen what happens to hard-working people under this Government in my constituency of Mid Bedfordshire. Constituents who were part of a 120-year proud manufacturing history at the Stellantis plant in Luton now find themselves out of work, just a few months after the imposition of this Government’s policies. Hard-working publicans in my constituency are now, sadly, closing their doors, because higher costs and crippling regulatory burdens are being applied by this Government. I note that not many Members have spoken about pubs, but they are an essential part to many of our communities, and pubs in my community are closing their doors. That means fewer opportunities for younger people to get their first job in our rural areas, which was exactly my experience growing up in north-west Hampshire. There will be less money for our local farmers and producers in the supply chain, damaging our rural economy, and it means the heart of two rural communities in my constituency being ripped out. This is happening up and down the country, with UKHospitality confirming that 70% of hospitality businesses expect to reduce employment and that one in seven are planning to close at least one site. Worst of all, this Government’s economic policy is hammering our hospices and charities. Conservative Members have spoken passionately not just today but in previous months about the importance of this sector. Hospices and charities have relied on the British public’s unending good will and generosity to keep going through some tough years over the pandemic, but they can no longer rely on the good will of their Government. The only jobs that seem to be safe from Labour’s tax hikes are in the new quangos being rapidly established to run our energy, railways and the rest of our country—all while the Government announce review after review into who is spending all their money. I said that I would keep my speech short, so I will wind up. The tax rises that we all know are coming to pay for the expanding state and the debt that the Government are now running up will strangle any meagre growth that they plan to nurture. Their plans for growth are a mirage. Huge Government spending will only supplant private investment. We have not spoken about it today, but the National Wealth Fund investment will not create any wealth. So far, the average National Wealth Fund investment since July 2024 has cost nearly £1.5 million per job created. It is a sad state of affairs. This Government talk up their plans for growth but fail to back the people who grow the economy. We can see from economic history that the larger the Government, the smaller the economic growth. The Government are putting big government over job creators and entrepreneurs. Confidence is being undermined, and that is resulting in rising unemployment, especially for our young people. It is time for something to change. The Government need to urgently change course to support the aspiration, hard work and risk taking that is needed to create the jobs and prosperity that working people throughout Britain deserve.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. Before I start, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as a director of a veterinary business. I thank hon. Members for joining the Committee to consider this important Bill, which will do so much for animal welfare and supporting our farming communities. The Bill was initially introduced in the last Parliament. I am grateful to those who have worked so hard to see it progress, and I welcome the new Government’s continuing the support for the legislation. I have spoken to farmers in Chester South and Eddisbury who have seen their livestock brutally attacked. I have heard at first hand the very real impacts, both emotionally and financially, so I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today. I will set out why the Bill is vital to help better protect livestock, support farmers and enable more effective enforcement and efficient use of police time. The financial impacts of livestock attacks are substantial. The National Farmers Union estimates that UK farm animals worth approximately £1.8 million were severely injured or killed by dogs in 2024. But it is not just the financial cost to which I wish to draw attention; there is also an animal welfare cost to livestock worrying. I represent a largely rural constituency, where the predominant mode of farming is beef and dairy. I met a farmer from Kelsall, a rural village in my constituency, who showed me pictures of his cattle following a livestock attack. A dog had broken into a barn where calves were resting and had attacked them in their pens. I am sure the Committee does not need me to go into detail about the extent to which the calves were injured. Needless to say, it was a horrific attack. That is just one example, but there can be other horrific consequences. If attacked, pregnant livestock often miscarry, and there are instances of mothers being separated from their young, leading to hypothermia and starvation. Let us also not forget the human toll of a livestock attack. I have only seen pictures of the aftermath—thankfully, I have never seen an attack unfold before my eyes—but for farmers witnessing it, it can be extremely emotionally distressing. Of course, we want and need to see dog owners behaving responsibly in the countryside, but we must recognise that there is a gap in existing legislation to support a more effective and efficient collection of evidence following an attack, and to implement the necessary deterrents to better encourage responsible ownership and handling of dogs around livestock. It is for those reasons that I have introduced the Bill, and why we must pass it. I will now set out the Bill’s clauses and explain why they are necessary. Clause 1 gives effect to the schedule, which sets out amendments to the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, relating to scope and the consequences of an offence. Times have changed since the 1953 Act came into force. The number of livestock farmed in England and Wales has doubled, bringing agriculture closer to those of us who use the countryside recreationally. The Bill is intended to tackle the issue of livestock worrying in a way that constructively strengthens existing legislation to decrease incidents of livestock worrying and attacks. In doing so, the Bill focuses on three key areas. First, it will modernise the definitions and scope of the 1953 Act and extend the locations and species in scope—to include roads and paths, and to cover species such as camelids. Secondly, important changes will be made to strengthen police powers, including powers of entry, the seizure and detention of dogs and the collection of evidence where samples and impressions can be taken from dogs and injured livestock. Finally, the Bill will increase the maximum penalty from a fine of £1,000 to an unlimited fine to act as a deterrent. Clause 2 will amend existing powers available to the police to seize and detain dogs suspected of having attacked or worried livestock. Existing legislation allows the police to seize an unaccompanied dog that is believed to have attacked or worried livestock, to identify the owner of the dog and to detain it until the owner has claimed it and paid any associated expenses. The Bill will go further, providing greater clarity and confidence to farmers. The proposed reforms extend the powers so that the police can seize and detain a dog that they have reasonable grounds to believe has attacked or worried livestock and may attack or worry livestock again, for the purpose of preventing repeat incidents. Extending the police powers is crucial, and it is appropriate that the deterrent properly reflects the significant consequences of an attack. Clause 2 addresses the limited scope of current powers at the disposal of the police and strengthens deterrence, helping to address the issue of reoffending. Subsections (1) and (2) of proposed new section 2 of the 1953 Act explain that a police constable may seize and detain a dog that they believe to have “attacked or worried livestock on agricultural land or on a road or path, and nobody present…admits to being the dog’s owner or in charge of it.” Building on the current power in section 2(2) of the 1953 Act, proposed new subsection (2) sets out for how long a dog seized under subsection (1) may be detained, namely “until the owner has claimed it and paid all expenses incurred by reason of its seizure and detention.” To give greater clarity, subsections (3) and (4) are necessary to explain that seized dogs may be disposed of if the owner does not claim the dog and pay the associated expenses of seizure and detention within seven days. They clarify that if the police gift or sell the unclaimed dog to someone, that person becomes the dog’s owner. Subsections (5) and (6) explain what kind of register is to be kept of seized dogs. The register must include a brief description of the dog, the date of seizure and, if the dog is disposed of, how. The register must be available for inspection by the public and free of charge. Subsection (7) explains that the disposing of a dog under proposed new section 2 of the 1953 Act includes: “causing it to be disposed of, and destroying it or causing it to be destroyed, but does not include disposing of it for the purposes of vivisection.” Subsections (8) and (9) explain that a dog may be seized and detained until the end of court proceedings if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the dog may otherwise pose a risk of attacking or worrying livestock again. Quite often, the dog owner has shown no signs of taking preventive measures against attacks or worrying following previous incidents, such as by putting their dog on a lead near livestock when the dog has previously shown signs of being dangerously out of control or has attacked or worried livestock. Both those factors could be considered relevant to a constable’s assessment of whether they believe that a dog suspected of attacking or worrying livestock could do so again. Finally, section 3 of the Dogs Act 1906—so far as still in force by virtue of section 68(2) of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005—will be repealed, as it is no longer needed in consequence of the provision made by clause 2. Clause 3 will introduce new powers to improve the police’s ability to investigate incidents of dogs attacking or worrying livestock by enabling the collection of samples and impressions. This concern was raised directly with me by farmers in my constituency. Farms are businesses, so when a livestock attack takes place, it is understandable that farmers should seek justice. If there was an arson attack on a shop, for instance, I am sure we would all agree that the perpetrator should be held to account for their actions. Attacks on livestock too often go unprosecuted because collecting evidence takes too long and the powers afforded to the police to do so are limited. Subsections (1) to (4) of proposed new section 2ZA of the 1953 Act will enable a police constable to take samples or impressions from a dog believed to have attacked or worried livestock, or from livestock, where this might provide evidence of an offence having been committed under section 1 of that Act. Crucially, subsection (5) explains: “If taking a sample or impression…would amount to veterinary surgery, it must be done by a veterinary surgeon.” Subsection (6) explains how long samples or impressions may be retained: “A sample or impression taken…may be retained until an investigation has been carried out into whether an offence under section 1 has been committed…or if proceedings are brought…until those proceedings have been determined or withdrawn.” Veterinary bodies, forensic specialists and the police have been consulted on this new provision, affording them the opportunity to feed into its development. Lastly, subsection (7) defines the meaning of the words “sample”, “veterinary surgeon” and “veterinary surgery” for the purpose of clause 3. These are all important steps to increase the effective collection of evidence following an attack. Clause 4 will enable a justice of the peace, also known as a magistrate, to authorise the police to enter and search premises where they believe there is a dog that has attacked or worried livestock. Currently, the police can enter and search premises with a warrant from a justice of the peace to identify a dog that is believed to have worried livestock. It is proposed to extend this to allow the police also to obtain a warrant to enter premises to seize and detain the dog, as outlined in clause 2; to take a sample or impression, as outlined in clause 3; or to search for and seize evidence of an offence. Specifically, subsections (1) and (2) of proposed new section 2A of the 1953 Act will allow the police to apply for a warrant to enter and search premises to identify, seize and detain, or to take samples or impressions from, a dog that is believed to have attacked or worried livestock. Subsections (3) and (4) will allow the police to apply for a warrant to enter and search premises to seize any evidence of an offence under section 1 of the 1953 Act. Examples of such evidence could include a bloody collar or towel. Subsection (5) sets out that the warrant may authorise the police to use reasonable force, if necessary. These new powers are needed to allow the police to gather evidence to investigate these crimes effectively. I have already touched on the frustration that farmers feel when an attack goes unprosecuted, and this Bill will help to increase the chances of a just outcome. Clause 5 includes a standard provision on the extent, commencement and short title of the Act, once it receives Royal Assent. The Act will extend to England and Wales. I felt it was important to speak to people on both sides of the border to better understand the situation in Wales; I put on record my thanks to Rob Taylor, the Welsh wildlife and rural police and crime co-ordinator, for his work in this field over many years, and for taking the time to meet me to talk through livestock worrying in Wales and offer his support for the Bill. The Bill will come into force three months after it is passed. Clause 5 also includes transitional provision to clarify the availability of the new powers in clauses 2 to 4 in relation to any, or any alleged, incident of livestock worrying or attack that takes place before the Bill comes into force. The Act’s short title will be the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Act 2025. The schedule to the Bill will make several amendments to the 1953 Act to extend its scope. It also provides clarity on offences, the applicable penalty and court powers. Specifically, paragraph 1 brings incidents of dogs attacking or worrying livestock on roads or paths within the scope of the offence in section 1 of the Act. This will provide greater protection for livestock in instances where they are moved along a road or path to another field or a milking parlour, for example. For clarity, paragraph 1 also updates the terminology used in relation to attacks. “Attacking” livestock is dealt with separately from “worrying” livestock. The term “worrying” may dismiss the severity of some offences. Adding the word “attacking” better highlights the violent nature of incidents involving attacks on livestock. The provision will not create a new offence, but will clarify the language throughout the 1953 Act. Both attacking and worrying are already covered in that Act; however, that is not clear throughout. Paragraph 1 also sets out the penalty for the offence in section 1 of the 1953 Act. It is currently set at a maximum fine of £1,000. The maximum penalty will be increased to an unlimited fine to act as a deterrent. It is worth noting that the level of fines will not affect the level of compensation a farmer may receive, and farmers can still seek compensation through civil claims. Paragraph 1 will amend the 1953 Act to exempt a dog owner from liability for an offence under section 1 where they can prove that the dog was in the charge of another person at the time without the owner’s consent, such as if the dog had been stolen. Paragraph 1 will also empower a court to order a convicted offender to pay expenses associated with the seizure and detention of a dog, irrespective of whether the court imposes a fine for the offence. Any sum that a person is ordered to pay will be treated for the purposes of enforcement as if it were compensation payable under a compensation order. Paragraph 2 expands the definition of “livestock” in the 1953 Act to include camelids, such as llamas and alpacas, as they are commonly farmed. I will take a moment to address the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin. She is very knowledgeable on these matters, and I thank her for agreeing to sit on this Committee and for her support. We are often in rural affairs debates in the Chamber or Westminster Hall together, and her contributions are always well informed. As a farmer herself, I am sure she will agree that the Bill is necessary and welcome. The hon. Lady’s amendment would require that a dog be kept on a lead of 1.8 metres or less in a field or enclosure containing sheep, or in sight of the person in charge, who should be confident that the dog will recall on command. Although I understand why she tabled the amendment, it is worth noting that the 1953 Act already makes it clear that a dog is “at large” if it is “not on a lead or otherwise under close control”. That approach places certain requirements on dog walkers to behave responsibly, and it provides sufficient flexibility for a court to assess whether, on the facts before it, there is evidence that the dog was under close control. Such evidence does not need to be limited to proving specific elements. Setting out the meaning of “close control” also risks inadvertently narrowing the circumstances in which a court would naturally conclude that a dog was not under close control. Furthermore, the countryside code highlights that it is best practice “to keep your dog on a lead around livestock”, including sheep. Because there are existing provisions and guidance, and because there is flexibility for judgment in the courts, I urge the hon. Lady not to press her amendment. I hope I have laid out clearly why the Bill is necessary to support our farmers, reduce livestock attacks and better equip the police with the powers they need to investigate, prosecute and deter livestock attacks. I hope the Committee will support the progress of this important Bill.
Thank you for chairing this Committee, Mr Western; it has been a pleasure to serve under you. I thank the Minister for his support for the Bill and those who have worked incredibly hard on it behind the scenes. I am extremely grateful to all Members who have served on the Committee for taking the time to listen to why I and others feel the Bill is necessary, and for all their thoughtful contributions. At the heart of this Bill are farmers and livestock. The Bill will give farmers greater confidence that livestock attacks will be dealt with in a timely, effective and appropriate manner, reflective of the damage an attack can do. It is our hope that deterrence in the form of greater penalties and powers for the police to investigate livestock attacks will reduce the number of those attacks. The fewer farmers who witness an attack, deal with severely injured animals in the aftermath and face the economic costs as a result, the better. They deserve this Bill, and I am sure that they, like me, are incredibly grateful to all who have given their support today. Question put and agreed to. Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 2 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Amendment proposed: 1, schedule, page 5, line 8, at end insert— “(3A) In subsection (2), omit ‘(that is to say not on a lead or otherwise under close control)’. (3B) After subsection (2) insert— ‘(2ZA) For the purposes of subsection (2), a dog is “at large” unless— (a) it is on a lead of a length of 1.8 metres or less, or (b) it is within sight of a person and the person— (i) remains aware of the dog’s actions, and (ii) has reason to be confident that the dog will return to the person reliably and promptly on the person’s command.’”—(Ann Davies.) This amendment would change the definition of the term “at large” for the purposes of the offence under section 1 of the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953. Question put, That the amendment be made. Question negatived. Schedule agreed to. Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill to the House.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank and congratulate the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for securing this debate on such an important topic, and for speaking so powerfully. Last month, I visited Ukraine alongside colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Committee. I pay tribute to the officials from our Government and the Ukrainian parliamentarians and officials we met on the ground who are working tirelessly on this issue. We met representatives of Save Ukraine, an organisation committed to helping rescue and return children. At the time of our visit, it had successfully returned more than 612 children—a heroic effort—yet, as we have heard today, an unacceptably high number remain missing. At least 19,000 have been identified, and there are almost certainly many, many thousands more. I want to share one account that I heard in Ukraine. Just outside Kyiv I visited a children’s centre, where I spoke to two young people who had been taken by Russia. Although both had thankfully been safely returned home to Ukraine, I cannot overstate how clearly traumatising the experience had been for them, and the impact of hearing their stories. The young man was separated from his mother and five siblings and taken to Russia to be re-educated. In reality, he was sent to a military camp where Ukrainian children are taught to forget their culture and home. Through indoctrination, they are trained to forget all they once knew of a peaceful life in Ukraine and are taught to be fighters, potentially one day against their own families. That is a truly horrific and often unreported consequence of Putin’s barbaric invasion of Ukraine. Yesterday, those of us on the Foreign Affairs Committee met our counterparts from the Rada’s Committee on Foreign Policy and Inter-Parliamentary Co-operation. We heard how Russia is targeting orphanages to take children. Those vulnerable children have suffered a great deal of trauma already, and are now being subjected to even more. We also heard of the difficulty of getting those children back. Their locations are often unknown to Ukrainian authorities, and their surnames are changed. It is clear that we must do more to support Ukraine in its efforts to identify, find and return those young people. Both the previous Government and the current one have stood by Ukraine with regard to military support, and I know our Ukrainian friends are incredibly grateful for our unity. I urge the Minister to continue to provide humanitarian assistance through official development assistance. Earlier this year, I agreed with the Prime Minister’s decision to reallocate a portion of the ODA budget to bolster the defence budget, given the challenges and security problems that we currently face. When the Minister has discussions with officials and his colleagues at the Treasury ahead of publication of the out-turn data and future planned allocations annual report and accounts, will he reiterate the need of the Ukrainian people, and particularly those kidnapped children and their families? Will he support efforts, organisations and schemes that seek to see them returned? We need the ODA budget to be spent on vital causes, not vanity projects, and I am sure all here agree that this issue is of the utmost importance. Since the start of the war, more than 600 children have been killed, 1,900 have been injured and at least 19 have been sexually abused. In this conflict, sexual violence is being used systematically as a grotesque weapon of war. Russia’s actions violate the Geneva conventions, international humanitarian law and United Nations Security Council resolution 1261. We must not stand by. Russia is waging war not just on Ukraine’s borders but on its future. It is trying to erase an entire generation. It is not just abducting children but trying to annihilate a national identity. I have heard two stories at first hand, but there are thousands more. We must see Ukraine’s stolen children returned.
I thank the hon. Member, who is my neighbour in Cheshire, for giving way. I note his views on the last Government’s record, but can he explain how Labour’s decision, just 20 days after the election, to suspend the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which would rightly have prevented illegal migrants from claiming asylum or gaining British citizenship, sends anything other than completely the wrong message and undermines public confidence in the immigration system?
I beg to move, That this House regrets that unemployment is rising and causing misery for young people in particular, that this Government has displayed a negligible understanding of business and that investors and entrepreneurs are being driven overseas; further regrets that over 200,000 businesses have closed since Labour took office, as a result of the Government’s policies to raise employers’ National Insurance contributions, in breach of the Labour Party manifesto commitment, to scrap Business Property Relief, to impose £4.5 billion of additional costs on businesses through the Employment Rights Bill and increases to business rates; and calls on the Government to urgently change course to support jobseekers, small and medium-sized enterprises, family businesses and entrepreneurs who take risks to create wealth and jobs that benefit people across the country. Allow me to paint a picture. A small business owner navigates the early morning darkness to their high street shop. They twist the keys and lift the shutters. They turn on the lights, the card machine, the heater and the shop music. They open the door in time for their first customer of the day, putting to the back of their mind the question of how to meet the rising costs placed on them by this Government—the taxes they have to pay before they open that door and the unreformed business rates, with many more than doubling. How will they pay the jobs tax on their staff? How will they ever keep their business intact when they seek to pass it to their children after they have gone? Not one single person around the Cabinet table truly understands those pressures, yet this Labour Government have crossed the road to start a fight with Britain’s businesses. When it comes to business, the Government have broken every one of their promises. Members on the Government Benches looked business owners in the eye at the election and told them that they would be on their side, but it took barely 100 days for this Labour Government to revert to type. At the autumn Budget, the Chancellor slapped a £25 billion jobs tax on business, meaning that employers will have to pay an additional £900 a year for an employee on the median wage, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Only a few weeks later, the Business Secretary tabled the now 300-page, trade union-dictated Employment Rights Bill, drowning employers in red tape. Helen Dickinson, the CEO of the British Retail Consortium, said that businesses are “left with little choice but to increase prices”— as we have seen today—“or to reduce investment.” The CEO of UKHospitality, Kate Nicholls, said that these measures “will simply force businesses to cut jobs, freeze recruitment, cancel planned investment, reduce trading hours and, in the worst-case scenario, close their doors for good.”
How tragic is it that from Gosport to Gloucester and everywhere between, businesses on our high streets are closing? This Government do not understand that. If they do understand, they do not care, and if they care, they have not acted. The message from this Government to anyone willing to put their capital, time and energy on the line by taking risk to create wealth as a business owner is abundantly clear.
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. I believe that all of us come to this House to try to do our best and to grow the economy, but any Government faced with that terrible metric about the failure rate and formation rate of businesses would be acting immediately, with haste, and reversing so many of the measures. The choices this Government have made have delivered precisely the outcome my hon. Friend describes.