House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The Solicitor General (Andy Slaughter)
We are determined to make the UK a more hostile environment for all forms of economic crime, including fraud. In the last financial year, the Crown Prosecution Service completed more than 8,000 fraud and forgery prosecutions—an increase of about 10% on the year before—and we are not stopping there. In June, the CPS launched its new serious economic and organised crime strategy, which is modernising its response and strengthening capability to address increasingly sophisticated crime.
Ian Sollom
Fraud is growing, and artificial intelligence is making it easier for it to be committed at scale. While cases can be complex, all too often victims tell me that they feel abandoned by the system. The CPS strategy folds fraud into organised crime and national security issues, and none of its seven priorities is actually about victims; in that regard, it differs from the previous economic crime strategy. How will the Solicitor General ensure that fraud victims are not lost in the CPS’s new approach?
The Solicitor General
As the hon. Gentleman will know, organised crime is an important part of fraud, and the two go hand in hand. The Serious Fraud Office investigates the most serious types of fraud and bribery, and other matters. However, we are very conscious of the fact that tens of thousands of individuals—our constituents—are affected, and that will be central to this aim.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Can the Solicitor General update the House on whether he believes that there are sufficient asset recovery powers to ensure that crime does not pay, and can he explain how those powers are being used?
The Solicitor General
We have taken considerable steps along that route. As well as securing convictions, prosecutors can use confiscation and asset recovery powers to seize the proceeds of offending. Between 2020 and 2025, the CPS recovered more than £530 million through confiscation orders, of which £102 million was paid to victims in compensation.
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
The Solicitor General (Andy Slaughter)
Whistleblowers can reveal criminal activity that would otherwise go undiscovered, help unravel complex cases, speed up investigations and deliver justice for victims more quickly, but we believe that more can be done. On Monday, the Government launched a consultation on the whistleblowing framework, which will involve seeking views on a proposed scheme to reward financially whistleblowers who report economic crime to the Serious Fraud Office.
Tom Collins
I am working with a constituent who has been subject to bullying and prejudice in high-level amateur sport. Current whistleblowing protections apply only to employees of an organisation, but sports people often have just as much, if not more, to lose if a sporting organisation turns against them. Does the Solicitor General agree that whistleblowing protections are important for good governance, safety and safeguarding in organisations across sectors?
The Solicitor General
Yes, and I am sorry to hear of the experience of my hon. Friend’s constituent. I encourage him and his constituent to share that experience in the whistleblowing consultation that I mentioned. Whistleblowers can dramatically cut the time and resource that it takes to get to the heart of a case by providing the necessary information to focus investigations, and I invite my colleagues on both sides of the House to feed into the consultation.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Far too often, whistleblowers are protected when they initially blow the whistle on fraud, economic crime and the like, but are eased out of organisations unfairly later. What further protection can the Solicitor General offer people who do the right thing and blow the whistle on crime?
The Solicitor General
The consultation that I mentioned is the widest consultation on the most comprehensive Government review of the whistleblowing framework since its introduction in 1999. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and others will feed into it, so that we can make a sea change in the way that whistleblowers are dealt with.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
Simon Andriesz, a former finance manager, blew the whistle over hundreds of millions of dollars of financial crime, exposing links between the United States Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Jeffrey Epstein and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. The Financial Conduct Authority wrongly told him that he had lost his legal protection as a whistleblower. Simon said:
“The personal consequences of whistleblowing, and the retaliation that followed, have been devastating for my family and me.”
Last month, Simon sadly took his own life. The FCA review is being carried out by a member of its own board. Will the Attorney General meet Cabinet colleagues to discuss this, and the case for an “office of the whistleblower”?
The Solicitor General
I am sure the whole House will join me in expressing our deepest condolences to Simon and his family. It is right to say that the Financial Conduct Authority is conducting an investigation into the allegations of wrongdoing, and I therefore do not think it would be right for me to comment in detail at this time. I know that concerns have been raised about the inquiry, but it is being conducted by a new non-exec director. It will report, and the chief executive of the FCA has said that she will have carte blanche to look across the piece at the dealings between Simon and the FCA. In the first instance, I think we should wait to see the outcome of the inquiry before going any further.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The Attorney General (Ellie Reeves)
We remain completely committed to upholding international law. That commitment reflects our values, but also the real benefits that international law brings to our everyday lives. It underpins the global rules that allow us to travel on holiday more easily and UK businesses to sell their goods abroad, and it enables greater co-operation between international law enforcement agencies, keeping our streets safer at home.
Edward Morello
President Trump’s Administration stated that they would dismantle the International Criminal Court “brick by brick”, and have imposed sanctions following ICC judge Navi Pillay being awarded the 2026 Nobel peace prize. The International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor has had access to emails and bank accounts removed, following sanctions by President Trump. What steps are the Government taking with European allies to uphold international law and human rights in the face of threats to the ICC by the US Administration?
The Attorney General
The hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly important point. The UK stands with the International Criminal Court, and we stand united with our partners in strongly disagreeing with the sanctions imposed on the Court. The ICC must be permitted to continue its critical work of holding perpetrators of the most horrific international crimes to account. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is in close contact with the Court and individuals impacted, to support them during this period.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Sometimes, this topic can seem abstract to residents in my constituency of Harlow, so could the Attorney General talk about the practical ways in which obeying international law can benefit my residents in Harlow?
The Attorney General
My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for the people of Harlow, including on the topic of international law, which brings real benefits to us. For example, when his constituents set off for their summer holidays—presumably from Stansted airport—the Chicago convention, which governs flights, enables them to do so safely and securely.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I think I am in the slightly novel position of being fresh to the Dispatch Box myself, but also able to welcome both the Attorney General and the Solicitor General to their new places, which I do with gusto.
Last month, the Attorney General published her new “Attorney General’s Legal Guidance”, a direction to all Government lawyers on how to advise Ministers on lawfulness and legal risk, which replaced the advice of Lord Hermer. Across the board, she has removed references to international law. She has removed Lord Hermer’s demand that
“the rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law as in national law”;
she has removed Lord Hermer’s direction that the Government
“should not invite Parliament to legislate contrary to international obligations”;
and she has removed the whole paragraph in which Lord Hermer instructed Government lawyers that compliance and respect for international law must be a critical factor in legal advice. She served as Solicitor General under Lord Hermer for a year. What persuaded her that his guidance to Government lawyers was wrong, and that the Conservatives were right all along that his guidance needed to be replaced?
The Attorney General
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post, and I am pleased that he has raised the updated legal risk guidance. This is a Government committed to getting things done, and I make it clear in the revised guidance that, where there is a tenable legal argument, we can take action. On international law, my new guidance makes it clear that domestic law and international law should be treated in the same way. It is important that we adhere to both, and that is set out in the guidance.
Jerome Mayhew
Having removed Lord Hermer’s focus on the importance of international law, the Attorney General has in fact added a new consideration: whether an international court has jurisdiction. This could have Chagos written all over it. Without express United Kingdom consent, there is no international court with binding jurisdiction over the sovereignty of the Chagos islands. Applying her own legal guidance, does the Attorney General now agree that the decision to cede sovereignty of the Chagos islands has never been a legal imperative forced on the Government, but is instead a political decision, taken by Labour?
The Attorney General
The military base at Diego Garcia is critical for our national security, and for keeping people safe here in Britain. Our priority has always been clear: to secure the long-term, effective operation of that base. Since its creation, there have been challenges relating to the base in various international courts and tribunals, threatening its long-term, secure operation. That is why we continue to work closely with the US and with Mauritius to find a way forward that is in the UK’s best interests, and that continues to protect our national security.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
The Attorney General (Ellie Reeves)
Stalking in all its forms is a horrendous, life-shattering crime. In September, I spoke at the national multi-agency conference, at which the Government and the third sector came together to discuss this issue; that involved analysing a non-domestic stalking case. We have asked Richard Wright KC to review the criminal law on stalking, which will be published shortly, and we have widened stalking protection orders, so that they can be put in place to protect victims after a conviction, as well as an acquittal.
Anna Dixon
I thank the Attorney General for her response. I recently spoke to two of my constituents, Julie and Jodie, about the repeated harassment they had experienced at the hands of a former neighbour. The police failed to link the incidents and reports, and to identify a pattern of behaviour as stalking. Could the Attorney General give additional assurance to me and my constituents that she will urgently look into how the CPS and the police assess and deal with non-domestic stalking, and ensure that training and standards are improved?
The Attorney General
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and I am deeply sorry to hear of Jodie and Julie’s experience. As part of our strategy to halve violence against women and girls in a decade, the Government will soon issue new statutory, multi-agency guidance on stalking, setting out a robust framework for the police, the CPS, local authorities and healthcare services, so that they can better recognise and respond to this crime. In the meantime, if my hon. Friend wants to pass on details of this case, I will happily raise it with the CPS.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
The Attorney General (Ellie Reeves)
Last month, I announced the national roll-out of the CPS victim transformation programme, including a universal service for all victims, and an enhanced service for domestic abuse survivors; an enhanced service is already offered to victims of rape. Under the enhanced service, every domestic abuse victim will have a dedicated victim liaison officer, who will remain a point of contact from charge through to trial. I said that I would put victims at the heart of the justice system, and we are getting on and delivering on that commitment.
Zöe Franklin
I thank the Attorney General for her answer, but a constituent from Guildford has endured repeated delays to a domestic abuse prosecution. Causes included the Crown Prosecution Service failing to secure a barrister, and a trial collapsing after eight days as the proceedings had overrun and jurors could no longer continue, due to other commitments. She now faces the prospect of waiting for justice until June 2028, almost five years after her husband’s arrest. By then, there is a real risk that crucial evidence will have been lost. Does the Attorney General recognise that administrative failures like these undermine victims’ confidence in the criminal justice system? What accountability is there when CPS failings cause such devastating delays?
The Attorney General
I am very sorry to hear of the hon. Member’s constituent’s experience. If she wants to provide details of the case, I will raise it directly with the CPS. She is absolutely right that victims deserve timely justice. Delays can have a profound impact on victims. That is why the Government are taking action to deliver a faster and more effective justice system, including investing at record levels in maximising court capacity. We have invested an additional £96 million in the CPS, increasing its funding by more than 10% between 2026 and 2029. That means more prosecutors being able to make charging decisions, prepare cases for court and bring offenders to justice.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
With Cumbria experiencing rates of domestic abuse significantly higher than the England average, and with victims often feeling traumatised by the process of securing justice, how is the Attorney General working with the CPS to ensure victims’ voices are not ignored by the justice system?
The Attorney General
Under the enhanced service that victims of domestic abuse will now be offered by the CPS, they will have a dedicated victim liaison officer supporting them from charge through to trial. Also, in three CPS areas, we are piloting offering victims of domestic abuse in the Crown court a pre-trial meeting with the prosecution team, to support them on their journey to justice.
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Attorney General (Ellie Reeves)
Last month, the Government announced plans to roll out specialist rape and serious sexual offences courtrooms in every Crown court across England and Wales. The courtrooms will transform how the justice system treats survivors of some of the most serious crimes, and will ensure a victim-focused, trauma-informed approach. The changes are designed to encourage more victims to come forward, and will prioritise their cases by fixing trial dates to avoid delays and last-minute changes.
Lee Barron
It is almost two years since Harshita Brella was murdered in Corby, her body dumped in the boot of a car. An arrest warrant was issued for Harshita’s husband, who fled the country. Will the Minister raise Harshita’s case with other relevant Departments, and give her family the reassurance that all is being done to bring Harshita the justice that she and her family so desperately deserve?
The Attorney General
My hon. Friend raises a deeply concerning case. Our thoughts remain with Harshita’s family as they continue to seek justice for their daughter. I would, of course, be happy to raise this matter with my ministerial colleagues and get back to him.
Sarah Olney
Last year, the Public Accounts Committee warned that the Government would not meet their manifesto commitment to halve violence against women and girls if they did not get to grips with the evolving nature of abuse. Technologically facilitated abuse is growing rapidly; referrals to Refuge rose by nearly 80% last year. This includes intimate image abuse; offences rose by 27%. However, over the same period, the proportion of cases resulting in a charge fell from 5.8% to 4.5%. What steps is the Attorney General taking to help increase prosecution rates in cases of technologically facilitated abuse?
The Attorney General
The hon. Lady is right to point out the deeply worrying rise in tech-facilitated abuse. In July, I hosted a roundtable with the CPS, police and third sector, specifically to focus on tech-facilitated violence against women and girls. The CPS will publish a dedicated action plan on tech-facilitated violence against women and girls, building on its VAWG strategy, which was published last November.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
The Attorney General (Ellie Reeves)
The Government are clear that it is firmly in the UK’s interests to remain a member of the European convention on human rights. The ECHR has allowed people to object when “do not resuscitate” orders are put on their beds without their consent, and it is the reason why victims of rapists such as John Warboys have been able to force the police to investigate rather than being turned away. That is why I will continue to defend the ECHR, and why the UK played a leading role in the Chiinău declaration, working to modernise the ECHR with our European partners.
Susan Murray
The Conservatives and Reform want to leave the ECHR—a convention Winston Churchill championed—putting us alongside Russia and Belarus. Does the Attorney General agree that that is no place for a country that helped to write it?
The Attorney General
Our commitment to the ECHR is clear. It plays an important role in all aspects of our life, including in the Good Friday agreement, for example, which would unravel without it. It is important that we ensure that we modernise where necessary, but our commitment is steadfast.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
The Solicitor General (Andy Slaughter)
The Government inherited a justice system on the brink. The record backlogs mean that victims are facing devastating delays for justice. This Government continues to invest in our courts, but vital reforms are needed too. The Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary have rightly listened to the strength of feeling from victims and this House and have decided not to establish the Crown court bench division, but we will now act more quickly to implement the rest of our vital reforms, delivering swifter justice for victims, whom the Opposition appear to have forgotten about entirely.
Robbie Moore
The Government have finally performed another U-turn, rightly retaining trial by jury following widespread concern in this House. However, the Government still intend to allow judge-only courts for complex cases, yet they have not defined what complex means. That risks mission creep and has attracted significant concern from organisations including the Criminal Bar Association. Why does the Attorney General believe that this lack of clarity is still acceptable?
The Solicitor General
It seems to me that the Opposition oppose every one of Lord Leveson’s recommendations. The Conservatives are the party that created the Crown court backlog, and yet they oppose every measure that we devise to deal with it. When are they going to come up with proposals of their own? Why do they continue to oppose for opposition’s sake?
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Having spent many months arguing for the abolition of most jury trials, can the Attorney General explain to the House how she now thinks that they are indispensable? Does she accept that, while jury trials are indispensable, an Attorney General forced to perform such a spectacular U-turn may not be?
The Solicitor General
This will be complete news to the Opposition, but we do occasionally listen to what this House and the professions have said. We are going forward with proposals that will tackle the backlog. The Opposition never want to talk about the backlog because they caused it. We are looking for solutions to that; they are welcome to put forward their suggestions.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
The Attorney General (Ellie Reeves)
Domestic abuse has a significant impact on victims and their families, and those who are brave enough to come forward deserve to have their cases resolved quickly. Last month, I announced the national roll-out of enhanced services for survivors of domestic abuse. That service will mean that victims of domestic abuse will be provided with a dedicated victim liaison officer, providing better support from charge to trial.
Mr Forster
Last month, Your Sanctuary, a women’s refuge in my constituency, hosted a conference to tackle domestic abuse. One of its key asks is tackling the 2020 harm review, “Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases”, which has not been implemented. What steps is the Attorney General taking to correct that wrong?
The Attorney General
I have taken many steps to tackle domestic abuse, from rolling out the enhanced service offered to victims of domestic abuse to piloting pre-trial meetings with the prosecution team for victims of domestic abuse. This is a Government who are committed to halving violence against women and girls in a decade, and we are getting on with the job.
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, colleagues will know that tomorrow marks the fifth anniversary of the death of Sir David Amess, a dear friend to me and to so many across this House. He served in this House for 38 years, proudly representing his Southend West constituency, where he was tragically killed while carrying out his democratic duties.
The deaths of both Sir David and our former colleague Jo Cox, along with the threats those in political life continue to receive, drive me every day to do whatever I can as Speaker to improve the security and safety of Members, their families and staff. This includes the important work being done by the Speaker’s Conference on the security of candidates, MPs and elections. It is incumbent on us all to help to stop the continuing climate of attacks on those in public life. No Member should fear carrying out their democratic duties.
Sir David will always be remembered, and our thoughts are with his family and friends on this day.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Andy Burnham)
I add my tribute to Sir David on the fifth anniversary of his death. David was someone of whom I was very fond and with whom I worked very closely on the Health Committee when I arrived in this House in 2001. We send our deepest condolences to David’s family. There is more work to be done on the security of Members of this House, and we will do it.
I look forward to welcoming President Zelensky to Downing Street later this afternoon. Our support for Ukraine is unwavering. I have asked for further military and financial support to be drawn up ready for the coming weeks.
Later today, I will also meet Archie Goodburn, an incredible athlete and inspiring campaigner for brain cancer research.
Finally, I also pay tribute to Councillor Pat Karney, who served north Manchester for almost 50 years as a councillor in such a dedicated way. He saw the city through some of its greatest challenges and has fittingly been called “Mr Manchester” on the front page of the Manchester Evening News today. Thank you, Pat, for your contribution to Manchester and to politics in our country.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Jerome Mayhew
The Prime Minister sees himself as a man of candour, so will he tell the House whether anyone associated with the running of Manchester City football club raised the charges that they were facing, and have now been found guilty of, with either him or any member of his team?
The Prime Minister
They did not raise those issues with me. I am very happy for everything to be set out in full, Mr Speaker. That is why I asked the Greater Manchester combined authority, in response to a call from the Leader of the Opposition and others, to set out a full statement of my key dealings with the owners of Manchester City football club. That statement, which was published on Monday, includes the issues in the news today, and that is the position.
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words and pass on my sympathies in relation to his grandparents. Any family in this country who has lived through the journey of dementia and experienced the social care system will know that we should not accept the status quo. The failure of this House to fix social care through the decades does not reflect well on any party. We will fix it. We will create a national care service. In laying out the path to that national care service, I can give him my word as the Labour and Co-operative MP for Makerfield that co-operative principles will be at the heart of the new national care service.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the Prime Minister for the words about Sir David Amess. We on this side of the House miss him dearly, as do his family. He was a fellow Essex MP and a very good friend to me and to so many across this House, and I know that he is still very much loved by his constituents in Southend.
The Prime Minister has had a busy few weeks: tying himself in knots explaining why national security should not come at the expense of social security, and bumbling into a row—still ongoing—about Manchester City. I do not think that his carefully worded answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) will suffice—it does not sound like that one is going away. He also spent the last 48 hours trying to unsay that Russia influenced the 2016 referendum when we all heard him say it. Does he ever get tired of putting his foot in his mouth?
The Prime Minister
I am glad that the right hon. Lady raised my comments, because it gives me an opportunity to say to the whole House how I intend to lead this country. We have lived through a decade of division, and we know that hostile actors have been seeking to interfere in our democratic process. That is a matter of fact. We need to call that out and look straight at it in a way that the Conservatives did not.
I have a quote here from the right hon. Lady when she stood at this Dispatch Box when she was responsible for steering through the Elections Bill. She said:
“I have not read the Russia report”.––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 26 October 2021; c. 384.]
They did not want to see it. They wanted to look in the other direction. I will not do that. I will draw a line. I will defend our democracy, and I will lead this country forward with positivity, unity and hope in the next decade.
Mrs Badenoch
It sounds like the Prime Minister is digging in, but you cannot fight misinformation with misinformation. This is the first time I have ever heard the head of MI5 slap down a Prime Minister for doing Russia’s dirty work for them. Either the Prime Minister knew what he was doing on that podcast—trying to undermine the 2016 referendum—or he opened his mouth on a matter of national security and said the first thing that came into his head. Does the Prime Minister agree with the director general of MI5 that talking up Russian interference was a mistake?
The Prime Minister
I could ask the Leader of the Opposition whether she has even read the Russia report yet. I also wonder whether she has read the full comments from Sir Ken McCallum or whether she heard the comments from the former head of MI6. If she had, she would not have made the statements that she just made in this House. I think it is important that we are clear-eyed about what happened in the past. There is incontrovertible evidence that outside actors—enemies of this country—have interfered in our democratic processes, and it is inconceivable that that was not taking place across the whole of the last decade.
Mrs Badenoch
Still digging in—it was not me that MI5 was talking about. The fact is, this Prime Minister will say anything instead of dealing with the tough decisions that only he can take—like on Britain’s energy security. In July, he said that he would approve the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields in the North sea. What is he waiting for? If he had approved them back then, we would have British gas warming British homes this winter. Will he now—[Interruption.] It is true: all the gas from Jackdaw goes on to the British grid. Will he now stop faffing about and approve Rosebank and Jackdaw?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady asked me what I am waiting for. I have had to wait for the Government process, which was struck down by the courts under the Conservative Government, to be fixed. They messed it up, and we inherited that situation. I will take a pragmatic approach on oil and gas. We will set out our decisions shortly.
Mrs Badenoch
So much time wasting. This is a Government who approve importing oil from Russia and approve new drilling off the Falkland Islands but will not approve new drilling in the North sea. The truth is that the Prime Minister is delaying a decision on energy to avoid a row with his Back Benchers, just as he is avoiding another row on cutting welfare.
The Times reports that 2 million people are being paid sickness benefits, and they may not even be sick. Billions of pounds are being paid to people who should not be getting that. The last time a Prime Minister tried to cut welfare, Labour MPs stopped him. They are still chuntering now—look at them. Is the Prime Minister afraid to cut benefits because he does not want a fight with his Back Benchers?
The Prime Minister
We commissioned the Milburn report because we do not want to see a country where young people in their 20s are stuck on benefits. I want a system where we give the right support to young people up front so that they can be in training, education or employment from 16 onwards. They do need better mental health support, and I have argued for a different education system that gives parity to technical education alongside the university route. We will bring forward the Milburn report soon. We will set out our response to it. We will bring down the welfare bill.
Mrs Badenoch
I did not ask the Prime Minister about the Milburn review, but, if he wants to talk about it, I spoke to Alan Milburn and he said that the review was due before the Budget. The Prime Minister has kicked it into the long grass.
The Budget is in two weeks. Let me tell the Prime Minister what should be in it: cutting welfare to fund defence. In a BBC interview on Sunday, the Defence Secretary refused to commit to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030. People used to resign over this. I see that he is not here today—he is still not doing his job. That is the money that Britain needs to keep us safe. Now, the Prime Minister will not even tell us what his plan is for another year. Why will he not announce a date for 3% in this month’s Budget?
The Prime Minister
As I said, I am meeting President Zelensky this afternoon. We will honour our commitments to him and his country, and we will honour our NATO commitments, as I have said every time that I have appeared at this Dispatch Box. The right hon. Lady will have to wait for the Budget.
The right hon. Lady comes here every week and poses as the world-leading authority on defence. She talked about interviews. I recall a recent interview she gave about the Conservatives’ plans for an iron dome. Then she said, “It isn’t our plan.” Then it emerged that it was briefed by her team, which does not sound like she is in control of her own policy on defence. Then, under questioning from Mr Ferrari on LBC, she said
“you’ve got to speak to a defence expert about exactly how it works.”
Obviously, we worked out in that interview that she was not a defence expert, and I think Mr Ferrari is still waiting for an explanation.
Mrs Badenoch
A month ago, the Prime Minister was boasting that it was time to engage in problem solving rather than point scoring. It seems that is another thing that he said without thinking.
The Prime Minister wants to talk about defence, so let us talk about defence. The Conservatives are the only party that actually has a plan to get to 3% by 2030. I asked him about the Budget, and he said he is meeting President Zelensky. President Zelensky is not writing the Budget; he is. The last two Labour Budgets have been a total disaster.
Yesterday I met a beauty salon owner who is struggling with the impact of Labour’s tax rises. She told me that she is dipping into her pension to pay the young people she employs. That is the brutal reality for tens of thousands of small business owners after just two years of Labour. The Prime Minister entered Downing Street promising the biggest change in 40 years. Now Labour MPs are briefing journalists that they hope this Budget
“does as little harm as possible”.
Is he not too busy appeasing his MPs, excusing his own mistakes and avoiding difficult decisions to give the country the leadership it needs?
The Prime Minister
I used my conference speech to face up to difficult decisions. I faced up to a difficult decision on supporting older people in later life, related to adjusting the triple lock so that we can lay the ground for a national care service. I took a difficult decision about developing closer ties with Europe, supported by a majority of people in this country. Why? Because we have the chance to do a deal before the end of the year that can add growth to the British economy and support our farmers and our food industry.
Let me finish today in a spirit of problem solving, not point scoring; in a spirit of unity with the right hon. Lady. I will make one further point about her conference speech. I commend her for drawing a line under a decade of division when she drew a line between her and Reform for suggesting that her children were not British. That is wrong in every single respect. She was brave and she was right to call it out. That is what I want to see more of in the next decade, as we go forward.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend puts her points very powerfully. High streets across the country, including in Southall, have for too long been a symbol of the decline of our towns, and I am determined to do something about it. Immediately, I cut business rates for pubs, clubs and music venues by 20%, working with the Chancellor when I came into office. We are bringing forward a high streets strategy later this year. We have announced a £210 million package for councils to reopen empty buildings. I will look at the specifics on the police hub. This issue should be one that unites this House and one where we can work together.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Speaker—[Hon. Members: “More!] They will be getting more. Mr Speaker, can I join you, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in praising the late Sir David Amess and sending our condolences to his family? He was a man who was respected across this House and who had friends across this House.
When the Prime Minister announced cross-party talks on social care over the summer, I was delighted and immediately accepted because getting this right really matters. He said then that to build a lasting solution on funding care, we were going to have to listen to each other and find common ground. He said that when he tried before, back in 2009, his mistake had been leaving it too close to an election. Does he still think that now? If we are to find the common ground well before the next election, will he tell us when the next round of cross-party talks will be?
The Prime Minister
I am happy to admit that again now. I was working then with a colleague of Members now on the Lib Dem Front Bench, Norman Lamb, and it did get too late. It got caught up, inevitably, in the climate of the election. Then it happened to Theresa May in 2017, and Labour Members were perhaps doing the point scoring at that point in time. This is not an issue for point scoring. When is this House going to learn that? How long is it going to turn away from this issue? My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) mentioned his grandparents. I saw mine go through the care system and I vowed as a Minister in the Blair Government that I would not let it happen to my parents, but it has just happened. It is not good enough, for him or for the many thousands of people like him, but also for the people who work in social care, who give everything to it. I see the right hon. Gentleman’s genuine commitment to this issue. It will be difficult, but let us get on and build this national care service and raise the esteem of politics with people across this country.
Ed Davey
The Prime Minister knows that I share his passion to get this right. He knows that I share his passion to work cross-party to find consensus, which is the only way we can put this right, but I hope we can get on with the cross-party talks. We cannot push this to the end of the next decade. We have to act now for the millions of people who need our help.
Can I move on to other matters? Scared of the mid-terms, President Trump has done a deal with Vladimir Putin to buy Russian diesel, ripping up international sanctions against Putin. The Prime Minister studiously avoided commenting on Trump’s behaviour on Monday, but this House deserves to know his position, as do President Zelensky and our brave Ukrainian allies. So let me ask the Prime Minister this: does he not agree that this is yet another shameful Trump betrayal of the Ukrainian people and European security?
The Prime Minister
Can I first say that I will arrange a new round of cross-party talks on social care, certainly before the end of the year, but hopefully within the next month? The former shadow Health Secretary from the main Opposition came, and I will make sure it is available to all parties in this House.
On the question about what is happening in Ukraine, obviously I am looking very much now at my meeting with President Zelensky in a couple of hours. I called him on Saturday because I recognised that it was another very dark and difficult moment for him as they contemplate a winter that will be severe for his people. I recognise that he is carrying the heaviest of weights right now and it is extremely difficult for him. What I have to do in my role is try and repair bridges so that the support comes back, and therefore I should, at this moment in time, be careful in terms of laying the ground to bring people back together. That is the role I intend to play. It is the right role for me to play in this moment. I will listen to President Zelensky carefully, but he will not be going away from Britain today empty-handed.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for giving me advance knowledge of this case, and I will be honest in saying that it worries me. It is crucial, clearly, because of the circumstances that my hon. Friend describes in relation to Hollie’s school, that the family are able to spend as much time together as is possible. That is why I have asked the Department for Education to speak to the trust. It must be possible to resolve this situation. It should not be causing any stress to the family. I would ask that they do it without delay.
Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)
MI5 boss Sir Ken McCallum yesterday revealed that there have been 50 arrests in the last year linked to Iran, and I have to say that this Government deserve praise. They deserve praise for proscribing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—a very important move. But every single week there are young, unidentified males from Iran coming into this country, some of whom pose a genuine security threat to our nation. Is it not time the Government recognised that what is going on in the English channel is a national security emergency?
The Prime Minister
Can I start just by recognising, with the charges that have been laid against the individual responsible for the murder of Ann Widdecombe, and indeed for also making threats against the hon. Member, that it has been a hard time for him and his family? There is a lot we disagree on, but I defend his right to say it, and I will work hard to secure his safety and that of every Member of this House. We will involve all sides in the Lovegrove review that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has established.
On the issues related to Iran, obviously we have seen the issues at RAF Fairford recently. They have been dealt with in the right way and with the utmost seriousness by the police and security services. The key point is that, of course, we do need to get boat crossings down. I hope the hon. Member would recognise that they are coming down and removals are up. There is much more to be done, but there is clearly progress in the right direction.
Mr Speaker
I do not think we are going to get through the list. We really are going to have to try to speed up some of the answers.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am going to go back to the response to the Milburn review. I think we need to give guarantees of mental health support when young people need it—not waiting months, not waiting years, but exactly when they need it—and that will be a part of my response.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I will be writing to the hon. Lady soon. This might sound disappointing, as we will not be taking forward her specific suggestion, but we will be bringing forward four new community mental health centres across Hertfordshire, as part of 159 across the country. I will be happy to ensure that the Health and Social Care Secretary works with her to involve her in the design of those new hubs, so that we can deliver the mental health support that she is rightly calling for.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I praise my hon. Friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) who has run the Right to Food campaign, and our trade unions—I am a proud supporter of them, and they have supported me, and I declare that interest in that matter as discussed with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) recently. We do need to expand access to free school meals, which the Government are doing, to half a million more children, and we have tripled investment in breakfast clubs. We need to keep working so that no child goes hungry on any single day in this country.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
The Prime Minister
As Prime Minister I am determined to ensure that we support all communities in this country, including our rural communities. I will listen carefully to what the hon. Member has to say as we bring forward our plans to show that we are on the side of her constituents.
Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Policing is obviously a devolved matter, but I am very open to working with the SNP Government, Police Scotland, and Glasgow city council to deal with the issues that my hon. Friend is referencing. As Mayor of Greater Manchester, I brought forward Operation Vulcan, which was a multi-agency approach to changing Cheetham Hill, and it did rip out entrenched criminality in that area. I am more than happy to talk to my hon. Friend about how we pioneer that in Glasgow too, and that offer is open to her.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
May I condemn the motion that was passed, unequivocally? It is wrong, it is antisemitic, and Labour Members will have nothing to do with it. We will always take the right response when it comes to any partnerships that we have with other parties, and we cannot support a partnership with a party that holds the position that has recently been adopted.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I could not agree with my hon. Friend more strongly. I will be in Scotland on Friday making a speech on these issues, looking at how we can do more to support young people and help the Government in Scotland develop their approach to getting more young people into work. We also have the Your First Home scheme that we have brought forward. We need to do much more to help young people get themselves established in life, and we will do that in all parts of the UK, including Scotland.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I am a complete champion for green space and physical activity, so I am concerned to hear about the situation that the hon. Lady’s constituents are in. I have just had a commitment from the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), to meet her to get this situation unlocked, and I hope that is helpful to her.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
May I agree strongly with my hon. Friend? I remember bringing the Hillsborough families to meet the Grenfell families shortly after the disaster. It is painful that it has taken so long for charges to be laid, but at least they have been laid now. I know the First Secretary has met with the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee this week to look at the oversight mechanism that he describes. I am confident that we can develop a model that gives exactly the commitment that he is looking for. I want to leave him and his constituents in no doubt whatsoever: as Prime Minister, I will work to support him every day to get justice for Grenfell.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
The national planning policy framework is 130 pages long. The London plan is over 500 pages long. The mayor’s guidance to the London plan is over 2,000 pages long. Will the Prime Minister concede that because of that, added to the increase in taxes that his Government are putting on businesses and employers, Labour has been a disaster for home building in London, pricing young people out of the market and putting pressure on home counties constituencies, like mine?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman just gave me a moment of déjà vu—I remember standing up in this Chamber auditioning for a mayor’s job many years ago. [Interruption.] He did not do a bad audition, but maybe it needs a little bit of work because the Administration that he worked in left some of that bureaucracy behind in London City Hall. I hope he will show more candour and directness than the Leader of the Opposition if he is ever asked the question, “Has Brexit been good or bad for London?” What is his answer?
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare) (Lab)
The 60th anniversary of the Aberfan disaster, which claimed the lives of 116 children and 28 adults, will be marked on 21 October. In the coming days, the community will mark the occasion with a range of events. As a precursor, this evening in Portcullis House the Lewis Merthyr band will perform a piece of music dedicated to the lost children of Aberfan. It was the most unimaginable horror that befell the village, and just how the community came together in the days and months ahead was, and is, testament to the spirit of the people of that community, who responded with such dignity and fortitude. It is fitting that the chair of the Aberfan memorial charity and a survivor of the disaster, Mr David Davies, is with us in the Gallery. Will the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to those who were lost and to what Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II described as the most “indomitable spirit” of the people and community of Aberfan?
The Prime Minister
I will be meeting David shortly. I look forward to paying tribute to him as the chair of the Aberfan Memorial Charity for all the support he has provided over the years to the relatives of the 144 people who died, many of them children, and the families who have lived with that grief for generations. I intend to visit Aberfan next week on the occasion of the 60th anniversary. I pay tribute to the whole community for the strength that they have shown over the years and to the wonderful representation that my hon. Friend has given.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
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?
The Prime Minister
I will indeed, and I remember the meeting very well. I speak as someone whose family has been affected by breast cancer. I look forward to meeting the group again, perhaps with the hon. Gentleman and with other colleagues on all sides of the House.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
In recent weeks, the Argentine Government have increased their economic aggression towards the Falkland Islands. Given that, will the Prime Minister update the House on the actions that the Government are taking in response to that belligerence?
The Prime Minister
Our position is unwavering: the Falkland Islands are British and will remain so, because that is the overwhelming will of the Falkland Islanders. We have made that clear to Argentina directly. We will not allow the islanders to be used as a prop in Argentinian domestic politics. I raised this issue directly with President Trump just a few weeks ago. We will not allow Britain or the Falkland Islands to be bullied in this way. We will seek to resolve the situation, but we will not hesitate to use more robust measures if necessary.
Bills Presented
Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc)
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Angela Rayner, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Alex Norris, Secretary Stephen Kinnock, Emma Reynolds, Uma Kumaran, Vicky Foxcroft, Matthew Pennycook, Florence Eshalomi and Jim McMahon, presented a Bill to make provision about fire safety in buildings containing multiple dwellings, including provision for the assessment and remediation of external walls that give rise to risks from fire, and the mitigation of such risks, in taller buildings; to make provision for the obtaining and recording of information about buildings containing residential accommodation; to make provision about liabilities in connection with unsafe construction products; and to make other provision in connection with the safety and management of residential buildings.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 155) with explanatory notes (Bill 155-EN).
Flooding
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
George Freeman, supported by Helen Morgan, Dr Ben Spencer, Steff Aquarone, Terry Jermy, James Wild, Jerome Mayhew, Adrian Ramsey, Blake Stephenson and Dr Roz Savage, presented a Bill to make provision about the responsibilities and duties of certain authorities and agencies in respect of inland flood prevention; to make provision about the powers of local flood authorities and Internal Drainage Boards; to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the funding of local flood authorities and Internal Drainage Boards; to provide for the designation of Internal Drainage Board pumps as critical national infrastructure; to require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report on the potential merits of establishing a Flood Compensation Fund to support homeowners whose primary residence has become unsaleable as a direct result of flooding; to make provision about flood reinsurance schemes; to make provision about the responsibilities of developers and water companies in respect of the provision of drainage for new housing developments; to make water companies statutory consultees for certain planning applications; to place a duty on fire and rescue services to respond to flood events; to make provision about national and local digital mapping of flood incidence and risk; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 December, and to be printed (Bill 157).
Armed Forces Compensation Scheme and War Pension Scheme (Report) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Josh Babarinde presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the potential merits of disregarding compensation received under the War Pension Scheme and Armed Forces Compensation Scheme for the purpose of calculating entitlement to Pension Credit and to other means-tested benefits for which such payments are not disregarded in full; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 158).
Wet Wipes (Labelling, Sale and Marketing)
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the marketing, advertising and offering for sale of wet wipes; to make provision about the labelling of wet wipes; and for connected purposes.
The city of Southend has 7 miles of beautiful beaches, and Leigh-on-Sea is well known as a picturesque fishing village that still has a vibrant cockling industry. My constituency is also home to many wild swimming groups such as the Bluetits, who find that the refreshing waters of the Thames estuary provide great exercise as well as benefits to their mental and physical wellbeing—although I have to say that when I took a dip in December for charity, I did not find it too relaxing.
All of this might help the House to understand why water quality is so important to my constituents and to me. Like so many, my constituents were rightfully outraged at the sewage dumps that sadly had become routine during the years of the former Conservative Government, so the people of Southend West and Leigh did what they so often do: they came together to make a difference on something they care about. They worked together to form quarterly water summits in 2024, giving residents the opportunity to hold water companies directly to account and to collaborate with the council, Ofwat, the Environment Agency and many more to find solutions to our water problems in Southend. It was the first summit of its kind in the country, and those summits continue to this day. I thank my constituent Daniella Boon, who is in the Gallery today, for her leadership on those summits and in this area.
It was through chairing those water summits as a newly elected MP that I came to learn just how complex the issues affecting water quality and sewage discharges are. Certainly, water companies play the most important role, and I welcome the work being done by this Government to hold them to account. However, sewage discharges happen when the water system fails on so many different levels. Councils, the community, planning decisions, green spaces, and even whether or not a person chooses to pave their driveway all come together to influence outcomes.
Last year, when spending time at our local sewage treatment plant, I learned that blockages are a leading cause of sewage discharges. When the sewers block, there are only two places for sewage to go—in Southend, it will be out into the estuary, or back up into people’s homes and toilets. We will all have seen in the media that those blockages are often caused by fatbergs. The pictures can be very shocking. The Guinness world record belongs to the fatberg found in Whitechapel in London in 2017, which was 250 metres long—longer than Tower bridge.
With blockages of that size, it is no wonder that our sewerage system sometimes struggles to cope, and alongside grease and fat, those bergs are mostly made up of wet wipes. In Anglian Water’s network alone, around 500,000 wet wipes are flushed every single day. Instead of breaking down, many wet wipes remain largely intact. They snag on roots, pumps and rough surfaces within sewers, and they combine with fats, oils and grease to create these large blockages. In my constituency alone, Anglian Water dealt with 610 blockages last year, all caused by unflushable items.
This Government have brought in legislation to ban plastic in wet wipes, a measure that my constituents and I welcome. It is an incredibly necessary step, as it reduces the harmful microplastics that poison wildlife and enter the food chain. However, biodegradable does not necessarily mean flushable, and even plastic-free wipes are made of tougher fibres that do not break down in the toilet in the same way that paper does.
At our water summits, Anglian Water will often remind us that there is no such thing as a flushable wipe. When I visited Anglian Water’s water treatment plant on Stock Road I got to see a whole skip—yes, an entire skip—filled with long stringy fibres from wet wipes that have been fished out of our water system. The House can only imagine how that smelled. People flush wipes because they are labelled as flushable. The packaging is often clearly marked with a flushable logo. The wet wipe may disappear when the handle is pressed, but its disappearing down the toilet is not the same thing as its passing safely through the sewerage network. Consumers cannot see and do not know what happens after that wipe has been flushed. If the package says it is flushable, why would someone think otherwise? We should not expect consumers to decipher competing claims from water companies and manufacturers. We cannot expect them to conduct their own experiments before deciding to flush their wipes down the toilet. We conducted some experiments in my office, and we could see that some of these flushable wipes do not dissolve in water. People should be able to trust what is on the packaging.
Every October, campaigns such as Unblocktober encourage people to think before they flush. These campaigns have helped to raise awareness, but awareness alone is not enough. We cannot spend one month of the year urging people not to flush wet wipes while allowing manufacturers to market those same products as flushable the whole year long. Education and labelling should not be pulling in opposite directions. The public need a clear and consistent message to just bin it.
I want to be clear that the ultimate responsibility for fixing our water systems does not lie with consumers or even wet wipe manufacturers; it lies with the water companies. They took on the serious responsibility of protecting our waterways, rivers and seas, and often they have failed. This Labour Government has successfully passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 to strengthen regulation of the water industry, to allow bonuses to be banned for company owners who pollute our waterways and even to make it possible to hold water company executives criminally responsible. The legislation will also enable independent monitoring of every sewer overflow outlet. We will go further, with plans for greater public control of water coming later this year.
No amount of responsible flushing will repair outdated infrastructure, prioritise investment or build new reservoirs, but it is part of the picture in keeping our waterways clean. I welcome the £90 million-plus investment by Anglian Water, working in partnership with Southend city council, to tackle flooding, improve water systems and improve public spaces.
This Bill proposes that there should be a clear indication on all wet wipes that they should be disposed of safely in the bin and that people are encouraged to flush only the three Ps: pee, poo and paper. Non-flushable wipes should be clearly labelled as such with a visible symbol on the front of the packaging. Wipes that pass rigorous testing could continue to be labelled as flushable, but the onus should be on the manufacturer to prove that they will break down and cause no damage to the water system or to the plumbing of people’s homes. Labelling should also clearly and prominently instruct consumers about restrictions, such as flushing only one wipe at a time.
The International Organisation for Standardisation published a technical specification on flushability in August this year. It is vital that the water industry works closely with manufacturers to establish clear and realistic specifications for what can be classed as flushable, moist toilet tissue. Consumers need confidence that flushable actually means flushable, and right now that is not the case.
This is a matter of consumer choice. I am not telling people to use alternatives to wet wipes, although alternatives exist. I know that people will want to use wet wipes, whether for medical reasons or just because it is what they prefer, but they should know that for the sake of our pipes, our plumbing bills and our wildlife, they should just bin it.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That David Burton-Sampson, Leigh Ingham, Cat Eccles, Chris Bloore, Chris Vince, Danny Beales, Mr Alex Barros-Curtis, Lee Barron, Mike Reader, James Naish, Lizzi Collinge and Mr Bayo Alaba present the Bill.
David Burton-Sampson accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 156).
Opposition Day
MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
15:41 - The House divided: - Ayes: 113 / Noes: 309 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected any amendments.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House condemns the Government’s plan to place illegal migrants in MoD Bicester; and calls on the Government to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights in order to deport illegal migrants.
Those on the Government Benches would not go and meet the women of Piddington and hear their concerns, so today the Opposition have brought the women of Piddington to them. They are in the Gallery today. The Minister for Women and Equalities, the right hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), and her colleagues on the Government Benches have nowhere to hide. The women of Piddington have written to all female Labour MPs and are still awaiting a response. How those Members vote today will be seen by the women of Piddington and by the women in towns, cities and villages across the country, so let me start with a simple question to Labour MPs: today, will they put the interests of women before those of the Labour party?
I have been to Piddington twice. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and our shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), have also been there to speak to the women at first hand. We all could see clearly that the safety of women and girls in that small village is at risk. That village of 350 people is shortly to have 1,300 migrants imposed on it—men who have already broken the law by coming here illegally.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this motion to the House and for opening this debate in her customarily powerful way. Piddington has the headlines, but it is not just about Piddington; it is also about the women in Oakley, in Marsh Gibbon, in Ludgershall, in Brill, in Boarstall, in Long Crendon and in many other villages just over the Buckinghamshire border that are within walking distance of MOD Bicester site A.
Joy Morrissey
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This issue is not just in that area, either, but across the country. It is affecting women and girls in constituencies everywhere across the UK.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
To reiterate the point that the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) has just made in his intervention, illegal immigration and illegal migration are a massive issue in my constituency. My constituents tell me that every day that I am on the doors. Illegal migrants are a problem not just on the UK mainland but in Strangford and across Northern Ireland. My concern is that illegal migrants use the European convention on human rights system to bypass the system and to be an obstacle. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is time for the ECHR to be abolished and for those illegal migrants to be sent back home?
Joy Morrissey
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and when we are back in government, we Conservatives will vote to leave the ECHR. We believe that we should deport illegal immigrants the moment that they arrive.
The village of Piddington has a population of only 350, and the 1,300 migrant men will be a blight on their small village—men from cultures where women are treated worse than animals; men who the Government have decided need a leaflet asking them not to rape women and girls.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I commend the hon. Lady’s efforts to raise the voices of all people across the country. Under the Conservatives, about 1,400 migrants were living and dispersed in my city, but that number has fallen significantly under this Government. Can the hon. Lady tell me which Conservative Ministers visited Stoke-on-Trent in their Government time—perhaps she did so herself—to listen to the voices of that community? Or is it only now that she cares about those voices, when it is politically expedient?
Joy Morrissey
Actually, I went as the Prime Minister’s parliamentary private secretary. We held a Cabinet meeting in Stoke-on-Trent. I was therefore able to see at first hand the developments that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. It is good to remember that, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising it.
I raised the issue of the safety of women and girls a few weeks ago, during my first oral questions to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones). I asked two questions, very directly: did the Government agree that men entering this country illegally from countries such as Eritrea, Afghanistan and Sudan pose a direct threat to the safety of women and girls, and did the Government agree that men who enter Britain illegally and need a leaflet telling them not to rape women and girls should instead be deported immediately?
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
My hon. Friend has listed some of the countries involved. Pakistan, Eritrea, Iran, Sudan and Afghanistan are the top five. Of course it is right to talk about national security, and we have heard a lot about that over the last few days, but today we are talking about personal security: the personal security of women, young girls and indeed young boys. Not everyone who comes here illegally would seek to attack, but too many do, and even when they go to prison we are not able to deport them because of the European convention on human rights. We need to leave the ECHR, we need to secure our borders, and we need to have a deterrent. We are a fair-minded country, but enough is enough.
Joy Morrissey
I agree with everything that my right hon. Friend has said, and I will echo his comments later in my speech. When we asked legitimate questions about women and girls being under threat, the Minister at the time could not find the answer. Perhaps this Minister can do so today.
The women of Piddington deserve our thanks in this House because they have made their voices heard, but they are far from alone. The women of Linton-on-Ouse in North Yorkshire are worried about the 1,200 men who are about to descend on their community. The women of Barnham in Suffolk are facing 1,250 illegal migrant men in their midst. The women of Crowborough in Sussex have been working closely with their excellent local Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Sussex Weald (Ms Ghani), to deal with illegal migrant men who are already in their community. I pay tribute to their very hard-working local MP, who has been battling a coalition of Greens, Liberal Democrats and Labour. The Home Office, interestingly, made an application for housing for 540 asylum seekers, who moved in last January, and has now extended that application to 2030. My hon. Friend the Member for Sussex Weald has been single-handedly battling against the council and the Home Office. She is on the frontline of this issue, and I thank her for raising the voices of women and girls.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech in defence of right and decency, and in defence of my constituents and hers. The problem that we face, to which she has just alluded, is that the whole of the liberal establishment either cannot see this or will not see it. The root of the problem is their failure to recognise that cultural equivalence does not exist. Some of these people are coming from countries whose values are entirely different from ours, where people regard as acceptable things that we see as either unpalatable or frankly horrendous, and the failure to accept that fact underpins the unwillingness to do anything about what my hon. Friend has just described.
Joy Morrissey
My right hon. Friend has made an excellent point, but it is not just a case of their values being different from ours; it is a case of their taking advantage of our nature, our culture and our values.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
The hon. Lady talks about values and culture. She has already mentioned that she served in the last Government. I wonder what the culture of that Government was when boat crossings were at a record high, when the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) was opening hotels as though they were going out of season. What was the culture in that Government when it came to attempting to combat this issue?
Joy Morrissey
Luckily we are under a new leadership. I am waiting to hear—and I would love to hear from the hon. Gentleman—why not one member of the Labour party has responded to the women of Piddington who have written to them about this issue. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. There is one person speaking at this moment, and that is the only voice I wish to hear.
Joy Morrissey
The Government have said that middle-class areas need to bear their share, using class as a new weapon to silence concerns. It is a dangerous, lazy approach from a Government who are supposed to unite our country. This is not about class, or race, or anything else that the Labour party wants to use to silence those who are speaking up. That technique was used to silence rape gang victims in our cities and towns, and it is appalling that Labour has not learnt from that scandal. This is about women speaking up about fears for their safety and that of their children. The Prime Minister should listen, and Labour Members should listen. They know that these women and their communities will suffer: they know that because we already have the proof. Communities across this land have seen the lives of their women and girls ruined—ruined by the fundamental failure of this Government to protect them from the threat posed by men who come here illegally.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
Will the hon. Lady join me in congratulating this Labour Government on shutting down the Brook asylum hotel—which is just 200 yards over my constituency border, and was opened on 28 September 2022 by the Conservative Government—thus ensuring that the constituencies of South Norfolk and Norwich South took into account the concerns of women, girls and all other constituents within our area?
Joy Morrissey
I would ask the hon. Gentleman why the use of houses in multiple occupation for asylum accommodation has increased by 12% since this Government took over, why there has been this movement from hotels to HMOs, and what the long-term solution is.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The fact is that the hotels have been closed down because HMOs have been opened up, and the Government will not even specify how many HMOs are involved because they conglomerate the data, so we cannot even obtain transparent answers for my community. That puts my community at risk, and it puts at risk the people who are housed in the HMOs. Does my hon. Friend not agree with that?
Joy Morrissey
I do agree. You have made an excellent point, which I will bring up later in my speech.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Because this is going to be a long debate, I must say that we should be hearing no “you” or “yours”.
Joy Morrissey
In respect of this issue of asylum accommodation, let me give a few examples of men who have raped and assaulted women and girls. Muhammad Sheikhi, a Syrian asylum seeker, came here illegally by boat. He was placed in asylum accommodation, and then sexually assaulted two women in Falkirk. He told police that he was just roaming around. The judge sentenced him to four years, saying that he had
“treated these women as though their autonomy, dignity, and bodily integrity counted for nothing.”
Three asylum seekers from Iran and Egypt were convicted in April of raping a woman in Brighton. They travelled from their asylum accommodation in Horsham. They kicked her, grabbed her throat, raped her and filmed it.
Mohammed Abbas, an illegal migrant claiming to be Palestinian, was put up in a taxpayer-funded house in Cardiff. He broke into a nearby property and exposed himself to two girls, aged 16 and 13, in their bedroom.
An Afghan illegal migrant raped a 12-year-old girl in Nuneaton just four months after he arrived here by boat. He abducted her, raped her and filmed her. These are just a few examples.
Dr Luke Evans
That happened in my neighbouring constituency. Does my hon. Friend understand why my community is so upset when we see people moving into HMOs, given the risk posed and the evidence base that she has just announced?
Joy Morrissey
Indeed, and my hon. Friend makes that point very eloquently. It is very important that we stand up for our local communities to protect them from illegal migrant men.
I have mentioned just a few of the horrific crimes committed by illegal migrant men—men who should have been deported before they could roam our streets and forever change the lives of young women and girls, and who will pay no notice to a gently worded leaflet that encourages them to understand our cultural values. These men do not care about our values. They are here to take advantage of our welcoming culture.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
The proposal from the Government is to open large sites far from town centres, where there can be resources, such as Home Office officials, and where the police can be informed. Before I was elected, I worked in asylum accommodation. The hon. Lady’s Government would open hotels in city centres without telling local authorities, and without even telling the police. Why is she proposing that her system is safer for local communities than this alternative?
Joy Morrissey
I encourage the hon. Gentleman to come to Piddington to see that there is a very small village right up against what is going to be a very large asylum camp, which has no additional police protection and no additional provision. The men will be allowed to roam free through the village. It will create a safeguarding issue for young children, for girls, and there is no reason why this community should have to suffer just like communities in York and across the country. They are suffering because we are not deporting illegal migrants, and that is why we need to leave the ECHR.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Is it not the case that those on the Labour Benches have entirely missed the point? Dealing with the problem once it has arrived in our communities will not do. We need something fundamental that deals with the problem, which, admittedly, did not arrive in 2024—it is of relatively long standing. We need a solution, just like the Rwanda solution, which was on the cusp of being implemented at the general election. The first thing that the Labour party did on coming into office was to can that.
Joy Morrissey
My right hon. friend makes an excellent point: we did suggest Rwanda. We Conservatives are committed to leaving the ECHR, so that we can deport foreign nationals who come here illegally within a week. That is why we want to leave the ECHR.
Joy Morrissey
I will give way after I make some progress.
I have mentioned just a few of the horrific crimes committed by illegal migrant men—men who should have been deported before they could roam our streets. These cases show that the women of Piddington, Linton-on-Ouse and Barnham are right to be concerned. Let me be clear to those on the Labour Benches: when their only political response to hearing of these crimes, and to the legitimate fears raised by women and girls, is to shout “weaponisation”, it says more about them and their priorities than it does about their political opponents. When their only policy response is to launch a talking shop on misogyny, they should recognise how weak that makes them look. When they refuse to meet concerned women, it speaks volumes about their commitment to women and girls.
It is not hard to see why such a commitment is lacking. I wrote to the Minister for Women and Equalities to offer to work cross-party and to facilitate a meeting with the women of Piddington. I have not had a response, but I heard in the media that it was a no. She is chair of the Labour party first and Women’s Minister second.
Pete Wishart
The hon. Lady has mentioned the ECHR a couple of times, and her motion refers to the UK’s exit from the convention. I know that she is all over her brief, so can she tell me what that exit would mean for the devolved settlement? What implications would it have for the Scottish Parliament?
Joy Morrissey
None at all, but I do not want to go into that. I have talked about the asylum seeker in Falkirk; it is not just women in England, but those in Scotland and Wales, who have raised concerns about illegal migrants in their midst who are roaming the streets. There is a problem. There is a difference in how these men are treating our women and girls, and people are genuinely afraid.
I am sure that lurking somewhere in the Whips-briefed speeches for Labour Members are some of the tired old tunes, so let me save Labour Members some time by engaging with the substance of those points. When they trot out, “14 years!”, I say that they have had two years, and the British people are already desperate for them to stop there. When they say, “Illegal migrant men are not a threat to women and girls; men known to them are”, I say that both things can be true, and I want to tackle both. Why don’t they? Why will they not give us the data on crimes committed against women and girls by men with active asylum claims?
The truth is that this Government have a “hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil” approach to this issue. Labour Members do not want to hear the women of Piddington, Linton-on-Ouse or Barnham because of the uncomfortable truth that they will speak. Labour Members do not want to see the data on how significant the problem of illegal migrant men committing crimes against women and children is, for fear of a Pandora’s box being opened. They do not want to speak about this issue because of the ideological capture of their party. It has been captured by people who have placed an obsession with multiculturalism above a cohesive British society. This is about the choices we make as a country.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
The hon. Lady is giving a powerful speech, and it is a reminder of why there are no Conservative MPs or councils led by the Conservatives in Oxfordshire anymore. I absolutely commend the women of Piddington for speaking up, and I commend the young women in Oxford who have come to me to say that their voice has not been heard. However, there are women in all parts of this country, and in all sorts of circumstances, for whom that is true. The violence against women and girls strategy was criticised by the National Audit Office in January 2025. It was written by the Leader of the Opposition when she was the Minister for Women and Equalities, and she should have tackled this issue. Will the Leader of the Opposition apologise to the women of Piddington, and those across this country?
Joy Morrissey
There may be some buyer’s remorse across Oxfordshire; I could not possibly say. I will say that we Conservatives have a very different view from the Liberal Democrats on open borders, immigration and welcoming migrants. That is perhaps coming home to roost across the country, but it is not for me to comment on that; it is for the voters to decide.
We have let in men, and we have lost control of them. They have roamed around our streets to rape and assault women and girls, and we have placed them in British jails at our expense. Enough! It is time to be clear that if you come here illegally, you have already broken the law, and you will be deported. The ECHR should no longer be a weapon that left-wing lawyers can use to keep you here, if you arrive illegally. The Government are placing British women and girls in harm’s way. They refuse women even the common courtesy of listening to them when they speak up about their concerns. They just want to be heard. Can the Government please take the time to listen to these women?
The Conservatives have listened to the women who are concerned about their safety, and to the British people. They want action on illegal immigration, not gimmicks and TikTok videos. Our border plan will deliver the control needed and the protections that British women and girls deserve. Our plan is built on clear values and the detailed hard work needed to make it work. If people come here illegally, they cannot claim asylum, and they will be deported within a week. We will take Britain out of the ECHR, and we will establish a removal force to remove illegal immigrants.
The choice for the Government and Members across the House is clear: do they believe that thousands of illegal migrant men from cultures that treat women so badly pose a direct threat to the safety of British women and girls, and if not, how many more appalling stories of crimes against women and girls do they need? The Conservatives have heard about enough of these crimes to know that it is time to act. We must not house immigrants who come here illegally. The ECHR has stood in our way for far too long for common sense and for the good of the British people. It is time to leave the ECHR. It is time to put the rights of British people first.
Dr Murrison
Lord Wolfson has put that beyond fear of peradventure in his report—we have to leave the ECHR—but does my hon. Friend agree with me that that is not enough? Some of the countries to which we want to send people back will not take them, particularly Pakistan. Do we not need to get real with the Government of Pakistan and say, “If you refuse to co-operate with this, you can forget about visas and foreign aid”?
Joy Morrissey
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The shadow Home Secretary has already made the point that we need sanctions and proper ways of enforcement for countries that refuse to take back those claiming asylum here, and he will speak about that later.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)
Four years ago, I was the first Conservative Minister to say publicly that, to stop the boats and protect women and girls, we needed to leave the European convention on human rights. My hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has been advocating for departure from the ECHR for many years. Will the shadow Minister take this opportunity to apologise to the nation, on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, for refusing to support my policy proposal when her party had the opportunity, power and, indeed, duty to stop the boats and deal with the invasion?
Joy Morrissey
I would point out that when the right hon. and learned Lady was Home Secretary, in charge of all of these things and making these key decisions, immigration was at record levels. I commend her for calling out many of these issues, but she had the opportunity, while at the helm, to do something. I leave that there; enough said.
Finally, let me say this to the women in the Public Gallery, those I met in Piddington and elsewhere, the women who have written to me, and women and girls across Britain who are worried about their safety: I hear you; my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary hears you; the Leader of the Opposition hears you; and the Conservative party hears you. We are here for you, and we will act.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Anna Turley)
I thank the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) for calling this debate. I place on record my thanks to all hon. Members in this House who have engaged with me in the few weeks since I took on this role about asylum accommodation in their constituency. It is really important that we continue that powerful dialogue, including with you, Madam Deputy Speaker; you have engaged with me often on this issue, and I appreciate that engagement.
I particularly thank the shadow Minister because I really do welcome this opportunity to update Members on the Government’s work to fix our country’s broken asylum system. The system was in a state of absolute chaos and disarray when we took office two years ago. We are dealing with the legacy left by the hon. Lady and her team today. I will shortly come on to the action that we are taking to restore fairness, order and control, but it is really important to put any debate on asylum in its proper context, and that means recognising the situation that we inherited. It was this Government who picked up the pieces after the general election, following years of inaction and ineptitude. There has been mud-slinging, finger pointing and blaming from the Opposition today, but we are getting on with fixing the mess, and fixing the flow that the Conservatives allowed. The hon. Lady referred to their 14 years and our two years; I look forward to setting out in my speech the difference between those 14 years and the last two years.
In 2018, about 300 people arrived here by small boat. In the years that followed, an entire criminal industry built up along our borders, on the Conservatives’ watch. Ruthless smugglers sent people on dangerous, unnecessary and—far too often—fatal journeys, making a fortune in the process. The consequences of all this are well known in the House, but they bear repeating. Between January 2021 and June 2024, 110,000 people came here by small boat. Meanwhile, the asylum system ground to a halt. Decision making collapsed, leaving thousands in limbo for years at the taxpayers’ expense, and so did the return of those with no right to be in the UK, while a further 175,000 people claimed asylum by other routes. As the numbers rose, so did the cost to the taxpayer. In just a single year, spending on asylum support under the Conservative party was £4.7 billion. That is an incredible cost to the taxpayer—money that we could and should be spending on the other priorities we debate in this place.
Chris Murray
Over the last two years, we on the Home Affairs Committee have looked into the cost of this to the taxpayer. Does the Minister share my outrage that huge amounts of public money have gone to private companies, some of whose owners entered The Sunday Times rich list while our communities suffered? Does she also agree that the author and signer of those contracts was the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), on the Reform Benches?
Anna Turley
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. Under the last Government, £9 million a day was spent housing people in 400 asylum hotels. That was costly and inefficient. The evidence has shown that it was part of the draw that people knew they could come here and be put in a nice hotel. It was one of the pull factors that we are trying to deal with and tackle today. As we have heard, all we had in response to this people smuggling on an industrial scale was the farce of the Rwanda scheme, in which £700 million was spent on sending four volunteers to Rwanda.
Dr Murrison
The Minister is talking about Rwanda, but she did not give the scheme a chance to generate results. On day one, the previous Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, canned it, without any prospect of it showing demonstrable results. Looking back, does she think that was wise?
Anna Turley
I do not know how much good money the right hon. Gentleman wants to throw after bad, but £700 million on four volunteers was an incredible waste of money.
The British people have a natural sense of fairness. We are a nation that has benefited from centuries of facing outwards towards the world, both reaching out across the globe and welcoming people in. There can be barely a Member here who does not have some historical migration in their family, or family ties to other nations. The British people will always accept those who are genuinely fleeing peril. They will welcome those who come here legally and who contribute. They know we are a place where people can come to build their life and aspire to do great things. Even this House, its representatives and their stories reflect that; we have seen that in the last week or so.
However, the British people will not accept chaos at our borders. They will not accept a lack of control over who comes in. They will not accept the unfairness of a broken system, in which those who break the rules are the ones who benefit from our welcome. Nor will they tolerate expensive and often iconic hotels across their communities being used to house asylum seekers at vast expense to the taxpayers.
Anna Turley
I will make a bit of progress, if I may.
The British people will not tolerate illegal migrants placing pressure on our public services, while efforts to remove them are frustrated. There is no quick fix, but the task of ending the chaos and, crucially, of restoring fairness falls to this Government, and we embrace it. It is only a Labour Government who will fix the broken system, restore control at our borders and bring back fairness to our public services. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) is chuntering from the Opposition Benches, but I am coming to the exact subject of our progress so far, which I hope she will see contrasts nicely with what happened in the previous 14 years.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I thank the Opposition spokesperson for this debate today, but can I also say how grateful I am that the Minister for Border Security and Asylum, my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) is in her place? More than 20 years ago, she and I worked in the Home Office, where we inherited another Tory mess on asylum. With a great Home Secretary and a brilliant team, we reduced the backlog, made appeals much more difficult and made the country a much safer place. Will she bring some of her experience from 20 years ago to this job, after the mess the Tories left have us?
Anna Turley
I appreciate my hon. Friend drawing attention to that. It was a privilege—in, I think, 2003—to work for the now Lord David Blunkett to close the Sangatte refugee centre, put juxtaposed controls on French shores and end the situation of people coming through as clandestines in the back of lorries with the Bill that we took through at that time as civil servants. It was a privilege to play that role. Here we are, yet again, fixing the legacy of the previous Government.
As I said, the British people will not tolerate illegal migrants placing pressure on our public services while efforts to remove them are frustrated. It is only the Labour Government who will fix the broken system, restore control and bring back fairness, but we will do so without performative cruelty, without the deliberate fomenting of grievance and without destroying our international reputation. Thanks to the action the Labour Government are taking, the picture today is improving, with crossings down, removals up and the system now finally on a more stable footing.
Over the last two years, this Government have acted to restore fairness and control to our asylum system, first by taking the fight to the criminal gangs and bearing down on illegal crossings. One of the first steps the then Home Secretary took following the general election was to establish Border Security Command. The command has had a significant impact, especially in its efforts, alongside a strengthened National Crime Agency, to ramp up law enforcement action on organised immigration crime.
Anna Turley
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman raising the point about deterrence. It is extremely important but, as I said, the Rwanda deterrent was not effective. [Interruption.] Millions of pounds and a handful of volunteers. It has been disproven and clearly did not have any impact. I will come on to the deterrent that is actually working.
We have also given our agencies counter-terror style powers via the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025. In the last financial year, organised immigration crime was disrupted on over 3,700 occasions, up by 46% over the same period. This includes organised immigration crime arrests, which were up 74%, as we took down the criminals behind this vile trade. For example, just in June, two men became the first to be jailed under the new “endangerment at sea” offence for piloting dangerously overcrowded small boats across the channel—that is a deterrent, that is working. We are also denying gangs the equipment and infrastructure they rely on. In May, an operation involving the National Crime Agency and German, French and other international partners seized more than 30 boats, over 20 engines, 360 pumps and more than 9,000 life jackets. Since entering office, we have seized over a total of 1,100 boats and engines.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way and for setting out her arguments. I am just wondering whether she will actually come on to Piddington and the impact on the residents there—we have people in the Gallery today. This issue is about the impact on women and girls there. I would be interested to know how many Ministers have actually been to Piddington and spoken to the residents themselves directly.
Anna Turley
I appreciate the hon. Lady. Of course, I will come on to Piddington—that is the content, the subject and the title of this debate—but it is really important to understand the people we are talking about having to house, how we are having to house them and the issues we are dealing with. I am proud of the steps we have taken to reduce that number so that we can hopefully reduce the number of people dependent on asylum accommodation as we go forward.
In partnership with French law enforcement, we have now stopped more than 50,000 attempted channel crossings. As a result, small boat arrivals are down around 40% on last year and asylum claims are down by 20%—real action, real results.
The task of responding to large-scale movements of people is one that we share with many Governments across the globe. It is, without question, one of the defining challenges of our age and to meet it we must work with source, transit and destination countries alike. That is why the Government have made it a priority to strengthen our co-operation with a range of international partners, striking new agreements and strengthening existing partnerships.
Just last month, the Home Secretary signed an agreement with her Belgian counterpart to intensify UK-Belgium co-operation and tighten the net around criminal gangs behind small boat crossings. We are taking our partnership with France further, following the new deal signed in April. French boots on the ground have already increased by 24% and a further 50 specialist officers will now be deployed on high-risk red days when conditions indicate crossings are likely, doubling the size of the current unit. First, by disrupting the movements of goods and infrastructure, tackling the gangs across borders and working with our international partners, we are reducing the flow of people heading towards our borders. Secondly, as the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) flagged, we are addressing the pull factors that fuel illegal migration, and we are enforcing the laws of this land.
To live in this country is a privilege, but it comes with responsibilities. When people abuse our hospitality, staying for longer than they are entitled to or committing criminal offences in our communities, the public rightly expect every effort to be made to remove them from British soil. That is why the total failure to remove illegal migrants and foreign offenders in the years before the general election was so damaging, and why the Government are putting right the wrongs of the past.
Sir John Hayes
The Minister is of course right that international co-operation matters in terms of dealing with these things, particularly channel crossings, but the point made earlier was that where countries refuse to take back their nationals who have committed crimes here, we should take further action, should we not? Part of that might be cutting aid or dealing with visas, as has been suggested. There are all kinds of other levers that can be used by Government to tell those countries, “You’ve got to take them back, because they’re not our responsibility and we’re not going to pay for them any more.”
Anna Turley
I think we are in danger of having a rare moment of cross-party consensus and agreement, because that is something the Government are already taking many steps towards. We are looking at visa enforcements. We have already had a number of successes on that front and will continue to use that, because where we see countries refusing to take people back, we have those levers within our power and we are using them.
Dr Murrison
Would the Minister like to look at the way the previous Government dealt with illegal Albanian migrants? It was hugely successful, yet this Government do not appear to have learnt any lessons from that. They are persisting with allowing illegal migrants to remain here indefinitely without any realistic prospect of being returned, and there is no meaningful pressure on Governments, particularly Pakistan, to take people back.
Anna Turley
I am afraid that one moment of consensus has already broken down. I disagree. We are undertaking a range of consultation and engagement on measures with those partners. The Albania agreement was important, but the Home Secretary is making a number of arrangements, and we look forward to announcing them. I hope hon. Members will be patient with us, but I look forward to making more announcements in the weeks and months ahead.
Anna Turley
I am going to move on. Forgive me.
We have driven up removals to the highest level in a decade—an important point to stop and reflect on—because of the progress we are making, with 80,000 individuals returned since the general election, including immigration offenders, people in the country illegally and foreign criminals. We know, too, that the ability to melt into the illegal economy too often lures people here, so we have raised illegal working enforcement to record levels.
As we rebuild our shattered asylum system, we are also lightening the burden on local communities. The Government committed to ending the use of asylum hotels within this Parliament and we will do so. Two years in, we have already emptied one in three, reducing the hotel population by 50% in the last year and by 71% since the peak under the previous Government. We have cut asylum costs from hotels by £1 billion. That is £1 billion that we can spend on the other priorities of the British people and I think that that should be recognised.
We have made significant progress on the chaos we inherited two years ago, but we know there is more to be done to restore fairness to our asylum system: fairness for genuine refugees, who deserve our sanctuary and wish to contribute to our society; and fairness for British citizens, our constituents, who shoulder the current burden in their taxes and in their communities. That is why we continue to work relentlessly at home and abroad to prevent people from coming here illegally in the first place, dismantle the criminal networks that facilitate dangerous and unnecessary crossings, remove those who break our laws and have no right to be here, and ensure that this country maintains its proud tradition of helping the world’s most vulnerable people where it can, but in a secure and orderly way through new safe and legal routes.
That is why we have introduced the new Immigration and Asylum Bill. It will cut the asylum backlog by making decisions faster and fairer, close loopholes so that those with no right to be here can be rapidly removed, and ask those who have benefited from public support to contribute to their costs where they are able. I thank the Members who are currently scrutinising the Bill in Committee.
I turn now, as the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) implored, to the issues around MOD Bicester. For too long, the way in which we house asylum seekers has not been fair. Billions of pounds have been spent putting them up in hotels, while communities have seen those hotels, often at the centre of their towns or cities, become a symbol of a broken asylum system. Areas where housing costs were low and that already felt left behind were asked to bear more than their fair share, which has been a source of anger and frustration for many people—and understandably so.
As well as reducing the backlog, we are working with local authorities on a fairer distribution of asylum seekers across the country. That means ending the use of costly hotels, and instead, moving asylum seekers into more appropriate accommodation.
Anna Turley
I am going to make some progress, because I have detained the Chamber a little too long.
That appropriate accommodation includes former military sites, which are basic, safe and self-contained by their nature. As I have said, that approach has already saved the taxpayer £1 billion. But, of course, we recognise the concerns of certain communities.
While the Home Office has submitted a planning application to use the MOD Bicester site for asylum accommodation, no final decision has been made. As part of that planning process, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government provided members of the public and local organisations an opportunity to give their views, ensuring we can fully understand the impact on the local community. I want to pay tribute to the campaign in Piddington. It has been an incredibly imaginative and forceful democratic campaign, which I recognise and respect.
There are many facets to the process and a lot of different considerations to take into account, but I am clear that public safety is and always will be at the forefront of our thinking. If the site is taken forward, there would be specialist security onsite 24/7, supported by CCTV. Everyone must sign in and out, and we would work closely with the police, the council and other local organisations to address concerns.
It is important to note that this is not the first proposal of its kind. Similar sites such as Wethersfield have operated for years with no evidence of any significant increase in criminality attributable to the operation of that site. In fact, in September this year, the chief constable of Essex police confirmed that crime linked to the Wethersfield site is very low, and that there is no reason for the public to be concerned about possible criminality in the area associated with the site.
I emphasise that I fully understand the important desire of Members across the House to press for what they see as the best outcome for the areas and people that they represent. That is their democratic duty, and it is right that any Government are held to account for the decisions that they make. At the same, it is the duty of Government to act in a way that reflects the needs of the whole country. The approach we are taking is in the national interest, and it is the fairest way to restore order and control to our asylum system: ending the use of hotels; reducing the numbers in the system by addressing pull factors; removing those with no right to be here; and opening safe and legal routes, underpinned by community sponsorship, so that those with genuine claims can come to this country in an orderly and controlled way.
Finally, I will address the reference in the Opposition motion to the European convention on human rights. As I have set out, removals of those with no right to be in this country are at the highest level in years. That is thanks to the work that this Government have done and continue to do. But there is much more to be done. The idea that leaving the convention is the way forward is not born out by reality. Not only is it unnecessary to restore effective control of the immigration system, but it would be counterproductive given the risk of undermining crucial co-operation with European partners—something we are already dealing with as a consequence of Brexit.
Let us be clear: the convention delivers for people in this country too. It guarantees their right to privacy, a fair trial, free speech—permanent privileges that cannot be chopped and changed. In an increasingly dangerous and uncertain world in which conflict and cross-border crime present shared challenges, a close relationship with our European allies has never been more important. It is for those reasons that we remain committed to the ECHR and those relationships.
Of course, commitment does not mean complacency. This Government have worked hard to listen to the concerns of the public with respect to the ECHR and the immigration system. That is why our focus is on reforming the domestic application of article 6 and restoring the proper balance between individual rights and public interest. The UK is proud of the role that we played in drafting the convention, and now it is our responsibility to ensure that it is strong and relevant for today’s world. That requires honest conversations and continued evolution, not turning our backs when it matters most.
We have ahead of us what I expect will be a wide-ranging debate. I conclude by recounting the central facts about our record. Crossings: down. Asylum hotel use: down. Removals: up. Order and control: returning at last. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) has chuntered from a sedentary position for a while, but I remember that when he was in the Home Office his Government began the use of many similar large sites, such as Wethersfield. [Interruption.] I am just reminding him that Wethersfield was opened under his watch.
Let us remember the “why” as well as the “what.” The reason underlying all that we have done, are doing, and will do in this area is fairness—fairness to those in genuine need of sanctuary from tyranny, conflict and persecution; and fairness for the British public, who rightly expect their Government, not criminal gangs, to determine who can come to this country, and who expect asylum seekers to be fairly housed across the country. Fairness is the principle on which our progress to date has been built, and the work continues relentlessly.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
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.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
I will indeed respect the amount of time for the third party, which I understand is 10 minutes. Thank you for giving me that time, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Ten minutes is a guide, not a target that the hon. Gentleman has to reach.
Max Wilkinson
Your advice is noted, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Of course it would be inappropriate to house 1,200 asylum seekers on a military base next to a village of a few hundred people, and of course it would be inappropriate to house them on a site that has never previously been used for residential accommodation. That goes without saying. The Liberal Democrats can back that element of the motion, even if we do not agree with the wording deployed by the official Opposition. I will allow my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) to deal with the specifics of the local matter when he contributes later.
What must be disputed, however, is the second part of this deeply harmful motion. Brexit has made us all poorer. It has reduced Britain’s standing in the world and made it more difficult for this country to run a safe and controlled asylum system. So why on earth are the Conservatives suggesting leaving the ECHR, which would be Brexit 2.0? Not only would that make the UK a pariah state, but it would likely result in the end of the Brexit deal that they negotiated. The Conservatives often tell us that the Brexit settlement must not be reopened, but that is exactly what they are suggesting.
Once again, the Conservative party is arguing that this country should pursue what would basically amount to a no-deal Brexit, except this time it is not a fringe argument being contested among factions in the Conservative party, but the position of the shadow Front Bench and the Leader of the Opposition, backed by all Conservative MPs. Indeed, their leader has told them that they will be barred from their party unless they adopt the position, which is why so many of them have now changed their mind on the issue.
The drift of the Conservatives away from the centre-right to the hard-right is a dereliction of duty. It runs counter to many of the traditions in British Conservatism. But we know why they are doing it: they are terrified of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) so they chase after him. They increasingly make his arguments as they prepare for their grubby deal. We all remember what happened in 2019, when the hon. Member for Clacton stood down his candidates in alliance with Boris Johnson. People up and down the country are more than aware that those two parties would engage in the same sort of stitch-up again without a second thought, no matter how much Tory MPs and their leader plead the opposite in public.
Max Wilkinson
The point is that we are in Europe, we are a European nation and most of our relationships are with the ECHR nations. I gently caution the Conservatives that every time they change position in an effort to catch up with Reform, the hon. Member for Clacton will move further and further to the right. This week that resulted in the horrifying suggestion made by Reform that our military should be told to murder civilians on small boats in the English channel.
The suggestion that leaving the ECHR will help us to deal with a broken asylum system is absolute nonsense—a system that was broken by the Conservatives, by the way, who now spend so much time brazenly telling us that they alone have the solution. Leaving the ECHR will not stop a single small boat crossing from France. It will not, as the Conservatives suggest, make it easier to deport people, because when a nation ditches international agreements, others are less likely to work with it.
What leaving the ECHR would do, as I have said, is make this nation an international pariah. It would likely result in the conditions once known in the public debate as a no-deal Brexit, which the Conservatives told us they were against. In fact, the trade and co-operation agreement makes continued UK adherence to the ECHR a major part of our current Brexit conditions. If we were to leave the ECHR, we would also end co-operation with our neighbours on law enforcement and criminal justice, which risks leaving dangerous criminals walking free, unidentified and able to escape overseas and evade prosecution, and would seriously jeopardise public safety, including that of women and girls. That is deeply irresponsible.
Pete Wishart
It would also have huge implications for settlements across the United Kingdom. The Conservatives did not know this, but there would be a massive implication for Scottish devolution, for all our legislation is predicated on a commitment to being compliant with ECHR regulations. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the Conservatives exactly what this would do to our internal arrangements across the UK?
Max Wilkinson
I will come to that point later, I hope, with specific reference to Northern Ireland.
There is more than that to this debate, though. Leaving the ECHR would also rob British people of hard-won British rights—rights that have for so long been championed across political divides, in so many notable cases by Conservatives, who now argue that we must scrap those rights on the altar of the debate about small boat crossings. Article 2, for instance—the right to life—helped the brave families of the Hillsborough victims to secure fresh inquests to get to the truth of what happened in that tragedy. Article 3 helped the victims of John Worboys, the black cab rapist, to get justice and build into British law additional protections for victims. Alongside article 3, article 4 helped victims of the Rochdale grooming gangs—who Conservative and Reform Members talk about so often—to secure damages and better justice from Greater Manchester police.
Article 10 protects the right to freedom of speech and expression, something that the right tells us is so important—just for them; maybe not so much for everybody else—although certainly not important enough to retain and protect it in law for all of us. This article also guarantees the right for journalists to protect their sources. While it is not for me, as a one-time rubbish journalist and now a politician, to tell journalists how to do their job, there has so far been disappointingly little scrutiny from the fourth estate, particularly in the right-wing media, on the Reform and Tory proposals on the ECHR. Article 10, by the way, also protects the rights of people to hold their politicians to account in the most direct terms. This is established in law.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
The Minister spoke fondly before of working for a former Home Secretary who, on one occasion after 9/11, disapplied part of the European convention on human rights using article 15. Does the hon. Member recognise that there is a difference, perhaps, between leaving the European convention and suspending elements of it while we deal with a crisis?
Max Wilkinson
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Of course, the second part of the convention does tackle those sorts of derogations. It is important that we see the convention in its entirety.
As I said earlier, all of this is before we consider the implications for Northern Ireland, which have been well rehearsed in this Chamber. When British people up and down the country hear Conservative and Reform politicians pledging to erase those rights, we must all ask ourselves whether we trust those politicians to give us back those rights when they no longer exist. The answer is, of course, that they will not give us those rights back. [Interruption.] And do not argue with me about the Wolfson report, because that is nonsense.
Leaving the ECHR will mean that we have even fewer opportunities to work on agreements with the EU—the place small boats set off from—to prevent those crossings, and that goes to the nub of the matter that we are discussing today. If we have learned one thing over the past decade, it is that the concept of the UK becoming more successful and prosperous while distancing itself from its closest allies is a total fiction. It was a lie in 2016, and it is a lie today. The only way to move towards an asylum system that works is by working with our European allies, and that means that this Government must first drop their self-defeating red lines, and secondly apply to join the EU migration and asylum pact.
While the media is excited that the Prime Minister has been more expansive in his wording on relations with Europe, it is important to note that he is pledging to retain all his red lines. He is not promising to remove any of them, even though he knows that those red lines are making us poorer and scuppering our chances of an asylum system that could, in future, command public trust, look after genuine asylum seekers and create a fair system, as this country has always had. It will also cost UK taxpayers more and more money.
Max Wilkinson
The hon. Member will know that the framework within which signatories to the EU migration and asylum pact work is different from the Dublin agreement.
Today we renew our calls for Ministers to drop their red lines on Europe and to join the EU asylum pact. We also renew our calls for the Conservatives to recognise the reality that the first Brexit they gave us has failed this country. Do not pretend that giving us Brexit 2.0 will be any better.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Back Benchers are on a speaking limit of six minutes.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
I will begin by saying that I respect the right of hon. Members across the House to come here and give voice to their constituents. I respect the voices of the women of Piddington who are in the Gallery today, making their presence known to Government. That is their democratic right, and I respect that.
In office, the Conservatives designed an asylum accommodation programme that took over much-loved hotels in some of the most deprived parts of our country, including the Crewe Arms Hotel and the Royal Hotel in the centre of Crewe. Local services and community cohesion were put under severe strain, and people were forced to cancel weddings and other events of sentimental value in their lives.
Of course, it is not only the Tories who are up to their necks in that policy, because who designed it? Who championed it on the airwaves, boasting that more and more hotels were being brought on stream in deprived towns like mine? It was, of course, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), now Reform’s Treasury spokesperson, aided and abetted by former Tory Ministers who “betrayed our country”—not my words, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the words of Zia Yusuf.
In opening this debate, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) said that this should not be about class, and I think she is right. But why were places like Crewe chosen by the Conservatives when they were in government? It is precisely because such places were deprived and because land values were lower in those places.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Connor Naismith
I will not give way, because I do not want to take time away from other people.
I do not think that approach is fair. I was delighted when I was informed that, after much campaigning, the Crewe Arms Hotel would be closing as an asylum hotel. I hope to see the Royal Hotel also closed for such purposes in the coming months, and I urge the Minister to say more, if she can, about when we might see progress in that regard.
It is important to say that such outcomes are possible only if the Government continue to make progress with small boat crossings coming down, which they are, and the processing of claims going up—in stark contrast to the previous Government, under whom numbers collapsed—as well as deporting people who have no right to be here. But crucially, with regard to this debate, we will also see those outcomes only if accommodation for asylum seekers is spread more fairly across our country, using appropriate disused military sites.
The proposition that the Tories have put in front of us today seems to be that my constituents have to accept more of the burden of asylum accommodation while other parts of our country do not, and that is simply not fair. I know where my constituents will stand on that question, and I am with them, not with the Opposition.
As for the European convention on human rights, it blocks just 3% of total removals from this country, and underpins relationships—including the Good Friday agreement—with other countries around the world. Even the Tories’ much-loved Rwanda deal was contingent on compliance with international agreements on human rights and refugee law—not because a UK or European court said so but because the Rwandan Government insisted, as any third country that we might want to work with would.
By seeking to tell my constituents that they should continue to do more than their fair share in response to the phenomenon of small boat crossings, the motion signifies the official Opposition’s retreat from being a serious national party of government. I will not be supporting it.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I sought to intervene on the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) because I agree with his point about the unfairness of asylum dispersal. For my constituents, two thirds of whom are in Hillingdon, which, because of Heathrow airport, has the highest number of asylum seekers per capita of any local authority in the country and has borne for decades the consequences of the asylum dispersal policies, the issue is of huge importance.
I invite the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich and the Minister to call to mind the name of the Member of this House who created the asylum dispersal system, which placed asylum seekers in accommodation in the cheapest parts of the country to make taxpayers’ money go further. I worked with that Member of Parliament when I was involved in local government. When he introduced it, he was the hon. Member for Leigh. Now he is the right hon. Member for Makerfield.
Members who criticise that system might like to reflect that their party, like ours, has been hearing for many years that the British people expect us to do better on this issue. Nobody has a monopoly on virtue when it comes to dealing with the asylum system, particularly the right hon. Member for Makerfield, who I hope will reflect, now that he is Prime Minister, on the importance of rebuilding the system that had so many flaws when he first put it into effect many years ago.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that this issue is hugely important to you. The relentless campaigning you have done on behalf of your constituents around Crowborough reflects the campaigning that many of us have needed to do. In my case, lessons have been learned by my constituents about the consequences of the huge numbers arriving at Heathrow. In more recent years, the asylum system has become even more overloaded with new applications, as people are driven on coaches from Dover and Kent to Home Office asylum accommodation in close proximity to Heathrow airport, placed there by the then Minister, now Prime Minister. More recently, that pressure has been added to by the significant number of Chagossians in Mauritius fleeing the consequences of the Government’s deal and needing to be supported by the local authority. This really matters to constituents.
Following the murder of Wayne Broadhurst, killed while walking his dog in nearby Hillingdon about a year ago by Afghan refugee Dawood Safi, the community has done marvels to come together and show its hospitality and welcome for people who are genuinely vulnerable. But there is exasperation, and we need to see serious progress. In the spirit of holding the Government to account, I have some questions for the Minister. It is clear from a number of Members’ points that this is about not just the ECHR but the refugee convention and, in particular, the Human Rights Act 1998. Having visited the court in Strasbourg, I know that in the last 16 years only one case there involving immigration matters has gone against the British Government, but we have cases day after day within our own courts.
The ECHR has no jurisdiction over borders; it covers immigration, but not borders. Every day at Heathrow, people arrive as undocumented migrants—without a visa or whatever is required—and are turned away, unable to access the process, which causes such frustration and leaves them stranded in our system for many years. That sovereignty of decision making at the border is an asset that we have not used sufficiently.
The Opposition’s borders plan has set out the much broader range of initiatives that we need to take, but will the Minister, given the pressure on my constituents, consider a different approach to sovereignty? It would be a case of simply saying to those who arrive on small boats, “We will not let you cross our border. You have no documentation. You will not be allowed to access that system at all, and we will not accept that continued pressure on our courts, local authorities, health services and the other parts of the system.”
At the same time, the Government should consider, as I have advocated previously, introducing an asylum visa and simply saying, “If you arrive to work, get married or for family reunion, you have to have a visa to cross our border,” with asylum as the sole exception. We are an island. People who come to our country know in advance that they are going to make that journey. There is ample opportunity for them to seek permission. I have total sympathy, having been on the French beaches and seen the footage that the French police have. We need to ensure we deal with this robustly.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that this issue is something that you and I share. Given the way the system operates, we need to ensure full consultation and planning. Some communities are playing host to thousands of people who may be stuck in some sort of limbo for a long time and who will acquire through that process rights to housing locally, so we need a more effective system in place for planning, and it needs to be addressed by this Government. We need a much more robust approach to borders, but there are things this Government could do today that would make the situation for my constituents and yours, Madam Deputy Speaker, so much better.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
Today we are being asked to support a motion calling for the United Kingdom to leave the European convention on human rights. I am going to do something slightly unusual and speak about the detail of a law that we are considering in Committee. While the Conservatives are busy demanding that we tear up an international agreement—an agreement written by one of our greatest wartime Prime Ministers, Winston Churchill—this House is already considering substantive reforms to how human rights law is applied in immigration cases.
The Immigration and Asylum Bill is currently being scrutinised in Committee. That is where we should be having serious discussions about how the system works, what needs to change and how we ensure the law serves the public interest. Clauses 17 to 20 are central to that work. They are not cosmetic changes or empty promises; they are detailed legislative provisions designed to change how courts and tribunals consider human rights claims in an immigration case.
Ben Goldsborough
I am a proud member of the Public Bill Committee, and at the moment we are looking at things such as the ouster clauses that are included in the Bill. We are giving the detail that is needed for the Law Lords and everyone else involved in this process to integrate what needs to be done.
These are not cosmetic changes that we are looking at. Clause 17 addresses sponsor human rights claims. It creates a route for a person based in the UK to appeal the decision refusing entry clearance to an overseas family member where the decision engages their right to family life under article 8. That is a specific change to the operation of the appeal system, with clear rules about how such claims are considered.
Clause 18 goes further by establishing a clearer statutory definition of “family life” for the purposes of article 8 in immigration cases. It provides that “family” would normally be limited to core cohabiting families, partners, and in relevant circumstances children and parents living together. Where someone seeks to establish family life beyond those core relationships, the legislation sets out the circumstances and evidence that courts should consider.
For relationships between adults, that includes whether there are additional elements of dependency beyond normal emotional ties between them. It also makes it clear that the courts must first determine whether article 8 is engaged before going to consider the public interest. That is an important distinction. The existence of a human right does not automatically determine the outcome of an immigration appeal. The court must consider the circumstances and apply the relevant legal test.
Clause 19 strengthens the public interest consideration that courts and tribunals must take into account. It reinforces the importance of financial independence and being able to support and house oneself and one’s family without relying on state support. It also introduces further considerations relating to criminal convictions, co-operation and immigration processes and good character. It clarifies the weight that should normally be given to a private and family life established by people who are in the UK unlawfully having obtained permission through deception or are in serious breach of the conditions of their immigration status. It also strengthens the considerations that apply when decisions could affect a child, including whether removal would have a
“very significant and long-lasting adverse effect”
on them. Those are important changes to a framework within which immigration decisions are made.
Clause 20 addresses cases involving foreign criminals and others liable to deportation. It strengthens the statutory framework for considering deportation, making it clear that the public interest in deporting those liable to deportation must be given significant weight, particularly when such offending is serious. It also sets out exceptional circumstances in which a deportation may be disproportionate, including the impact on qualifying partners and children, and cases involving very compelling circumstances.
Those provisions matter, because the public rightly expect a system that takes criminal offending seriously, enforces immigration rules and makes decisions that reflect the interests of our country. I ask the Conservatives again: if they believe that the law needs to change, why are they not engaging seriously with the changes already before Parliament? If Conservative Members do not think those clauses go far enough, they should explain why, table amendments, test the legislation and make a case using evidence and legal arguments—that is what parliamentary scrutiny is for. Instead, we have a motion before us calling for full withdrawal from the convention as though leaving an international agreement—Brexit, anyone?—would somehow make every difficult question disappear. It would not.
Leaving the ECHR would not by itself clear the asylum backlog, it would not automatically speed up decisions, it would not make every removal straightforward and it would not erase the consequences of years of Conservative mismanagement. The Conservatives had 14 years in government to get a grip on immigration and the asylum system, and they had 14 years to improve decision making, tackle backlogs and ensure that public money was spent effectively, yet they left behind a system beset by delays, mounting costs and a reliance on asylum hotels. Now they want to present themselves as the people with the answers—it is truly extraordinary.
The Conservatives created the conditions of many of the problems the Government are still dealing with; now, they want to distract from that record with another dramatic announcement. Our constituents deserve far better than political theatre. They deserve an asylum system that makes decisions promptly, removes people who have no right to remain, tackles criminality and treats people fairly. They deserve effective enforcement and value for taxpayers’ money. That requires practical solutions, competent administration and legislation that works. It requires a Government who will get on with the job rather than pretending that one grand gesture can solve everything.
A practical example is the Brook hotel in Bowthorpe just outside my constituency: it opened under the previous Conservative Government and closed under a Labour Government. That is what effective management of the asylum system does when a Government are serious, instead of making large grand gestures.
The convention is not beyond reform—there is so much we are doing and so much more to be done—but leaving the convention altogether would be a much wider step than reforming how article 8 is applied. We have already heard about the impact that would have on the Northern Ireland peace agreement. We cannot just singly pull ourselves out of the ECHR.
Sadly, the Conservative party that we all knew when growing up is no longer with us. The action that we are taking in government is what we must do.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. The concerns and worries of women in Piddington about the sorts of people being placed alongside them are shared by women up and down the country. You and I, Madam Deputy Speaker, know better than many exactly what those concerns are, because of the camp in Crowborough. The Government have placed more than 500 young men in Crowborough, in your Sussex Weald constituency, and they are pledging to keep them there all the way till 2030. Madam Deputy Speaker has had to do her best in the face of a Green, Lib Dem and Labour council that has totally failed in its responsibilities to support those residents. The contrast in scale at Piddington, where there are just 350 residents, is even greater.
At the heart of the debate is whether women have a legitimate, reasonable concern to be worried about the people being placed in their communities. I am not afraid to say that I think the culture of the people often placed in these communities is inferior to ours when it comes to women’s rights and attitudes to women. Let us be clear that more than 72% of the people crossing in small boats are men, and the vast majority of them are aged between 18 and 39. They come predominantly from countries like Eritrea, Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq. What do the people of those countries—men primarily—think about women and women’s rights? This is not speculation or stereotyping; it is evidence from social surveys and reports of third parties.
In Syria, more than 70% of women report that they are severely restricted in their ability to leave their homes. In Afghanistan, more than 90% of the population think that spousal physical abuse is justified. In Iraq, more than 46% of currently married women are exposed to at least one form of spousal violence and eight in 10 women have suffered some form of sexual harassment. In Pakistan, the UN estimates that between 70% and 90% of Pakistani women experience some form of domestic violence in their lifetime. In Eritrea, misogyny is embedded so deep that over half of women aged 15 to 49 think it is entirely justified for a husband to beat his wife.
Layla Moran
Misogyny exists in many cultures; I would point out that it does in ours, too, and that is well recognised. Did it ever occur to the hon. Gentleman that perhaps some of those people are leaving those countries because they do not agree with those values and that, notwithstanding the issues that we have too, they would rather come to a country that better respects the rights of women? Is he suggesting that every man in those countries holds those views?
Dr Mullan
I wish we had a system in which we could test the hon. Member’s proposition, because at the minute, we have absolutely no idea about the attitudes and values of the people coming from those countries. She is correct to say that we have issues of misogyny in this country, but for our country the equivalent figures to those I have just mentioned are significantly lower. That is the point: these cultures are worse than ours on the many issues we care about in relation to women and girls.
On the one hand, the Government are pledging action on women and girls and driving improvements in that area—we have done so in our society for many decades—but on the other hand they are pretending that the citizens of those countries, which have done none of that work, are exactly the same as us and will come over and treat our women exactly the same. I am afraid that flies in the face of common sense and the clear statistical evidence I gave about rates of crime and the social attitudes of those people.
I am not afraid to say that there is a lot to do when it comes to women and girls in our culture, but we have a significantly better culture towards women and girls than countries such as Eritrea, Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and a whole range of others, so it is perfectly reasonable for women being asked to live alongside huge numbers of unvetted people from those countries to be concerned and to have worries.
We should not be afraid to call that out, and it has nothing to do with racism. We have a culture of football hooliganism in this country, and it is predominantly white people who engage in that football hooliganism. I am happy to say that; it does not make me racist towards white people. It does not make me racist towards other cultures when I point out the issues and problems that they have, which we should not be afraid to call out.
Max Wilkinson
I think the hon. Member mentioned that 80% of women in one country said they had been sexually harassed in public. What is the rate of women in the UK who report being sexually harassed in public?
Dr Mullan
It is around one in four. It was 80% in the country I referenced, which is significantly more. The equivalent figure for this country is much, much too high—I would want it to be zero—but that makes the exact point, which I think the hon. Member did not want to draw out, that those countries are worse than we are. We should not be importing large quantities of unvetted young men from those cultures without a proper way of dealing with that. We do not have a way of doing that.
The Government inadvertently admitted that, as they have had to actively tell those people not to rape women. That is because they know the things I have said about the differences in attitudes towards women in many of those countries. The question is: what do we do about it? I am clear that it should be up to us to decide who comes here from what countries and on what basis. We should decide asylum policy—not the people smugglers—and the routes on which people come. The Conservatives have been clear and admitted that we should have been quicker in bringing in our own deterrence policy, but we are committed to doing that now and have a plan for it. That is what actually counts.
The only country that has successfully dealt with this issue is Australia. It saw a decrease of more than 90% in the number of people crossing the sea and entering illegally by saying, “If you come here illegally under that method, you don’t get to stay—end of story.” That worked, and we should do exactly the same thing. The Government like to talk about the failure of the Rwanda plan and the four people sent as volunteers. They know that those people went voluntarily. It is clearly not a deterrent if someone goes voluntarily, but we were never allowed to use the scheme as a deterrent to deport people whether they wanted to go or not.
The Government can do everything they want to reform and tweak the operation of human rights laws in this country, but there are two ways in which that approach is fundamentally flawed. First, it does not matter if a claim can be successfully rejected if someone cannot be deported to the country they came from. It is completely futile. Unless the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) thinks that we will deport people en masse to Afghanistan or some other third world, war-torn country, clearly, whatever we might want to do around the validity of their claim is worthless if we cannot send them to another country or back to the country they came from. Secondly, we have talked about the nature of the claims and how we might tweak them. The European Court of Human Rights is a precedent-setting Court. If it makes a ruling and sets a precedent, ultimately, that will hold sway.
I asked the hon. Member for South Norfolk to comment on article 3, which he failed to do. That is just one example of how the European convention on human rights has become totally distorted. Article 3 was originally envisioned to prevent people from being deported to a country where they might face torture. That was the aim of the article. It is now used to say that when someone comes to our country and commits horrendous crimes such as rape, but they have a psychiatric illness, it is torture if the country we seek to deport them to does not have adequate healthcare provision. Under article 3, that is not allowed. Who can reasonably argue that that was envisioned by all the people the hon. Member referenced when they created a set of rights which, at the time, were appropriate and applied appropriately? Does he really think that those people envisioned that, 50 years later, that would mean we could not deport a rapist because he would not get adequate healthcare in the country that we were deporting him to?
The article has been totally distorted from its original purpose, and the question of whether we can operate a safe and decent framework of rights in this country without the use of the ECHR is quite clearly scaremongering. Canada manages it, New Zealand manages it, Australia manages it. They all manage to have a framework of rights and international agreements, and that includes Canada, which is seeking a closer relationship with the EU, which is not part of the ECHR.
Ben Goldsborough
What solution would the hon. Gentleman come up with? It has been stated by the Republic of Ireland Government and Governments around the world that by pulling out of the ECHR, we would be fundamentally undermining the Good Friday agreement, which means that we cannot operate a safe country and borders.
Dr Mullan
I urge the hon. Gentleman to read Lord Wolfson’s report, which makes it clear that we can engage in international agreements. To make the point valid, the hon. Gentleman has to suggest that no other countries in the world manage to enter into complex legal arrangements without both being part of the ECHR. Of course they do. Agreements will be subject to renegotiation. This country is absolutely right to respond to what our people want us to do, which is to protect our borders and put them first, and not the sorts of people we are putting up at taxpayers’ expense in Crowborough.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
It is good that we are having this debate in the House of Commons today, because this is an issue the public care about profoundly and they want to see substantive action to address their concerns. To understand how to do that, we have to understand how we got here.
I do not propose to relitigate the disastrous asylum system that this Government inherited, under which huge numbers of asylum seekers were housed in hotels across the country. That was terrible for local communities, where hotels were opened in town centres with no support and often without even telling the police or local authorities. It was terrible for genuine asylum seekers and it was terrible for the taxpayer. The only ones it worked for were the private companies, which extracted massive profits. The Prime Minister has talked about the scandal of outsourcing and privatisation in modern Britain. The most glaring example of that is the asylum accommodation sector. The public are right: we cannot tolerate that and we must fix it, so it is good to see the Government putting in the hard yards to achieve that.
There are three components that we have to tackle as a country. First, we have to drive down the number of asylum seekers coming into the system. That is why it is good to see small boat crossings down by 40% and the French preventing 48,000 crossings. Obviously, more must be done. We need to prevent people from coming in, but secondly, we also have to increase the number coming out of the system. There has been a big increase in decisions and an increase in removals of more than 80,000. Again, there is more to be done, but it is good to see the hard yards starting to be put in.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
My hon. Friend speaks about how it is important to deter people from coming to this country illegally. Does he share my concern at the Reform party’s notion, put forward by its chairman, that Royal Marines commandos could be encouraged to use “lethal force” against unarmed civilians? As a Royal Marines commander, I can say that that is completely unacceptable across the military. There are real concerns about that in Plymouth and across the wider military. Does my hon. Friend share those concerns?
Chris Murray
My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. Whenever I have spoken to law enforcement or the military, that is exactly the issue they raise. Moreover, making gestures that we know are never realistic is what the traffickers want us to do, because it encourages them to encourage people to come here.
The third component of what we must tackle is that of dealing with people while they are in the asylum system. That means we have to drive down the costs, deliver the economies of scale required, mitigate the impacts that infuriate communities and increase safeguarding for communities. We need to do that if we want to close the hotels, and we cannot close the hotels without dealing with people in the system.
Let me make a defence of large sites in the asylum system. In 15 years working on immigration and during two years on the Home Affairs Committee, I must have visited more asylum accommodation than anyone else in the House of Commons. Large sites have an important role to play, particularly in alleviating the issues that local communities find challenging. First, on cost, they are much cheaper than hotels. On efficiency—
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Chris Murray
I will get to the end of my point and then I will give way. Secondly, on efficiency, having people in one place, where Home Office officials and the relevant people can be brought in, can speed asylum seekers through the process and get them out of it faster. Thirdly, on community engagement, yes, asylum seekers are free to come and go, but short of imprisoning them, such sites are as much as we can contain them in British society.
Chris Murray
Let me make some points and then I will take interventions.
Charities and groups can go to large sites, which are far away from town centres, unlike hotels and HMOs, and the authorities, by providing things such as transport, can practically organise when people will be in one place, stopping the issues of hotels and people hanging around town centres late at night.
Finally, on safeguarding, one of the issues with hotels is that the police were not informed. At larger sites, we can have trained professionals who can spot depression, isolation, re-traumatisation or worrying behaviours, understand the dynamics in groups, and find opportunities to observe, supervise and intervene. Engaging with police and social services is how we tackle those risks.
Let me share what persuaded me about that. I was sceptical of large sites until I went to Wethersfield, which opened under the previous Government—I think it was opened by the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman). There, they told me that the work they can do around mitigation and safeguarding is far more effective at a large site than a small site.
Chris Murray
I will take an intervention from the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) and then I will come back to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan).
Calum Miller
The hon. Gentleman led his arguments in favour of large sites on cost grounds. I am sure that he is aware that the Home Affairs Committee looked at that matter and identified that, bed by bed, large sites were more expensive than hotels. Will he acknowledge that, because the site that we are talking about today has never had residential accommodation, the cost and capital terms of setting it up and building a village will greatly outstrip the cost of any alternative provision?
Chris Murray
I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s argument at all. My argument to the Minister would be that large sites vary. Wethersfield did not work until it was reformed; Northeye did not work.
I am going to do something unusual and say something positive about the Scottish Government for a second—I know the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) is going to have a heart attack over there. [Laughter.] When the Scottish Government opened large sites for asylum seekers from Ukraine on two cruise ships, they were very cost effective compared with the Bibby Stockholm. The argument is not about the principle, but about whether the Home Office can orchestrate it and achieve it through public procurement.
Chris Murray
I absolutely understand why people say that; it is a perfectly reasonable response to risk. However, the role of Government is to mitigate risk. The role of Government is to intervene through public policy and deploy public resources and capacities. That is the best way to mitigate risk. That is normal across policing and all kinds of Home Office security, but in this case it is quite right. The Government of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle placed asylum seekers in hotels without telling anybody in the local community—without social workers, the police or anybody else knowing. The local women had no clue. Most of the cases quoted by the shadow Minister came from that system. He cannot say to the women in Piddington that will leave the ECHR and it will solve everything. That is not realistic and it is not treating them with respect. Far better to say we will try to solve this problem, mitigate the risk and do the stuff required to actually deal with it.
I should have expected to hear what we have heard from the Tories and Reform in this Opposition day debate. These are the people who broke the system and let it spiral, yet they are somehow arguing that leaving the ECHR can happen tomorrow and will solve any issues in Piddington and Bicester—that is for the birds. But I am particularly disappointed in the Liberal Democrats and their amendment. They say that they oppose asylum hotels and they want a better public debate on immigration, but whether it is in Cameron barracks, in Crowborough or now in Bicester, they oppose every large site. They say we should welcome asylum seekers and have a humane system, but it is “not in my back yard” the minute there is one near them. Are they really saying that is for the working-class communities of Britain to tolerate asylum seekers in hotels and in HMOs, but not their constituencies in secure, well-resourced, large public sites? I think that is wrong. The public are fed up of posturing, point scoring, pointless gesturing and nimbyism on this. They want the issue solved, they want it gripped, and if the Government can get large sites to solve the problem, that could be a big part of solving this country’s asylum accommodation challenges.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We have had so many interventions that I am going to have to drop the time limit on Back-Bench speeches to five minutes.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I was honoured to visit Piddington a few weeks ago, with my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin), representing my party, Reform, as one of the first female MPs to respond to the women of Piddington when they wrote to all female MPs in this House. It is interesting that there are no female Labour Back Benchers sitting in on this debate. That is how seriously the party in government takes this issue.
When I met the women of Piddington, I was staggered. They are scared, they are angry and they feel like no one in government is listening to them. The people there are not far-right thugs. Many of the women—and, indeed, the men—that I met are elderly pensioners. Some of them are widowed and living alone. Many are parents speaking on behalf of their children. This small rural village is right now fighting against the British state right in order to protect itself. It is a scandal that no one in this Government is willing to listen to the women and girls of Piddington.
Unfortunately, this is not confined to Piddington; it also involves the people of Waterlooville. Last year I led a campaign with 10,000 local people to fight the Home Office and the Labour-Lib Dem plans to house asylum seekers there. We were successful on that occasion. Now I am supporting people in Gosport and in Portsmouth who are taking to the streets in peaceful protest against illegal migrants arriving on their shores.
Suella Braverman
I will not, because I want to respect the direction given by Madam Deputy Speaker.
This issue is extending across our country, and it is out of control. The Government say it is getting better, but the boats are getting bigger, the people are coming in higher numbers, and British people are more scared than ever. And they are right to be scared, because the facts are that Afghan and Eritrean migrant men are 22 times more likely to be convicted of sex crimes than Brits, and 40% of sexual assaults in London over the last five years were committed by foreign-born men. I am not making that up. That is data. These are not irrational fears, but they are being treated with contempt.
The tragedy of all this is that it is caused by the ECHR. People come here on the boats illegally. They claim to be victims of persecution and to have family rights here—all gaming human rights laws against us. I saw this as Home Secretary, as Attorney General and previously as a barrister working in the field. I wrote a paper about it last year, which was dismissed by the Conservative party. The truth is—we have got to be honest about this—that we might not even have had to be here talking about Piddington or Gosport or Fort Blockhouse or Waterlooville. This problem could have been fixed.
The tragedy is that the last Conservative Government utterly refused to do the right thing—[Interruption.] I will come to that. I was the first Conservative Minister who said publicly that to fix this crisis we needed to leave the ECHR. I said it as Attorney General and as Home Secretary. What happened? The Leader of the Opposition said that I was having a nervous breakdown. The Conservatives said that I had mental health problems. They demonised me, isolated me and blocked me from doing the right thing. I have asked them to apologise today. They have refused to apologise to the nation for causing this crisis and I will not let them off the hook. I have just published a book setting out the painful battles I had with my Conservative party colleagues to fix this, so I will not take any lectures from anyone in the Conservative party about their promises to leave the ECHR. Do not believe them.
What do we need to stop this invasion and fix this national security emergency that my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has been talking about for years? We need to leave the ECHR, with credible leadership. We need to suspend our asylum system now, void all those grants of asylum, deport all those people who are applying for asylum—deport 90,000 people—and, yes, deploy the Royal Navy into the channel to ensure that we properly secure our borders. This Labour Government will not do it. The last Conservative Government did not do it. This Conservative party cannot be trusted. Only Reform will stop the invasion and stop these boats.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I think that is a no—the right hon. and learned Lady has finished her speech.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In his response to a question at Prime Minister’s questions earlier, the Prime Minister said:
“Can I start just by recognising, with the charges that have been laid against the individual responsible for the murder of Ann Widdecombe”.
He did not say the individual “accused of” her murder; he spoke of the individual “responsible for” her murder. A man is innocent until proven guilty. The presumption of innocence goes back to Magna Carta and it applies without exception, but the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has just publicly spoken as though a man awaiting trial has already been convicted of murder. It is directly contrary to the rule of law, it is a breach of the presumption of innocence, it is misleading to the House and in any other forum it would be a contempt of court, which could be used to suggest that the defendant had been prejudged on the merits of a case. The Prime Minister needs to apologise. May I ask your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, as to whether the Prime Minister needs to apologise, to withdraw the statement and to correct the record immediately?
Madam Deputy Speaker
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 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.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
Can I start by also acknowledging the concerns of the women of Piddington who are viewing this debate today up in the Gallery? Those concerns are not limited, of course, to Piddington. They also include my constituency of Glasgow South West, which has historically had the highest number of asylum applications of anywhere in the United Kingdom. It is a matter of record that I have asked the Home Secretary to look at this urgently to see whether my city of Glasgow and my constituency of Glasgow South West can be afforded some extra breathing space as they contend with their own issues of housing and social cohesion. I have made similar pleas to the Scottish Government in relation to priority housing rules and local connection rules.
Both sides in this debate have acknowledged that day zero of this issue is not today and that it did not start two years ago. It started long ago, or perhaps 14 to 20 years earlier. We are not where we would wish to be, but we must be careful about the tenor of the debate, because legitimate concern about safeguarding and about how we tackle asylum and the backlog can quickly bleed into issues of multiculturalism—that has already been spoken about today—of ethnonationalism and of immigration more widely.
I can tell you for a fact that after this debate, some very uncharitable comments will be made on my social media because of my background. Therefore, I think it is an important moment to also put on the record that, largely, over the last 100 years, this country has been the most successful at integration and immigration possibly in the history of mankind. I am an example of that. My immigration story began 100 years ago when my grandfather took a boat from Calcutta, went to Hong Kong and became a member of the British Hong Kong police force, and then in 1963, when my dad took a journey by road to come from Pakistan into Glasgow to drive buses and then taxis, and he still does so today in his 80s. We must always remember, once this debate starts to bleed out into other issues, to stand firm against those who would wish to use it as an instrument for championing deplorable ideas like ethnonationalism that, unfortunately, have also been espoused at times by Members of this place, either intentionally or unintentionally.
The issue itself does need to be gripped because when it is not gripped, it is precisely minority communities that are first and foremost in the firing line for abuse and attack.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
The hon. Member is making an excellent speech. He draws attention to the wider issues that result from this debate. Does he agree that it is precisely the current Home Office policies that are creating the environment in which paradoxical effects are being felt? In my constituency there are shortages of labour in fishing, farming, social care and health care, and hospitality? That is exactly the point I think he is trying to make.
Dr Ahmed
I am afraid that it is not the point that I was trying to make, but I will take on some of the hon. Member’s arguments. In Scotland, we have some of the highest levels of unemployed young people anywhere in the United Kingdom. We should first and foremost start by addressing their issues and getting them into employment before we start opening up a wider debate about immigration, illegal migration and numbers. I also say to him that in the city of Glasgow, it is bad enough that the right wing manipulates immigration and migration issues to march masked men down the streets of my constituency, but also on the other side, politicians must also take responsibility, including those in the Scottish Government, who pay lip service to social cohesion and anti-racism rhetoric but never follow through by funding the infrastructure that fundamentally relies on social cohesion to be a successful endeavour.
Let me get back to the point I was trying to make. We must address this issue because we are placing minorities in the firing line if we do not. I am so glad that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is bringing forward a Bill that will do precisely that, because what is missing right now in this debate is trust and confidence in the asylum and immigration system. The Immigration and Asylum Bill, currently in Committee, precisely serves to restore that trust and confidence by ensuring that we can regulate and produce an independent authority that will fast-track asylum applications, and that we can reinterpret components of human rights legislation to make sure that they are fit for the present and not the past.
On that, I must note that the ECHR is not some kind of foreign construct, as some have tried to outline today in this place. It is a British construct. It is a Churchillian construct. It is the fabric of what it means to be British. It is what made my grandfather and my father serve the British and come to this country. It is because of the ECHR that we have freedom of religion. It is because of the ECHR that we have freedom from torture. It is because of the ECHR that we are able now to extricate ourselves from things like corporal punishment. And, actually, it is because of the ECHR—we are talking about women’s safety today, and rightly so—that women who are victims of domestic violence are protected from their housing benefit being cut.
I ask hon. Members from both sides of the House to remember that when we have this debate, it has consequences for people from many communities up and down the country. It has consequences for people who are legitimately here, many for generations, and who are caught in the net by people who wish to exploit this debate and question their legitimacy in this country—and often to question the legitimacy of people like me to be in this place. That is something we must never forget.
Madam Deputy Speaker
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.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
MOD Bicester site A is but a stone’s throw over the Buckinghamshire border into Oxfordshire. While Piddington has captured the headlines, the communities that are concerned and that feel threatened by this proposal, many of which sit in my constituency in Mid Buckinghamshire—small villages and hamlets such as Boarstall, Oakley, Brill, Ludgershall, Marsh Gibbon, Long Crendon, Twyford, Charndon, Poundon, Worminghall, Honeyburge and many others—are all walking distance from MOD Bicester site A.
While I have absolute confidence that the real answer to this challenge is the Conservatives’ borders plan, where those who illegally enter the United Kingdom by small boat would be deported within a week, I want to use my time to focus on why the use of MOD Bicester site A simply does not stack up. It is the wrong plan.. It is the wrong site. That goes straight to some of the arguments that the Minister made about cost and location, none of which stack up in reality.
This site has to be built entirely from scratch. There is no accommodation there at the moment. This is an entirely modular build on a site where there is no fresh water supply. There is no ability to take the sewage away by anything other than road. If the Government want to look at environmental concerns, we hear that generators will have to burn some 6,000 litres of diesel a day to provide electricity to this site. There is no grid connection to MOD Bicester site A. It is situated along a busy, fast-moving road but we are told, “It’s okay. Those who are housed there will wear high-vis jackets as the HGVs zoom past them.” It is just not a credible site.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Diesel is obviously very much in the public mind at the moment. Has my hon. Friend seen any sort of impact statement as to what the daily cost of the Bicester site would be, given the increase in diesel prices?
Greg Smith
Indeed, we heard the Minister and Labour Back Benchers trying to say that this will be cheaper than hotels. Let me tell my hon. Friend and the House what the modelling actually says on the cost of MOD Bicester site A as an asylum camp. If that site persists for five years, the cost will work out at £235.34 per night. If it goes for 10 years, it will be £185.17 per night. The comparator for asylum hotels is £144 a night. The use of MOD Bicester site A is intrinsically incredibly more expensive than using hotels, so this does not offer value to the taxpayer as the Government and the Labour party want us to believe. That is an absolute nonsense that we cannot allow to persist.
Of course, from a Government that like to talk about wanting to follow all the rules all the time and so on, they ruled out doing an environmental impact assessment, saying that it was not going to have much of an environmental impact. That is a statutory requirement that anyone wanting to build something should go through. They cannot argue that it will have a minimal environmental impact. There were munition stores on this site, and it is absolutely riddled with asbestos which will be released into the local environment.
The wonderful campaign groups—not least “Wrong Plan. Wrong Site.”—have done an incredible amount of work, where they have found rare breeds of bats and newts. I know the Government like to pooh-pooh this, but in reality, the need to pay attention to and do these environmental impact assessments is set down in statute. It is the rules and the law we have, and for the Government to ride roughshod over that is purely unacceptable.
I urge the Government to stop, to look at the cost, the environmental impact and the unsuitability of this site on practical grounds, and to withdraw it immediately so that the communities in my constituency, as well as those of our neighbours in Oxfordshire, can breathe once more and live in the peace that they deserve to live in, free from the fear that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) set out in her opening speech, and that we can move on and stop this nonsense.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I appreciate your efforts to regulate our debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, but might I seek your dispensation to speak for slightly longer than the limit you have imposed, given that my constituents are in the Gallery and the Opposition chose to cite a motion mentioning my constituency, without any reference to me?
The Government want to build in my constituency a portacabin village to house male asylum seekers, not in former military accommodation but in a derelict storage depot at MOD Bicester. That is totally inappropriate—on that point I wholly agree with the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey). From the moment that the Government published their proposal, with no prior notice, I have opposed it. The scheme is wrong for local communities in my constituency, wrong for asylum seekers, and wrong for the taxpayer. For three and a half months I have worked closely with local campaigners to stop the scheme, raising it here with the Prime Minister, and with the Ministers for Border Security and Asylum, and for Defence Readiness and Industry. We will continue that campaign until the Government see sense.
Allow me, Madam Deputy Speaker, to welcome my constituents from Piddington to the Gallery today. I hope it will be possible to meet them after the debate. I further welcome this chance to set out what is wrong with the proposal, because Piddington is not an appropriate site in which to house 1,256 people. Back in 2005 when the last Labour Government proposed a scheme there, a planning inspector rejected the proposal to house 750 asylum seekers—men, women and children—on site A, which he said was isolated, unsuitable and unsafe, and that the proposal would create excessive community tensions. All those things are still true today, and they apply even more to a larger site exclusively housing male asylum seekers.
I second the comments of my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), who laid out the arguments that have been articulated so clearly by campaigners from, among other groups, “Wrong Plan. Wrong Site.” Given the legal challenge presented by that group, will the Government pause their planning application and commit to conducting a full environmental impact assessment of the site before proceeding, as required under their own policies?
I know the area very well. Before entering this House I served as county councillor for the villages of Otmoor. I spent many evenings at Piddington, Arncott and Ambrosden parish councils—I am sure other Members will be jealous of that. Since this proposal, I have visited Piddington many times, meeting members of the campaign group, knocking on the doors of my constituents, and speaking with women and men about their concerns. Local residents are worried that the site would take away stretched local resources, not only water and power, which are scarce, but also health services and policing.
Women and girls in the area have raised concerns with me about their safety. As someone who has spoken repeatedly in this House against violence against women and girls, I understand why they are fearful. As a society we are failing to protect them from predatory men, and when the worst happens, the justice system is not delivering them swift justice. No wonder they lack confidence that they will be kept safe. In that context, any proposal to house over 1,200 men in a new site adjacent to small villages would be a cause for fear and concern. I have spoken with the police and crime commissioner, with Home Office Ministers and with local police leaders about that, and I will continue to seek assurance from Ministers that the Government will provide sufficient additional police resources.
However, let us be clear: the Conservatives and Reform UK are trying to turn this into a race issue. It is not a race issue; it is a man issue. Women and girls are at risk from the behaviour of men, and tragically, nine in 10 assaults are committed by men they know. I will continue to fight for more police and court resources to keep women and girls safe.
Like the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, I condemn the Government’s proposal, but I deeply regret that today the Conservatives have sought to link that with their policy on the European Court of Human Rights. We could have united on this issue, as I have sought to do at local level with local Conservative councillors and the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, but instead the Conservatives have sought to divide rather than unite. I will continue to work with all those in my local community who oppose this wrong-sited proposal, and to ensure that the Government think again.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
The first duty of any Government is to keep their citizens safe, and nowhere is that duty more important than across our communities and in the protection of women and girls, who have a right to feel safe, and a right to expect the Government to do everything in their power to protect them. Today’s debate is an opportunity to send a clear message that we will not accept policies that put our communities at risk, and that we are prepared to take the difficult decisions necessary to restore control of our borders.
The grooming gang scandal is a national disgrace. Girls, some as young as 11, were raped, abused and trafficked by organised gangs, and when they cried out for help, too often they were ignored, disbelieved or dismissed. Those in positions of authority, whose first responsibility was to protect them, failed them appallingly. We must never allow that to happen again. That means putting victims first, listening to their experiences, and having the courage to confront uncomfortable truths, however difficult they may be.
In July, I raised the case of Shabir Ahmed, the Rochdale grooming gang ringleader, directly with the then Foreign Secretary. She agreed that every possible lever should be explored to secure his deportation, yet three months later, he remains in the UK. When the law protects the man who raped a child rather than the child he raped, something is profoundly wrong, and this House must have the power, and the determination, to put that right. Our rights in this country long predate the ECHR. Under our Conservative borders plan, we will leave it, with illegal arrivals removed within a week, every foreign criminal deported, and an end to the cycle of last-minute claims that let dangerous men run down the clock.
What is this Government’s answer? It is to house over 1,200 single men at MOD Bicester, next to Piddington, which is a village of just 350 people, with limited local infrastructure and services. The way these plans have been imposed on a small rural community has left many others fearing that they could be next. In villages such as Audlem in my constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury, residents have raised serious concerns about the future of the old grammar school site. When I asked Ministers whether any site in Audlem had been approved for asylum accommodation, the Government failed to give me a straight answer, and when I asked about the suitability of rural locations, I was told that the Home Office does not even record asylum accommodation according to whether it is in a rural area.
Many of the concerns raised in Piddington are equally relevant to Audlem. Small rural villages simply do not have the infrastructure to accommodate what would realistically be an influx of young men. My constituents deserve clarity. They deserve straight answers about the future of that site, and above all they deserve an immigration system that tackles illegal arrivals in the first place. That means a credible deterrent, and that is delivered by leaving the ECHR. That is why I wholeheartedly support the motion, because whether it is Piddington, Audlem, or communities across the country, people deserve to feel safe in their homes and communities. Above all, we owe it to every woman and girl in this country to do everything in our power to protect them.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Our hearts go out to the people of Piddington. We heard a very moving speech from the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), and we of course agree with everything that he says on that.
Perhaps I may share with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, my own experience of the unsuitability of large military bases to house migrants. After failed projects for former RAF bases in Lincolnshire, we worked for years to get massive regeneration into RAF Scampton. The whole scheme was ready to go to raise perhaps £300 million of investment. Then I received an invitation from the then Home Secretary, my personal friend, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman). She summoned me into her grand office and she said to me, “All this regeneration is going to vanish, and I am going to put 2,000 migrants in there.” That was right next to hundreds of people who had bought their home next to that site, 100 yards away.
I fought that battle for two years, and the right hon. and learned Lady was followed by the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) who, as his enemies might say, was even more ruthless. He was even more determined to put the migrants in. I am now looking at the Minister, and I have to thank this Government, and particularly my personal friend the right hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), because Scampton is only five miles from Lincoln. They realised, following the National Audit Office report and after £64 million had been wasted on trying to convert a hundred buildings, including listed buildings, and a runway on an 800-acre site, that the scheme was rubbish. It was condemned by the NAO as a complete waste of money and we have seen them off, so I thank the Minister for the latest deal that has been announced to try to get a world-class defence company in there.
These large military bases simply do not work for this purpose and they are no deterrent. If someone is in some hell-hole like Eritrea, are they really worried about whether they will end up in Piddington, Scampton or Bicester? Of course not, so as a deterrent it simply does not work. Frankly, it would be better to find some isolated place, to surround it to make it secure and to detain people there in portacabins. The trouble is that we cannot do that, because of the Human Rights Act 1998, the European convention on human rights and the refugee convention. That is the problem that we have always faced: we cannot detain these people. There is no deterrent unless we follow the Opposition’s policy to detain people as they land and deport them within a week. For all that we have heard about the ECHR—I am on the Council of Europe—it simply stops us dealing with the problem. The only solution is offshoring. Everybody knows that and nothing else works.
May I end on a positive note? Although we are right to hold the Government to account, they are never going to listen to us about the ECHR, but as I have said, I am on the Council of Europe. Why do we not have a return agreement to countries that are in the Council of Europe but are far distant, such as Armenia, Moldova, Azerbaijan or Serbia? I give this free advice to the Government. No court would ever stop that. Something must be done. This is destroying our political system and it is driving people mad that we cannot control our own borders. The Government must act, and if they do not act, then they will reap the whirlwind.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
When I saw the motion on the Order Paper, I had to look twice as I was absolutely certain that it must be a Reform motion, but then I remembered that they do not get Opposition days. The motion is indeed in the name of the Conservative party. For all this “I will never work with Nigel Farage” and so on that we hear from the Conservative leadership, they are now literally indistinguishable from Reform, with their antipathy towards asylum seekers, immigration and human rights now defining these new “Reformatives”.
The Conservatives are responsible for the crisis that we are currently confronting in the asylum system, having created huge, outstanding backlogs from their time in office that required the use of facilities such as those at Bicester. I know very little about the situation in Bicester, so I am not going to comment on the particularities, but when the Government are dealing with asylum seekers, they are absolutely right to try to ensure that there is equity across the whole of the United Kingdom, so that towns and cities like those in my constituency are not left to accommodate the masses of asylum seekers that we currently have. It is right that every constituency must play its part in trying to clear up the mess that was bequeathed by the Conservatives. The last place where this “not in my backyard” principle should apply is when we are dealing with real people’s lives.
There is blanket opposition to accommodation for asylum seekers right across the United Kingdom, and that has been created by the culture, climate and the language that is used just now when we come to describe asylum seekers. Some of the language that I have heard from Members on the Conservative Front Bench and in some of the contributions by Conservative Members is simply appalling: demonising, othering and trying to present whole communities as deviants—sexual deviancy and the rest. I find that absolutely unacceptable. It is no wonder that communities are really upset about the prospect of people coming into their constituencies.
Seamus Logan
My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I agree with everything he says. I note that the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), chose not to use the word “illegal”. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that it is anathema to see the word “illegal” in this motion, because there is no such thing as an illegal migrant?
Pete Wishart
No one in this world is illegal—[Interruption.] I hear chuntering from the Conservative Front Bench as usual. People are fleeing for their lives from situations across the world. They are fleeing from oppression—
Pete Wishart
The right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) says they are fleeing from France, but where does he think they have come from? They come from some of the worst war-torn countries. I challenge him to go there and live for six months just to see how he would get on—[Interruption.]
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Sir John Hayes and Sir Julian Lewis, is everybody calm or does anybody need to leave the Chamber? I call Pete Wishart.
Pete Wishart
Look at them! The appalling behaviour from the Conservatives on sensitive issues such as this and the language that they have used today is an absolute and utter disgrace. No wonder communities up and down this country are concerned about their very safety, given the language that these Conservatives use.
The issue that most concerns me is the Conservative proposal to leave the ECHR. That would send a deeply troubling message to communities across the country and to our partners internationally. It would deprive our citizens of valued and essential human rights and diminish our very sense of ourselves. The new Reform and Tory hostility towards human rights is well established. Their disdain for international co-operation and consensus is now a defining characteristic. Yet the fact that they would drag us out of the ECHR tells us something reassuring about the ECHR, because when the likes of the new right Tories and Reform want to do that, that shows that the ECHR is doing its job properly and defending us from the likes of them. That tells us why we actually need it. Let us remind ourselves of the company we would keep if we were to leave the ECHR: Russia and Belarus—bastions of human rights and freedoms. Let us remind ourselves about this document.
The ECHR was born from the ashes of the second world war, when the horrors of the Holocaust still cast a shadow over the world. The UK was at the heart of its creation. It was Winston Churchill, a giant of a Prime Minister—a Conservative Prime Minister—who was the designer and who ensured that we got it in place.
Leaving the ECHR, as the Conservatives suggest, would do absolutely nothing to stop the boats coming to the UK, as it would do absolutely nothing to end irregular immigration. However, what it would do is put a huge statement to the rest of the world that Britain is closing down, does not value international co-operation and has become more insular. I loathe the idea of a world that is going to be run under that type of culture and language under a Conservative-Reform coalition.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
A friend of mine recently told me about her mother, who is British born but is a person of colour, who now feels unsafe on the streets of Britain. Does the hon. Member agree that despicable rhetoric like this contributes to making certain individuals feel unsafe?
Pete Wishart
Absolutely. Whole communities across the United Kingdom are now concerned about their safety. They are very anxious about the type of culture that is evolving and developing in every constituency and community. They are right to be concerned, because I hear it in my constituency myself.
On the subject of the small boats, the truth is that there are more National Lottery millionaires each year than there are foreign nationals who have won human rights appeals due to the ECHR in the United Kingdom. If the ECHR were removed, it would deprive us in Scotland of our basic fundamentals in the Scottish Parliament, which is that every part of our legislation has to be ECHR-compliant. It is not just the devolution process in Northern Ireland that will be compromised; it will be my Parliament and our democracy in Scotland, which the Conservatives care not a jot about, and they would pursue our leaving the ECHR without giving it a second thought.
For all of these reasons, this is a thoroughly bad motion—an abhorrent motion—and I despair of the language that has been used. I hope when the Conservatives sum up we will hear a little bit more about decency and the common values that we could all buy into, but I doubt that very much—
Shivani Raja (Leicester East) (Con)
We all understand that the protection of women and girls is a matter that transcends party politics. Today’s debate is not about point scoring, but it is an important conversation that we need to have. The current direction of this Government’s immigration policy is harming our women and girls. In communities across the country, those who are most vulnerable are put at risk by hordes of single men who do not understand basic human rights, including the right not to be raped. Why are we allowing individuals into our country who do not have the capacity to function as part of British society?
Small boat crossings surged by 50% between the 2024 general election and the end of 2025, reaching nearly 65,000 people. I know that Government Members will have their fair share of statistics to deploy in this debate, but we must focus on the situation right now and how to address it. The impact of that vast influx is felt right now by teenage girls who are too scared to walk to school alone, and by young women who are filled with fear when travelling home after an evening with friends. That fear is felt by our mothers, sisters, daughters and friends. I have felt that fear myself. Promises from those on the Government Benches to smash the gangs are hollow and empty. The Prime Minister is enjoying his new-found rhetoric of hope, but I encourage him and his ministerial colleagues to visit communities such as Piddington and Crowborough and see the reality that confronts the women and girls there.
Let us not make the mistake of thinking that we do not have a choice in this matter. In the first instance, I suggest to Government Members that a rural village of 350 people is not a suitable site for more than 1,000 single men. Beyond that, we in this House have the power to make policy decisions that will protect our women and girls. Our Conservative borders plan details just some of the measures that we could take to tackle illegal immigration, including leaving the ECHR and repealing the Human Rights Act, removing it from all immigration-related matters.
As it stands, the ECHR is a barrier to common sense. Why are Government Members so resolutely committed to remaining part of a treaty that prevents the deportation of foreign rapists and paedophiles? Lord Wolfson’s review confirmed that the UK Government are significantly constrained by ECHR membership. As long as we remain bound by these foreign court regulations, we cannot carry out the core duties that we owe to the British people. Any notion that we would lose fundamental rights upon leaving the ECHR is simply false. Advanced democracies such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand function effectively without the constraints of the convention, and it is naive to believe that the birthplace of parliamentary democracy cannot do the very same.
I agree that our country has been built on legal immigration, but we must be crystal clear that the doctors, nurses, builders, engineers and teachers who come here to contribute to our country and strengthen our economy are not the same as single men sitting in asylum camps and living off taxpayer money. My constituency is a testament to that distinction. It is one of the most diverse constituencies in the country and one of the most entrepreneurial, with more than 20,000 small and medium-sized enterprises driving Leicester’s economy. Making that distinction is crucial. Uncontrolled, illegal immigration undermines everyone who seeks to come here legally—those who want to integrate and spend thousands of pounds on visa applications and work tirelessly to build a better life for their families. That is who we as a Conservative party stand up for.
In closing, I encourage Members of this House to talk to women who now fear leaving their homes. They should listen to their fathers, brothers and husbands and hear how little hope they feel under this Government’s plans. They should go to Crowborough and see how the Home Office’s occupation of the training camp there is bringing hope to residents in Wealden. When we force more than 1,000—
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Although the MOD Bicester site is outside my constituency, it is approximately 11 km from my nearest settlement. I wrote to the Home Secretary on 1 September on behalf of not only female constituents, but Piddington women, who I am so pleased to see in the Gallery today. They contacted me to express their concerns for their safety, and I reiterate that the guidance entitled “Understanding behaviour and expectations in the UK” reinforces their concerns.
I have a migrant hotel in my constituency, and we know the issues that come from having migrants in the area. One big question is what they will do with their time. Rural crime is already an issue, and they could be exploited by existing criminal gangs. I ask the Minister: why have stab vests been issued to security staff working at the base in the last month, when they have never been needed before? The site was deemed unsuitable for an open accommodation centre by the Planning Inspectorate and the local authority more than 20 years ago, and little has changed since then. In the early 2000s, the High Court ruled that no more than 750 people could live there, but now the figure is 1,250. The Home Office argues that not using hotels is ensuring the “better use of public money”, but these large accommodation sites could cost £46 million more, according to the National Audit Office.
All that could be avoided if only the Government would take a robust approach to our asylum system, which means reviewing our position on the ECHR. As Lord Wolfson’s excellent report highlights, the ECHR places significant legal constraints on the Government’s ability to address issues such as immigration. Other countries across Europe are reconsidering their relationship with the ECHR in the light of immigration issues—countries such as Belgium, Italy, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Lithuania and Austria. We are not alone.
Sarah Bool
I will make progress, because we are very close to the end of the debate.
Max Wilkinson
Can the hon. Lady tell us which of those countries are considering leaving the ECHR?
Sarah Bool
All those countries have looked at reforming the ECHR.
The European Court of Human Rights has expanded the interpretation of human rights. For as long as the Court regards the ECHR as a living instrument such that its decisions—and, in consequence, the decisions of domestic courts—are not constrained by the actual wording of the ECHR, we will have problems.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The growth in population in this country has been fuelled by mass migration. When I was a boy, the population was regularly cited as being about 57 million or 58 million people; the ONS now estimates that by 2035, the figure is likely to be 72.5 million people. Leaving aside the pressure that that places on public services and the economic damage it does, the truth is that the character of our country is being changed beyond recognition, and overwhelmingly the British people resist and resent that change, which has happened without their consent.
Ministers know that there is a cultural problem. In August, the Home Office published a book for newly arrived asylum seekers that said:
“If you have sex with someone”
who does not want to,
“this is called rape. Rape is a serious crime”.
The fact that the Government believed that those arriving were so primitive that they did not know that is extraordinary, but the truth suggests that they were right. There have been numerous cases.
Just this week—I am not going to get the pronunciations right—we saw the sentencing of Hossein Mohmoudi, a 36-year-old Iranian man who came to Britain. He was convicted of raping a 43-year-old woman and has been sentenced to 11 years in jail. Karin Al-Danasurt came to Britain on a small boat after fleeing Egypt, where he had been convicted of a murder. In the UK, he has been convicted of gang-raping a woman on Brighton beach. There is the Turkish asylum seeker convicted in Stafford Crown court in January for raping an 18-year-old girl. There is case after case of those coming here without our values, with no loyalty to Britain, no intention of making a positive contribution to this country, and committing serious and violent crimes, very often against women and girls.
We are now in a position where one in eight prisoners is a foreign national offender, with a total of more than 10,700 foreign nationals in our prisons. A large contingent come from Albania, whose countrymen make up 10% of foreign nationals in jail. The number of foreign nationals in UK prisons for drug offences makes up 20% of all offenders. The number of foreign sex offenders in prisons went up by 10% last year. Analysis from the Ministry of Justice last year confirmed that foreigners are convicted of up to 23% of all sex crimes. We hear from the Liberal Democrats that this issue is not about race, but it is certainly about culture.
Sir Julian Lewis
My right hon. Friend will have noticed that some Liberal Democrat Members seem to think that there is no such thing as a bogus or illegal asylum seeker, but recently there have been a number of attempted terrorist attacks, including one against a Manchester synagogue, which was fortunately foiled, but which was planned to be carried out by people who came in illegally on small boats. Are we to wait for an atrocity to occur before the appropriate remedial measures will be taken?
Sir John Hayes
My right hon. Friend—a former chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, on which I am proud to serve—will know that this is a national security issue, as well as an issue of profound concern to our constituents. The Government should see it through that prism as well as through a number of others.
It is certain that there is a cultural mismatch between these people’s understanding of what is right, good, just and decent, and the understanding of the British people. Very often, their way of life is simply not compatible with ours. Foreign nationals are 71% more likely than Britons to be responsible for a sex crime conviction. The rates based on convictions per 10,000 of population put Afghans, with 77 convictions, at the top with a rate of 59 per 10,000, 22.3 times greater than that of Britons. This is a cultural crisis. We are admitting people to this country who do not share our values and, frankly, do not really want to share our values, so the Government need to get real and do so quickly.
There is a huge gulf here. There is the assumption of the liberal establishment, who believe in cultural equivalence, that there is no such thing as western civilisation. We heard from the Liberal Democrats’ Front Bench, with an extraordinary paucity of understanding, that human rights began in 1947. They have never heard of the English common law, it would seem. They do not know about habeas corpus. They do not understand that free and fair elections existed long before the ECHR, or indeed that the lawful entitlements we call rights did not originate with that document.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Nor will you give way to a Member who has just come into the Chamber.
Sir John Hayes
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
This is an urgent matter, because the failure of successive Governments to deal with it has created a belief among the population that Governments do not care and Parliament does not understand. Until we address that, we will undermine the very character of our democracy.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
No case more powerfully illustrates the gravity of this matter than that of Rhiannon Whyte. I met Rhiannon’s mum Siobhan a few weeks ago and heard her story. Rhiannon was 27 years old. She worked in an asylum hotel, and one night after leaving work, she was followed by a Sudanese illegal immigrant who entered the country by small boat in late July 2024. This man murdered Rhiannon by stabbing her 23 times. He left her for dead on a station platform, and was later filmed laughing about it.
This terrible crime is by no means isolated. Many other illegal small boat migrants living in asylum accommodation have committed terrible offences against women and girls. A 31-year-old woman on a Brighton beach was gang-raped by two Iranians and an Egyptian who entered the country by small boat. A 12-year-old girl was abducted and raped by an Afghan illegal immigrant. A woman was abducted and raped by an Egyptian asylum seeker—again, an illegal immigrant—in Hyde Park, barely a mile from where we now stand. It turns out that that man also had criminal convictions for Islamist terrorism in Egypt. An Ethiopian illegal immigrant sexually assaulted a young teenage girl in Epping. Two Iranian nationals—again, illegal immigrants who entered the country by small boat—have now been charged with preparing terror attacks against Manchester’s Jewish community.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We do not talk about cases where people have just been charged or have not been sentenced, because it is sub judice. I ask the shadow Home Secretary to be incredibly careful with the words he uses in his closing speech.
Chris Philp
Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. The fact that they have been charged is a matter of public record; I will not say anything beyond that.
In another case, an illegal small boat migrant who entered the country is fighting extradition back to Germany, where he is wanted for rape. He is also linked to ISIS. In case after case—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. If somebody is fighting a case, it is still a live case. Can I ask the shadow Home Secretary to revisit his words before he speaks them out loud in the Chamber?
Chris Philp
I am repeating what has been publicly reported today, but I will of course take account of your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In case after case, we have seen women and girls attacked by illegal small boat migrants. The data, I am afraid, is very clear: two of the three most predominant nationalities are Afghan and Eritrean. The data that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) referred to—data produced using freedom of information requests to the Ministry of Justice—shows that Afghan males are 22 times more likely than average to commit sex assaults, and for Eritrean men, the number is similar. That, of course, is why just a few weeks ago, the Government felt it necessary to produce a leaflet asking these illegal migrants to kindly not rape women and girls. The Government themselves know it is a problem, which is why they produced those leaflets. It is why mothers and grandmothers in Piddington are so concerned about the safety of their daughters and granddaughters. It is why parents in Crowborough are so concerned as well, because these threats are real, these crimes have happened, and these convictions have taken place.
The data is clear. What my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings says is true: these men come from cultures that are alien to ours, where women are not respected. This is an immigration crisis, a border security crisis, a public safety crisis, and a crisis for women and girls. The Government are allowing 92% of small boat migrants to stay; only 8% have been deported. Yes, there are slightly fewer asylum hotels, but only because the Government are moving the illegal immigrants into flats instead—they are up by 12% since the election.
To save places such as Piddington, Crowborough, Linton-on-Ouse and Wethersfield and towns and villages up and down the country, the solution is not, as the Prime Minister said, to distribute illegal immigrants equitably across the country. It is instead to deport people who enter our country illegally, and to do so within a week of their arrival. If we did so, we would need no accommodation anywhere, whether in flats, hotels or military sites, because we would not be accommodating illegal immigrants at all. It would also deter the crossings. If the people who are leaving France—which, by the way, is a safe country; nobody needs to flee war in France—knew that they would be rapidly deported, either to their country of origin or to a safe third country such as Rwanda, the crossings would soon stop. When Australia did something similar in September 2013, its illegal maritime crossings, which had been running at levels similar to ours, stopped within about three months. It is a solution, if only the Government would grasp it.
To do that, though, it is necessary to leave the ECHR. What started in 1950 as a very well-intentioned piece of human rights legislation has subsequently been stretched and distorted beyond all recognition. Clauses that were originally intended to prevent the horrors of the second world war are now expansively interpreted to mean that rapists cannot be sent back to their country of origin because of their supposed family rights. Under article 3, which is unqualified and cannot be amended in domestic legislation, a Zimbabwean rapist was not sent back to Zimbabwe because he might face hostility there. An Iraqi drug dealer was not sent back to Iraq because he had apparently become too westernised. What started off as a sensible set of protections has been stretched beyond recognition—beyond anything common sense would recognise—and it is preventing successive Governments, the last Government as much as this one, from deporting people who cannot be here. That is why there are 21,000 serious foreign criminals still in this country. It is why the Home Office knows of 412,000 people with no right to be here who cannot be deported.
Leaving the ECHR is a necessary, but not sufficient, step. We need to do it in order to control our borders, but on its own, it is not enough. We would also have to amend domestic legislation—for example, to ban asylum claims by illegal immigrants, abolish the immigration tribunal and immigration legal aid, restrict judicial review of immigration matters to all but the narrowest grounds, and end modern slavery claims being used as a basis to oppose deportation. All of these measures would need to be taken as well as leaving the ECHR, but without leaving the ECHR none of those measures is possible.
Chris Philp
I am just going to just finish. I know that Ministers are trying hard with their Bill, but they are essentially tinkering at the edges. That was tried by the last Government and to be honest it did not work, because these legal structures prevent robust action to defend our borders.
Before concluding, I will just say that were we to leave the ECHR, which I fervently believe we must do to save places like Piddington, to protect our women and girls and to protect our borders, we would not be returning to the dark ages. Rights existed in this country long before the 1998 Human Rights Act and long before the 1950 convention was entered into. Common-law jurisdictions such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada have perfectly respectable human rights records without needing to rely on the ECHR. Indeed, this Parliament can legislate to protect human rights in whatever manner it sees fit.
What is true is that we cannot protect our borders and we cannot deport illegal immigrants and foreign criminals while we are inside the ECHR. If we are serious about border protection and protecting Piddington, Crowborough and other similar places up and down this country, we need to take that necessary step. We must leave the ECHR, reform our domestic laws and restore border control to this country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jo White)
This has been an important debate on one of the defining challenges of our time. Our constituents rightly expect immigration to be fair, controlled and free from abuse. For too long, it has been none of those. When this Government entered office, we inherited an asylum system in chaos, with criminal gangs deciding who could come to this country and hundreds of hotels being used to house vast numbers of illegal immigrants at immense cost to the public. It was unfair to the genuine refugees left waiting more than a year to have their case heard and unfair to the British people being asked to shoulder an ever-increasing burden in their taxes and their communities.
From day one, we began the hard work of fixing our asylum system and restoring order and control to our borders. The statistics show that we are making progress. Asylum decision making is up and returns are up, while small boat arrivals are down, and we remain on track to end the use of asylum hotels in this Parliament, although we know there is a long way to go. That is why we continue to work relentlessly at home and abroad to tackle the people smugglers who value profit above human life and to remove those who have no right to be here.
At the same time, we are ensuring that asylum seekers are housed in the fairest, most cost-effective way. We have seen the stress and strains of hotel usage. We are ending that scandal and we are moving asylum seekers to more appropriate accommodation. Former military bases, which are secure and contained, provide one of the best solutions. They allow us to minimise the impact on the local community with services brought on-site, 24/7 security and CCTV. We will always listen to concerns and work with the community, but existing sites, including Wethersfield, have operated for years with no evidence of any significant increase in criminality attributed to their operation.
We do not need to leave the ECHR to restore order to our immigration system.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jo White
No, I will not give way.
Winston Churchill proposed the establishment of the European convention on human rights at the 1948 Congress of Europe, and the UK was the first country to ratify it in 1951. It came from Churchill’s experience of dealing with the Nazis before and during the second world war. Some 13 million people were murdered, unprotected. The European convention on human rights defines what we mean by never again. How those rights are interpreted and applied is important, and that is why the Home Secretary committed last year to oversee reforms to bring the ECHR into the modern age.
The ECHR includes freedom of assembly, freedom to a fair trial, the prohibition of torture, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and the right to life, including the right not to be murdered in your own state. That is what the Nazis did and that is where the ECHR comes from. These principles remain essential. Which two countries have chosen to stay out? Russia and Belarus. Perhaps we should ask opposition leaders in Russia and Belarus about that. They have been falsely imprisoned, tortured and murdered by the state. That is what we are talking about. By leaving the ECHR, we would throw away protections against show trials and political persecution. We will not hand over our freedoms to the whims of tyrants and dictators.
Jo White
No, I will not. Sit down.
Instead, we stand with Churchill. We will build a fair, controlled immigration system that is free from abuse. We will focus on matters abut which people are rightly concerned.
The issue is not the existence of the convention, but the way in which it has been applied over time. We do not fix a fault by walking away; we sort it out by restoring the right balance and ensuring that the system works as intended. That is why all 46 members of the ECHR adopted the Chiinău political declaration in May, creating solid foundations for reform. The Government are now translating that into practical change, and we will see reform of the domestic application of article 8, restoring the proper balance between maintaining individual rights and protecting the public interest. This is a binary choice: reform the ECHR and have greater control over our borders, or leave and lose our ability to return illegal migrants or foreign criminals. I choose the powers that the ECHR gives us, which protects all our individual rights and freedoms. It also provides us with responsibilities, and when people have been subjected to torture or the risk of torture, we have rightly provided them with a place of security and safety.
I now come to some of the points made by hon. Members. [Interruption.] I respond appropriately to Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) wanted a timeline for the closing down of hotels in places such as Falkirk which were approved by the Tories when they were in power. The ambition is to end hotel use by the end of this parliamentary term. The number has fallen from 400 when we came into power to fewer than 160, and I will celebrate with my hon. Friend when we are in a position to close down the remaining hotel in his constituency.
In response to the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), the introduction of electronic travel authorisations at the borders and ports and the use of visa penalties have given us much greater control over our borders. Disincentivising crossings through the introduction of new, strong control methods, including those employed by Border Security Command, cracking down on illegal working and introducing safe and legal routes for genuine asylum cases from some of the most dangerous countries in the world has also given us more power over our borders. The change in the way in which the ECHR is applied is critical to bringing back order and control.
This Government share the concern on women’s safety, and I acknowledge the concerns of the women who are here today. No woman should live a smaller life, and this Government are committed to halving violence against women and girls within this decade. Ours is a cross-Government response, and we will work as hard as we can to achieve that aim. Home Office representatives have met the chief executive and the leader of Cherwell district council to discuss cohesion challenges linked to people’s concerns about the site, and they are listening to the concerns raised by women.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jo White
This is an imperative for the Home Office. The proposal contained in the planning application includes on-site 24/7 security and CCTV. We have already introduced those measures on other large sites such as Wethersfield, which has operated in that way for years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) identified, safeguarding for the local community is an imperative. It is important and drives the management of the site. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) raised concerns about the planning process. It already includes an environmental impact assessment.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
Will the Minister give way?
Jo White
The hon. Gentleman has only just walked in.
There were no objections from Natural England. The final cost of the site will only be known following the outcome of the procurement process.
Concerns were raised about article 3. The Government accept that there will be genuinely exceptional medical healthcare cases in which article 3 prevents removal, but they must be exceptional. Article 3 was never intended to guarantee—
Jo White
Cases are inherently fact-sensitive and must always be assessed on their individual circumstances. It is absolutely not for me to say in this House.
Following the recent political declaration on article 3, we are working to secure stronger instant decisions, better prepared litigation and more consistent application of article 3. Further operational policy or legislative reform remain available where persistent barriers are identified.
I say in response to the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman) that she was in the Home Office when she approved large sites, including the one that was proposed for RAF Scampton. She knows that in-house services, 24/7 CCTV and security provide a greater level of protection for communities.
This country is proud to offer sanctuary to those fleeing conflict or persecution. It is the right thing to do, and it is a fundamental part of who we are, but that generosity depends on the support of the British public. They must believe that our asylum system is fair. For that, it must be capped and controlled, with decisions and appeals that are fast and fair, and those with no right to be here must be promptly removed. That is the imperative behind every decision this Government take. We are restoring order to our borders. We are making our asylum system faster and fairer, and in doing so, we will ensure that this country can continue to provide protection to those in need—today and for generations to come.
Question put.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I will now announce the results of today’s deferred Divisions.
On the draft ACAS Code of Practice on Time Off for Trade Union Duties and Activities, the Ayes were 328, the Noes were 114, so the Ayes have it.
On the draft Code of Practice on the Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces, the Ayes were 326, the Noes were 115, so the Ayes have it.
On the draft Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) Regulations 2026, the Ayes were 326, the Noes were 115, so the Ayes have it.
On the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (Calculation of CBAM Rate and Determination of Carbon Price Relief) Regulations 2026, the Ayes were 319, the Noes were 115, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]
Inheritance Tax
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 99 / Noes: 291 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I remind all Members planning to speak in this debate that it is a courtesy of the House that they return for the wind-ups. I inform the House that the Speaker has not selected the amendment.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House calls on the Government to cut public spending in order to abolish Inheritance Tax on family homes, farms and businesses.
There is a divide the size of Manchester’s Etihad arena in British politics today: between those who want to tax family farms, and those who do not; between those who want to tax family businesses, and those who do not; and now, between those who want to tax family homes, and those who do not.
Not content with the highest tax burden in peacetime history, in their first Budget the Government chose to impose inheritance tax on farmers and family businesses. The Conservatives would scrap the family farm tax and the family business tax, and we would abolish inheritance tax on the family home. That is because we believe that people who work hard and save hard should keep the rewards, rather than seeing them sold and snaffled up to pay a taxman who refuses to make hard choices and to cut welfare.
We will hear later from the shadow Secretary of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins); she has been a stalwart defender of Britain’s farmers, who this Government have attacked. I will speak briefly to the family businesses that this Government are also attacking. Many of them are small businesses: people who get up every day and take on the responsibility of hiring—often hiring young people—of making payroll and of creating growth in this country.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) will respond to the point on farms, but before the shadow Chancellor moves on, does he agree that one of the many examples of foolishness in the Government’s approach to a tax on the inheritance of farmland is that there is a challenge with the age of farmers? We need more young people in farming, and if the Government make it more difficult and expensive for those young people most likely to go into farming—namely, the children of farming families—they will exacerbate that primary problem.
Andrew Griffith
My right hon. and learned Friend is exactly right. The original reason for the exemption in death duties that previous Labour Governments respected was that generational aspect—the fact that a business or farm does not necessarily produce the cash flow necessary to hand over an enormous part of that value when, tragically, death takes place. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle will pick up on that point later.
I will move on to businesses, which, as Members across the House will know, are far more numerous than the farms who we know are impacted. Inheritance tax affects businesses in every one of our constituencies, on every one of our high streets and in every one of our trading estates. Often they are businesses that have been in the same family for multiple generations. This is causing extreme jeopardy, to the point that people are having to take action right now to protect those family interests.
Edmund Burke, a man much beloved on the Opposition Benches, said that society is a partnership
“between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are yet to be born.”
There could be no better manifestation of that than Britain’s family businesses, which are rooted in their local community and provide jobs down the generations. Yet this Government are hellbent on breaking them up and forcing them to sell the pieces to pay an inheritance tax bill that they should never have to face. We Conservatives are on the side of family businesses.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
A wealth of small businesses across my constituency keeps our local economy growing. Does my hon. Friend agree that at a time when our businesses need support that will enable them to create employment for the next generation, this Government—on whose Benches there is, of course, no business experience—are just squeezing and squeezing our businesses out of business?
Andrew Griffith
My right hon. Friend is quite right. I urge every Member of this House to spend time with family businesses in their constituency; there are excellent organisations such as Family Business UK that would be delighted to make the introduction.
My right hon. Friend is also absolutely right about the relative dearth on the Government Benches of business and private sector experience and of an understanding of how the economy works. However, that is capable of remediation, if only Government Ministers and Members were to seek to educate themselves on the benefits to their constituencies and constituents of family businesses.
We Conservatives will not let a spiteful, prejudiced Labour party destroy those family businesses, which is why we will—
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Andrew Griffith
I would be delighted to give way and for the hon. Member to talk about the family business contribution in his own constituency, and why he will therefore be supporting the Opposition motion this afternoon.
Gareth Snell
There are many wonderful family businesses in Stoke-on-Trent, not least Potclays, which makes clay for the pottery industry. The hon. Gentleman talks about this spiteful tax; he will know that it was introduced in 1986 under Mrs Thatcher. Did he think it was a spiteful tax when she introduced it?
Andrew Griffith
There have been exemptions for family business far beyond that. This goes across multiple generations—the origins date back to the 1960s, and every Labour Government under every Labour Prime Minister have understood the contribution of family businesses, including to those in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
We could, of course, talk about many of the other headwinds that business face, but I would then be deviating from the subject of debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that many colleagues want to speak this afternoon, so I will not talk about the higher energy costs, or the costs of hiring, or the red tape that this Government have imposed or the national insurance jobs tax, among many other things. We will not talk about any of those things, Madam Deputy Speaker!
Inheritance tax more generally was once a tax paid by the privileged few—the super-rich, a tiny sliver of a minority of taxpayers and estates. Today, however—these are independent numbers that the Government will understand—inheritance tax is a tax on ordinary middle-class families in every corner of our country. I invite the Minister to challenge these numbers when he eventually responds. By 2030, one in six families will face an inheritance tax bill. At the start of previous decades, that was one family in 20. The scope of this tax has dragged so many more people into its terrible net, and it is only getting worse. One in five homes last year was sold at a price above the threshold where an inheritance tax liability would arise.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I wonder whether the shadow Chancellor thinks that inheritance tax has a greater impact than the cost of care on people who are forced to sell their homes. Does he not recognise that the Prime Minister is right to tackle the national care crisis, because that is causing people to need to sell their homes far more than inheritance tax is?
Andrew Griffith
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. Very few of us will not be aware of the challenges of the care sector from meeting constituents at our surgeries. It is why I regret the fact that one of the first actions of this Government on coming into office was to reject the consensus around the Dilnot review, which would have moved that conversation forward. We on this side of the House will continue to engage with ideas that the Prime Minister puts forward, but none of that takes away from the iniquity of inheritance tax, which is a double tax, often as a result of earned income, and sometimes even a triple tax as a result of businesses.
As I said, the scope and breadth of inheritance tax is dragging more people into its net all the time. There is a fundamental difference between the Government and Opposition on this issue, and I am very keen to hear what our colleagues in the Liberal Democrat party have to say on the matter.
The Conservatives believe that our homes are special. They are not just another asset to be taxed by a Government who refuse to cut out-of-control welfare. They are where we feel safe with our families, where our young take their first steps, and where we spend religious festivals and precious family moments. That is why so many of the policies we have announced recently focus precisely on those family homes.
We would make it cheaper to buy a first home for young people by removing gold-plated regulation, saving £50,000 from the price of an average new-build home, because we are the party that believes in home ownership. We would make it cheaper to buy by abolishing stamp duty on people’s primary residences and would make homes cheaper to live in by scrapping Labour’s tax on family homes—the so-called mansion tax that, in truth, applies in many parts of the country to flats and ordinary suburban homes. It applies in Birmingham, in Bristol, in Nottingham, in Edinburgh and, yes, in Manchester too. We are the party that prioritises home ownership, and now we are committed to making it free for people to pass on their family home to direct descendants.
The Government should follow our plan: no tax to buy a home, no tax to live in a home, and no tax to pass on a home to family. If the Chancellor is looking for ideas for his Budget in two weeks’ time, he can have that one for free. If the Minister takes that back, maybe he will become the Chancellor. But we all know what Labour will choose: more welfare. Labour is not the party of home ownership. That is a Conservative value, not Labour’s. We are the party of home ownership; they are the party of welfare, and we know how many people are on out-of-work benefits in Britain today.
Even the leader of the Liberal Democrats—this week at least—can see that taxing family homes is wrong. Just two years ago he told the BBC, when they still wanted to hear from him, that
“lots of people’s homes in many areas of the country are quite valuable, and they end up being clobbered by inheritance tax…I think that’s unfair”.
We shall see whether his colleagues—current colleagues—agree with him and which Lobby they end up in today. We will see whether they are useful helpers of the Government or willing to stand up for their constituents who are being over-taxed by this Government. We would take the majority of families out of inheritance tax, abolish the truly awful family farm tax and abolish the anti-growth family business tax—and, when we can afford it within our fiscal rules, we would abolish inheritance tax entirely, because we do believe that it is an immoral tax.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument. He will presumably recognise that the clue is often in the name where our businesses are concerned, as many of those largest businesses that we regard as national champions—Pilkington, John Lewis, Sainsbury’s and banks such as Lloyds—owe their origin to family businesses. The fact that they carry a surname indicates the many generations it took to build them to that power, but by taxing those businesses, we hold the entire economy back from such growth.
Andrew Griffith
My right hon. Friend is right. I do not think that any fair-minded person in the United Kingdom today would say, “The problem is that we have too many successful companies. Too many companies are setting up, being founded and listing on our stock exchanges; our economy is growing somehow too fast; we have not got enough young people to fill the jobs available; and the economy does not have enough debt.” Therefore, were there a measure that would allow productive capital to flow down the generations to allow enterprises across communities in all our countries to help our economy grow, we might think the Government would clutch on to it like a sinking man clings to a life raft. Perhaps we will get that damascene conversion from the Minister today—perhaps we will hear it in two weeks’ time—but I rather fear not.
That is why so many other countries in our situation—those many economies that are growing faster than ours—do not impose multi-generational taxes on businesses. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister why it is that he and his Government single out family businesses—not those owned by private equity, those owned by international domiciled corporations, or even listed companies—for this iniquitous measure. I would love to hear that, as we all would on the Conservative Benches.
Andrew Griffith
As I have said many times in the House, I think the G7 is the wrong comparator peer group. We are not the fastest growing member of the G7. If the hon. Member took the time to read more than the headlines handed out by the Labour Whips, he would know that yesterday the International Monetary Fund downgraded the growth forecast for our wonderful country and enterprise for 2027. That is what Labour is doing to our economy: it has reduced the rate of growth.
While the G7 largely consists of relatively sclerotic economies that suffer from the same levels of indebtedness and lack of growth as the United Kingdom, in the meantime the G20 is coming up on the outside track. Those are the more prosperous countries, and they are building airports, building infrastructure and forming capital. Their companies are taking on the world and their young people have more job opportunities.
Not that the Labour Government have any interest in calibrating, counting and identifying those who are leaving, but that is why the flow of wealth creators and ambitious young people is not to our wonderful country, with its history and heritage, but from our country to those economies that are successfully growing faster than ours. One of the reasons for that—to conclude—is that those countries are more understanding of family businesses, more understanding of family farms, and more sympathetic and on the side of those who work hard to create wealth and a better life for themselves, for their family and for the next generation.
Gareth Snell
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your counsel. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) has just given a rather long speech about the benefits of family-owned businesses, but he failed to declare that one of the biggest beneficiaries of his policy would be JCB, which just happens to have given him £30,000 over the last year. Should that matter have been declared before the speech was made?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Can I—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member is going to make a point of order, he might at least listen to the response. As he ought to know, as an experienced parliamentarian, that is not a matter for the Chair. He has, however, made his point.
Kit Malthouse
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I need to offer you an apology. When I asked my question, I should have declared, or drawn attention to, my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am the proud founder of two businesses, which I hope in time to pass on to my children, if the Labour party does not get in the way.
Madam Deputy Speaker
As the right hon. Member will know, that is not a matter for the Chair, but I thank him for putting it on the record.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster General (James Murray)
I thank the shadow Chancellor for delivering a speech for which it was, this time, much clearer when it had ended.
The Opposition motion invites us to speculate on the contents of the Budget. As right hon. and hon. Members will be used to me and my colleagues saying, the Government do not comment on speculation and the Chancellor will deliver his Budget in this House on 28 October. However, I am free to share with the House some of the context in which the Chancellor will take his decisions.
The Budget comes amid unprecedented economic shocks, with conflicts in both the middle east and Europe hitting people here and around the world. However, we are not powerless. That is why we are giving families and businesses breathing space where we can and starting to make the big, long-term changes needed to create good jobs and growth in every postcode. Everything we do at this Budget will be built on fiscal stability. Our fiscal responsibility has been underlined by the IMF this week, and as it made clear, our country is forecast to have the lowest borrowing—that is to say, the smallest deficit—in the G7 from 2029. Our country is demonstrating strong resilience in the face of global challenges, with the joint second-fastest growing economy in the G7 this year.
To deliver good growth in every postcode and to provide breathing space for families and businesses, we must continue to take responsible choices. That is why, as the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have made clear, fiscal discipline will underwrite every promise this Government make to the British people. We will meet our fiscal rules at the Budget later this month with a buffer against uncertainty. We will control borrowing so that we can bring inflation down and reduce long-term pressures on our public finances. That is the right thing to do, because there is nothing progressive about a Government spending £1 in every £10 on debt interest, rather than on the priorities of working people.
This Government inherited public finances that were in a mess and public services that were in crisis. Since the general election, we have put the NHS back on its feet, with the waiting list down by more than 250,000 since the Government came to power. Last year we delivered the highest number of affordable homes in a decade. We are lifting over half a million children out of poverty by scrapping the two-child limit and expanding free school meals. We are investing in Britain’s future, with an additional £120 billion of capital investment across this Parliament, and in Britain’s roads, rail, energy and other infrastructure that is so important to driving growth. Through reforms to how our country works, from planning to pensions and skills, we have helped to create the conditions for private investment to rise by almost 5% since the general election.
We have always been prepared to take the responsible choices to fix the foundations of our economy, repair our broken public services and deliver the investment needed to support growth. That includes driving down waste and driving up efficiency in the public sector, with a 16% reduction in departmental admin budgets by the end of the spending review period. We are reprioritising spending so that taxpayers’ money is spent on their priorities, cancelling digital ID in order to remove VAT from household electricity bills, reprioritising Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government spending to help tackle homelessness and bringing the national bus cap down to £2 for 2027, funded by savings from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. We are reforming the welfare system through the Milburn and Timms reviews, while tackling welfare fraud and error to save over £14 billion by the end of 2030-31, and we have taken decisions on tax to ensure that we meet our fiscal rules of living within our means.
Our decisions on tax reflect our commitment to sound public finances. We want to make sure that those with broader shoulders make a fair contribution. Although very few people, if any, want to pay more tax, we recognise that only a small proportion of the largest estates pay inheritance tax, and it makes an important contribution to the public finances.
Inheritance tax is forecast to raise almost £15 billion in 2030-31 to help deliver public services, and it is currently payable on around one in 20 estates. Our reforms to agricultural property relief and business property relief, introduced in April of this year, are expected to raise around £300 million per year, while offering substantial protection for family farms and businesses. Through a 100%—
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way on this point. He focuses on how much he believes this tax will raise, but what does the impact assessment say about how many businesses will close as a result of this tax?
James Murray
The impact assessment, or tax information note, is published alongside the publication of the policy at the Budget.
I want to just make the point that to protect family farms and family businesses, the threshold for the 100% relief goes up to £2.5 million per person, and above that there is a 50% rate, which means an effective inheritance tax rate of up to 20% above that. Furthermore, the repayments can be spread over up to 10 years interest free, so there are substantial protections in place for family farms and family businesses. That 100% relief on the first £2.5 million of qualifying agricultural and business assets means that a couple can pass on up to £5 million of qualifying agricultural and business assets free of inheritance tax between them, in addition to the existing allowances such as the nil rate band. These protections will support family farms as we work with farmers to build a sector that is productive, profitable and resilient for the future.
Kit Malthouse
There seems to be a disconnect in the Labour party’s understanding of the situation. Does the Minister not appreciate that the capital value of an enterprise, whether it be a farm or a business, does not necessarily equate to the revenue that it generates? Many family farms and businesses are what they would call lifestyle businesses, where people are happy to sit on what may appear to be a large capital value that yields only a very small revenue amount that will not support the taxes he is trying to levy, and at the same time only just supports a lifestyle that people are willing to tolerate. It is this imbalance that is causing so much anguish.
James Murray
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, but the fact that we have a threshold of £2.5 million of qualifying assets over which the 100% relief applies, and that the 50% relief applies in an uncapped manner above that level, means that we are protecting our small family businesses and family farms while making sure that there is a contribution towards the public finances.
Kit Malthouse
Let us say that a farm is worth £3 million, ostensibly on land value. That farm might be yielding a net income to a farmer of only £30,000 to £50,000 a year, on which they are surviving. They are willing to live that way because they love living on the farm, it has been in their family for many generations and they feel a sense of stewardship and custodianship, but that revenue is not enough for them to live on and then sustain the tax that the Minister wants to levy.
James Murray
Without commenting on individual tax affairs, even if hypothetical, if a farm were worth £3 million, the £2.5 million allowance for the 100% relief would cover a substantial portion of that. That is in addition to the existing nil rate bands and can be transferred between spouses. If that hypothetical farm were passed on via a couple to their descendants, £5 million would be covered.
I want to emphasise that our work as a Government with farmers—who feed the nation, sustain rural communities and help to manage the land that shapes our countryside—ranges from immediate support, including the £65 million emergency package that we announced to help them cope with this summer’s drought, to opening new markets for British produce through trade deals and export opportunities.
Wendy Morton
The Minister appears to give the impression that he knows about the farming industry, but how often, if ever, does he actually go out on to a family farm and meet the farmers?
James Murray
As the right hon. Lady will know, I have been in a position in the Treasury previously in this Government, and I have had a large number of conversations with people affected by, and worried about, this tax policy. The tax policy introduced in April this year has a £2.5 million threshold for the 100% relief, and we are confident that that balances raising revenue for the public finances with giving the right protection to family farms, which we think is so important.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister; he is being very generous. If he was a farmer with a relatively small farm—probably pretty marginal at, say, 300 acres and worth about £3 million—would he consider improving his farm and investing in capital to upgrade it, with the expensive kit now necessary to produce any sort of return on the land these days, or would he think, particularly if he was getting on in years, that that money would simply be top-sliced by the Treasury?
James Murray
Much like his right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), the right hon. Gentleman refers to a £3 million farm. Again, that makes me confident that the threshold of £2.5 million for the 100% relief would cover a large proportion of those assets. As I said, that £2.5 million of qualifying assets means that a couple can pass on up to £5 million of qualifying assets, and that is in addition to the other existing nil rate bands. It is a similar point that his right hon. Friend made. The fact is that a £3 million farm would be covered by much of the relief and the nil rate bands.
Our responsible approach to the public finances stands in stark contrast to the approach taken by the Conservatives. In government, they crashed the economy while the shadow Chancellor was in the Treasury, and they left us with billions of pounds of unfunded spending commitments. In opposition, they are showing that they have learned nothing from their general election defeat. They claim their changes to inheritance tax would cost £6 billion and that they know how they would pay for them, but when they say they would make savings to welfare and asylum, no one can believe a word they say when everyone knows the cost of both soared when they were in power. What is more, independent analysis by tax expert Dan Neidle suggests that the true cost of their changes would reach £10.8 billion a year once behavioural effects are taken into account. That is almost double the number the shadow Chancellor has been bandying around.
Let’s face it: with the Conservatives’ policies costing double what they say and their so-called savings failing to materialise, they would either push up borrowing or do what Tories do best: make cuts to schools, prison places and our NHS. Let’s be clear: this policy would fail to help ordinary families across the country. That independent analysis has shown that 90% of the benefit would go to the wealthiest 20% of pensioner households; 40% would go to the wealthiest 5%; and 70% of the benefits would go to households in London and the south-east.
The Conservatives’ policy stands in contrast to the fair decisions that this Government will always take. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will of course set out any future tax measures in the Budget in two weeks’ time. But let me remind the House of the decisions this Government have already taken to provide breathing space to families and businesses. For families rightly concerned about the cost of energy, we have removed VAT from electricity bills, taking around £45 off the price cap, and that is on top of the £150 removed from bills at the last Budget. For those paying business rates, the Government have introduced a support package worth £4.3 billion, with a further announcement in July taking an extra 20% off bills for pubs, social clubs and live music venues.
These are some of our choices to help families and businesses across the country. Rather than helping ordinary families struggling with the cost of living, the Tories instead are prioritising some of those with the greatest wealth. In a world of difficult choices, they are choosing to direct billions of pounds towards some of those with the largest assets, while everyone else is asked to pick up the bill.
Chris Vince
I thank the Minister for giving way; he is always generous with his time. Does the motion not just show that the Conservatives have the wrong priorities? Removing inheritance tax for families when the threshold is £1 million will make no difference to families in my constituency of Harlow. Less than one in 20 families pay inheritance tax. Is it not the right thing to do to tackle the cost of living crisis in the way that he is talking about?
James Murray
My hon. Friend makes an important point about politics being about choices and priorities. Indeed, in a world of difficult choices, the Conservatives choose to direct billions of pounds towards some of those with the largest estates, while everyone else is being asked to pick up the bill.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
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?
James Murray
Without commenting on the circumstances of an individual taxpayer, the fact that we have a threshold of £2.5 million before any inheritance tax is due on relevant agricultural or business property assets provides substantial protection for people from those charges. As I said earlier, there is a 50% relief which is uncapped above that level, and payment is allowed over 10 years interest-free. The balance we are striking in the policy that was introduced in April provides protection for family farms and small businesses while ensuring a contribution to the public finances, underscoring our fiscal responsibility, which is so important for better public services and a stable economy.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Minister is doing so much to protect and help farmers, so is he mystified that they are not queuing up to thank him?
James Murray
I was going to say that I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but I am not sure it was meant in that tone. Being in government is about taking the right decisions for the future of the country, and I know that when taking decisions in the Treasury, the most important thing to start with is to ensure that fiscal stability and responsibility are the bedrock of all our decisions. If we look at the decisions that we as a Government have taken, and at the commitment of the Chancellor and Prime Minister, no one can be in any doubt that we will never return to the recklessness of the hon. Gentleman’s party in government.
Labour Members know that to provide breathing space for families and businesses, and to fix our economy and country for the long term, fiscal discipline must underwrite every promise we make. That is why we will continue to meet our fiscal rules, with a buffer against uncertainty. We will support good growth in every postcode by getting power out of Westminster, and we will drive investment to boost innovation and create jobs. That is how we will bring back hope across Britain, not through the fantasy economics and unfunded spending commitments of the Conservative party but with a plan to unlock potential in every part of our country, so that wherever someone lives, they and their local community can thrive. I oppose the Opposition motion.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
It is good to see the shadow Chancellor open this debate, because after his conference speech I too was not sure whether he would be trusted to close it. The shadow Chancellor was not the only Conservative Front Bencher to deliver an interesting conference speech, as the Leader of the Opposition simultaneously told us that every spending commitment would be matched by a source of funding, but then proceeded to announce a string of unfunded pledges—[Interruption.] Oh we got the numbers. It is clear that “Keminomics”—[Interruption.] I think the official Opposition are slightly rattled, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is now clear that “Keminomics” is simply Trussonomics 2.0, and if Conservative Members get anywhere near the levers of power again, or if they choose to hand the keys to No. 10 to Reform UK, they will once again propel this country towards another crash in the public finances.
Let me turn to the substance of the motion. We Liberal Democrats agree that the inheritance tax system is not fair. Ordinary families can face an inheritance tax rate of 40%, while those inheriting estates worth tens of billions of pounds are often able to avoid paying their fair share through complex tax planning and accounting arrangements.
Noah Law
There are issues with the current administration of the tax, but those are more to do with the fact that many of the wealthiest are avoiding it. Does the hon. Lady agree that businesses are genuinely in a better place to receive tax planning advice, so while there are a lot of retorts about the difficulties of selling plant and machinery, for example, businesses are better placed than households to take on that tax planning?
Daisy Cooper
Households and businesses feel absolutely hammered by the tax burden at the moment. On the subject of this particular motion, I hope we can agree that there is a problem because the wealthiest people can avoid inheritance tax through various loopholes.
Daisy Cooper
The hon. Gentleman’s first question was broader and was asking about the capacity of businesses generally to pay for advance tax planning. Hopefully we can all agree that the tax code in this country is so complicated that unfortunately people must seek expert tax advice. Our tax system could be much simpler. The point that I was trying to make is that there are problems and loopholes with this particular tax. We have one of the highest headline rates of inheritance tax in the OECD, yet only 4% of estates end up paying it. The burden often falls on those who cannot take advantage of the loopholes and exemptions that are available to those with access to expensive tax advice.
We would reform inheritance tax to make it fairer, but let us be clear: a mini-Budget style approach to tax cuts is not the way to do it. There is a better alternative. If we want to help people who are being squeezed by the cost of living, the fairest and most effective approach is to cut income tax. We Liberal Democrats have done that before; when in power, we would do that again. In Government, we cut tax for millions of people, taking 3.4 million people out of income tax altogether. Today, we Liberal Democrats are committed to raising both the income tax personal allowance and the national insurance threshold to £15,000 over five years—[Interruption.] Conservative Members ask where we are going to find money for that—I will tell them.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
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?
Daisy Cooper
Yes. Of all political parties represented in this Chamber, the official Opposition will know that the leader of the Liberal Democrats was an excellent climate Minister in the coalition Government. Our party leader is an economist and would never, ever have done what the hon. Gentleman’s party did with the mini-Budget.
Our Liberal Democrat policy would take a further 2.5 million people out of paying income tax altogether. While the Conservatives’ proposal would benefit only around 30,000 people, funded through a mini-Budget style approach to tax cuts, our plans would deliver tax cuts to more than 30 million people across the country. Crucially, we would pay for that responsibly through the growth dividend generated by a new growth and defence partnership with the European Union.
Dr Murrison
What would the hon. Lady say to her constituents about this subject? I have been looking on Rightmove at houses prices in St Albans, where a very nice but semi-detached house in Carlisle Avenue is on the market for £1.4 million. She has just dissed those people by saying they will not be a priority for tax cuts at the next general election. Can she advise how they should vote?
Daisy Cooper
I know exactly where Carlisle Avenue is. Based on the demographic of that ward, I might go and knock on that door and ask if their mortgage went up after the Liz Truss mini-Budget.
We Liberal Democrats are clear: rebuilding our relationship with Europe is the single biggest lever available to increase economic growth, to boost living standards and to cut personal tax. For as long as the Conservative party refuses to acknowledge that, it will remain an anti-growth, anti-business party. We Liberal Democrats know that economic growth is not an end in itself. As we grow the economy, it is incumbent on all parties to ensure that the benefits of that growth are shared widely across the country.
Paul Holmes
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?
Daisy Cooper
I can tell the hon. Member that, based on the statistics, the thing that would bring the biggest amount of growth would be having a closer relationship with Europe. He will know that we Liberal Democrats opposed the rise in national insurance contributions, and we have said that we would like to see the reversal of the lower threshold as an immediate move to give businesses back the incentive to give young people jobs, given the crisis of young people not in education, employment or training. That is why our plans link the additional growth generated by a stronger partnership with Europe directly to tax cuts for working people. That is the fair way to help families facing the cost of living crisis, the responsible way to cut taxes and the honest way to pay for tax cuts, unlike the Conservatives’ unfunded promises.
Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
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?
Daisy Cooper
I think we all accept that there are many unfairnesses in our tax system and that there are many tax reforms we want to see for growth. I have acknowledged in my speech that there are unfairnesses in the way that inheritance tax works, but scrapping taxes in an unfunded way is not the way to reform tax in this country, and it is certainly not the way to run the economy. Rather than offering another round of economic fantasy, we Liberal Democrats have a credible growth plan that would make the United Kingdom safer, stronger and more prosperous.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
We live in challenging times, with heightened security threats, inflation and cost of living pressures driven by Trump’s war in the middle east. Our NHS is still recovering from the pandemic and from Liz Truss, yet the priority set out by the Conservatives in today’s motion is cutting public spending to give more money away to people inheriting sums of money greater than £1 million. That is sad and predictable, but it is not surprising.
As it stands, the Conservatives know that they are not serious contenders for government, so they have reached back into a comfort zone. They hope that by sending a message to some of the wealthiest people in our society, they might hang on to a few more votes, but I am afraid that people across the income spectrum in my constituency and across the country will see right through this policy. My constituents know that we can ill afford a tax giveaway to people who are already fortunate enough to inherit £1 million tax free.
The facts matter. Under the current system, only around one in 20 people pay inheritance tax on their estates at all, so the winners from the Conservatives’ proposition will be about 5% of the population, while the rest of us are left to pick up the bill. An independent analysis has found that the proposal could cost the Exchequer upwards of £10 billion a year, as my right hon. Friend the Minister said. The political choice matters too. I believe in maximising opportunities for people from all backgrounds. The question we should be debating in this House today is not how we make things easier for those who rely on inherited wealth, but how we make things easier for those who do not have access to inherited wealth.
Last year, the bank of mum and dad provided more than £9 billion in gifts to their children and, in some cases, their grandchildren. Every parent and grandparent who has the ability to offer support to their loved ones will do so and should be encouraged to do so. The average sum given by the bank of mum and dad was £55,000—a very significant amount of money, wherever you are in the country. That is great for those who are in such a fortunate position. There will be people in this Chamber who have been able to give and receive money, and we should acknowledge that.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman understand that the bank of mum and dad comes from the hard work of mum and dad so that they can pass things on to their children?
Andrew Lewin
I absolutely understand that point, but there are many millions of people in this country who work just as hard but who, through no fault of their own, are not in a position to hand down tens of thousands of pounds to their children.
If you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to use the opportunity presented by this debate to talk a little bit about my own proposal on intergenerational fairness. I have a policy idea called the citizens advance, which I came up with a year or so ago. It is a policy offer that would give people the opportunity to move their lives forward irrespective of their background. This is how it would work: after 10 years in work—10 years of national insurance contributions—the state would say to people, “We’re going to give you a choice. You can keep your current state retirement age”—which for most young adults today is 68—“or you can put back your state retirement age by a year to 69, and in return, you will receive the value of one year of your state pension as a lump sum.” From April next year, that will be £13,000. That is my idea; I am very pleased that the Social Market Foundation has taken it on, and I encourage any Members who are interested to read its detailed and costed policy paper. I can assure my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench and in the Treasury that they will be hearing more from me on this subject in the weeks and months to come.
I make that point because I want to engage seriously with the idea of intergenerational fairness, which is important to me and to many of my constituents.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is clear that the hon. Member is taking this issue very seriously and thinking about it very deeply. What does he think about inheritance tax on businesses? I give him the example of a bandage factory making sterile bandages, owned by a family, where the 40-odd-year-old gentleman currently running that factory stands to lose quite a lot of money when his father dies. That will mean laying off people or selling the factory. How does that help the people who work there?
Andrew Lewin
I obviously do not know the circumstances of that particular business, but I do know that, as the Minister set out, there is a threshold of £2.5 million under which no business will pay any inheritance tax at all. I think that is a fair place to start, and that is the status quo.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
Has my hon. Friend taken a moment to work out the example put forward by one Conservative Member of the £3.5 million-worth of assets belonging to a family business in his constituency? After taking into account the threshold of £2.5 million and the further £1 million of assets, the actual inheritance tax due by that business is £20,000. That will be what is payable—£20,000 per year for 10 years, an amount that ought to be manageable for a business with £3.5 million-worth of assets. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister has set out why this tax is important to rebuilding the public finances?
Andrew Lewin
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who speaks powerfully and with great experience on these issues.
I will draw my remarks to a close by returning to the proposition put forward by the Conservatives today. I am sad to say that they are a party retreating to their comfort zone. They could have come to the Chamber today and said, “Let’s have a debate about how we invest in defence or public services, or about new ways to support businesses”, but I am afraid that their choice and the choice made by their leader is a giveaway to the top 5% of estates in this country. I am a meritocrat. I want a society that is less reliant on family wealth, not more—a society that maximises opportunity for all. I am sorry that that is not a vision that the Conservative party seems to share.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
With an immediate six-minute time limit, I call Patrick Spencer.
Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
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, 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—[Interruption.] It is a real place. It sells products to the Oberoi Hotel in New Delhi.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
Are there any black Labradors at any of the premises that my hon. Friend mentions?
Patrick Spencer
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.
Patrick Spencer
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.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate and to reflect on the question of inheritance tax brought to the House by the Conservative party. It affects about 4% of the population. On the Government Benches, we are rather more concerned with the 63% of the population who are facing tough times. Labour will therefore be voting against this Opposition day motion.
I think we all remember where we were in the summer of 2022 when Liz Truss crashed the economy. The mortgages that ordinary families around the country were paying went through the roof. A shiver went down the spines of all the people who had pensions invested, as civil servants were sacked and the general reputation of the economy in the UK was trashed. Sadly, we have been paying the Truss penalty ever since. However, those of us on this side of the House fought to stop the chaos, restore hope and deliver change. In two years a lot of progress has been made, and even more has been made over the summer. I look forward to the Budget that will be presented in two weeks’ time, which will have more to offer those who are struggling with the cost of living crisis.
Today, His Majesty’s official Opposition are asking the House to vote to bring back that version of chaos. Independent analysis suggests that the Conservatives’ inheritance tax proposals could cost up to £10 billion a year. Most families would rather see that money used to tackle the cost of living for everyone and to increase the wealth of the country as a whole, rather than being used to provide tax cuts for the 4% proportion of the population affected by this particular tax. The Conservatives say that theirs is the party of home ownership, but after their 14 years in government, home ownership fell out of reach for too many young people. The only growth was the growth in homelessness, which, sadly, increased by 74% during those 14 years.
Working people look to the Government to tackle the cost of living crisis and give them some breathing space, but unfortunately the Conservatives’ priority is cutting tax on inherited wealth. As my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) pointed out so eloquently, we should be looking at all possible options to establish the meritocratic principle that no matter where you are born or what your background is, you should have an opportunity throughout your working life to make the very best of it and to be successful.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I wonder whether the hon. Lady might like to comment on the fact that from next April pensions will be included in 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.
Catherine West
As the hon. Lady knows, a commitment has been made not to tax those who only receive the state pension. Those who earn a lot, whether through pensions, inheritance or other things, will be taxed proportionately, which sounds like a pretty fair principle to me.
In the meantime, we on this side of the House are getting on with building a fairer country with a new political and economic model, but we also need to help people right now. That is why Labour has taken immediate action to provide breathing space for people and businesses. A couple of Members have mentioned the IMF report. As so often with the work of economists, it is a bit of a curate’s egg. Some people may prefer the text that was on the opposite side, but the bit that I preferred came from the economist Ms Tenreyro: the world economic outlook report gave the UK’s GDP an upgrade. That, I think, gives us some hope. It sets a fairly positive background for the Budget that is just two weeks away. We on this side of the House have woken up to a little bit of positive news, which is also quite a good background for the decisions that will come in two weeks’ time.
I know that many other Members wish to speak, so I will be brief. I am particularly pleased about the scrapping of VAT on electricity bills for the winter, and I know that there is more to come for households that use a lot of electricity, perhaps owing to disability or because a large number of people live in the same home. The capping of bus fares at £2 for the whole of 2027 will help people travel to work or to job interviews. The change in the rules on branded items of school uniform will ease costs for families. Business rates for pubs, social clubs and music venues have been reduced by 20%, and in London all children will have a hot dinner in the middle of the day at school. The public procurement rules have been changed to back British businesses and jobs. So many things have been introduced in the short two years for which Labour has been in office, and there is much more to come.
These measures build on work that Labour has done to restore stability and growth to the economy. Difficult decisions have been taken, and I was pleased to note that the Prime Minister had announced a further difficult decision on the triple lock. This, I think, is a moment when we have to be a little bit gutsy in our politics. I was pleased that the Prime Minister announced that very difficult decision; it is coming down the track, but he did at least announce it, so that we can start talking about the difficult challenges that we face in respect of social care.
There is a ring of chaos to the proposals flung out by the Conservatives. I know about this, because I was in opposition for 14 years. I know how tempting it is to have a giggle in Opposition day debates, but we have to face the truth. We have to make some difficult decisions in order to restore the reputation of our economy with the markets internationally, but also to build the important foundation with some innovation that has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield and others who I am sure will speak in this debate.
Catherine West
I will not, because I have only 40 seconds and I know that other Members want to speak.
We will get on with delivering the difficult decisions and the change that our communities are longing to see.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
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.
Peter Fortune
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 & 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.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I know that, like me, my hon. Friend is a champion of his local pubs. I put on the record that one of my local pubs, the Crown in Arford, has just won my “best pub” competition.
On my hon. Friend’s point about taxation, we tax cigarettes to stop people smoking. If we tax jobs, we have fewer jobs, and if we tax economic growth, we have less economic growth. Why does he think that Labour does not get this?
Peter Fortune
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: you tax something to stop it happening, and if you tax jobs, they stop being created.
Andrew Lewin
The hon. Member is a friend—we play cricket together in the parliamentary team and have therefore shared a few pints in a pub. He is of generous spirit. Does he recognise that this Prime Minister is cutting taxes on pubs by 20%? That is something that everybody in the House should welcome.
Peter Fortune
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.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
The wording of the motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition
“calls on the Government to cut public spending in order to abolish Inheritance Tax on family homes, farms and businesses.”
That is abolition without conditions, without qualification, without any taper whatsoever, and without any reference to the growing cost of social care or the vital contribution that inheritance tax receipts make to supporting our ageing population. Let me be clear that it is the Conservatives who are proposing a tax break, paid for by cuts to public spending, for those who have inherited or accumulated considerable wealth. It is a tax break for the wealthiest 5.5% who are forecast to be subject to IHT this year.
Let us be honest about what the Conservatives are proposing. They are proposing to abolish a progressive, redistributive tax in its entirety, at a potential cost of £10.8 billion a year, to benefit a small minority of the very wealthiest estates. I have no objection to people wanting to pass something on to their children—it is a natural and valuable part of being a parent—but the question before us is not whether families should be able to pass on their hard-earned assets fairly, but whether the right priority for this country is to abolish inheritance tax altogether, regardless of the cost, and I think the answer is clear.
I do not want to dwell too much on figures, but one figure is worth remembering. My constituency is a varied one—it has affluent areas and not so affluent areas—yet at the last general election, fewer than 1% of estates in my Bolton West constituency were expected to fall within the inheritance tax threshold. So I have to ask, on behalf of my hard-working constituents: who exactly are the official Opposition speaking to with this proposal, because it will do precious little for the overwhelming majority of people in Bolton, Blackrod, Horwich and Westhoughton? It will not help the small business owner struggling with rising costs in Westhoughton, it will not help the single mum in Horwich managing the weekly shop, it will not help the pensioner in Blackrod worried about their energy bills and it will not help the young person in Bolton trying to get on the first rung of the housing ladder.
It is designed to benefit a small minority with the largest estates. Let me reiterate the remark of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) that this is a return by the official Opposition to their “comfort zone”. Most families in my constituency—and, I wager, in the country at large—would far rather see that money used to tackle the cost of living crisis, improve public services and give working people some breathing room.
The official Opposition may have concerns about the tapering of the personal allowance for earners over £100,000 and the high marginal tax rates that can create, or the economic distortions that follow. Those are legitimate subjects for debate, but they are not the motion before us today. If the Conservatives wanted to bring forward proposals that would genuinely help ordinary families, they had plenty of alternatives. They could have focused on cracking down on aggressive tax avoidance and evasion, which deprives the public purse of billions of pounds that could otherwise fund our public services. They could have tackled the tangled web of professional enablers who help wealthy individuals—and, yes, some businesses—to conceal assets, exploit loopholes and avoid paying what they owe. They could have proposed a fairer tax system that levels the playing field between online giants and high street businesses. Those are debates worth having. Those are the sorts of proposals that could command support across this House. Instead, the Conservatives have deliberately chosen to pursue a narrow partisan agenda that benefits those who are asset-rich, while offering precious little to those who need help the most.
That brings me to the wider question of priorities, because this Government understand that helping people with the cost of living means taking practical action on the bills they pay, the services they rely on and the businesses that sustain their communities. This Government have pursued those, including through scrapping VAT on electricity bills for this winter. Those are practical measures. They speak to the everyday concerns of working people, families and, yes, small businesses. That is what responsible government looks like. Yet the Conservative party, by contrast, wants us to believe that the answer to the pressures facing this country is to spend less on public services so that a small minority can pay less tax on their estates. I must say that it sounds remarkably like they have learned little from the Liz Truss debacle. What they are proposing means less money available for public services, less money to support vulnerable people and less capacity to address the pressures facing our country.
If the official Opposition are serious about rebuilding their support across the United Kingdom, about speaking to people in every community and about demonstrating that they are ready to govern again, they should scrap this motion. They should focus on the issues that speak to the country at large. Politics is about priorities. In choosing the complete abolition of inheritance tax as the subject of today’s Opposition day debate, they have sent a very clear signal: tax cuts for a small minority over support for the many and the interests of the wealthiest estates over the needs of children growing up in poverty. They have chosen to spend billions on a policy that will do precious little for my constituents across Bolton West. That is why I will not be supporting the motion.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you will agree with me that there are few instincts more human than wanting to leave something behind for your children: a home you have paid for, for over 30 years, perhaps; a farm your grandfather worked before you; or maybe a business you built from nothing. I know that Members on the Conservative Benches know all about all three. On this side of the House, we believe that hard work should be rewarded. On the Labour side of the House, as we have heard over the past few years and today, they simply cannot resist their natural instincts to penalise aspirational homeowners, farmers and business owners.
Let us remember that inheritance tax was once something that only the very wealthiest had to think about. But not anymore. The nil-rate band has been £325,000 since 2009, and this Government have frozen it all the way up to 2031. Over the same period, we know that house prices have soared right across the country. The result is that receipts have hit a record £8.2 billion and the Office for Budget Responsibility expects them to reach almost £14 billion by the end of the decade. Analysis by Tax Policy Associates suggests that by next year around one in five pensioner households will face a bill if they die. That was not in contemplation when inheritance tax was first envisaged.
From April next year, because the party opposite cannot get enough of hoovering up people’s wealth, unspent pensions will also be dragged into the liability. That is not a tax on the super-rich; it is a tax on hard-working constituents right across the country, including those in three-bedroom semi-detached houses where they have raised their children and, as we have heard today, including families in Carlisle Avenue in St Albans, no less.
Daisy Cooper
It is fascinating that the Conservatives are so obsessed with Carlisle Avenue. I have just looked up Carlisle Avenue’s local election results from last May: one half of the street is in Bernards Heath ward, where the Conservatives came fourth, and the other end of the street is in another ward, where the Conservatives came fifth. Does the hon. Gentleman think there are structural issues with his party that mean that people living on Carlisle Avenue have no interest in its policies?
Blake Stephenson
I am impressed by the hon. Lady’s research between the intervention earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) and her making that point now. I might add that constituents on that street may have been duped by some Lib Dem bar graphs.
Mid Bedfordshire is a rural constituency with many farming families, as is the case right across the country. They were told in October 2024 that the Government were coming for the land that they have worked for generations. Thanks to their hard work, campaigning and pressure from the Opposition, the Government retreated last December and raised the threshold to £2.5 million. Those farming families are grateful for that, but it does not go far enough.
Despite debate after debate in this House, the Government still do not seem to understand that a farmer earning a small yield from land worth millions on paper only, cannot cover the inheritance tax liability unless they sell the land. If the Government would prefer farmers to sell their land rather than farming it, they should just say so. If not, they should acknowledge that the incentives their family farm tax creates are simply wrong. Under their plans, a 20% charge still applies on land that often yields only 1% or 2% a year, but that is vital for them to help feed the nation.
The rules have changed twice in 14 months. A farm or business succession cannot be planned over a generation when the tax rules change every Budget. The same is true of a family business. The engineering firm, the builder’s merchant, the garden centre—up and down the country, great family businesses cannot plan their succession when they do not have certainty in the rules.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is completely iniquitous that family farms have to pay inheritance tax on their assets, and yet if those assets were owned by a foreign company or individual, no inheritance tax would be paid? Why do this Labour Government want to single out British-owned family farms?
Blake Stephenson
My hon. Friend makes a superb point. The Conservative Benches find it beyond all comprehension as to why the Government would target small family businesses and farms in the way that they have. I thank my hon. Friend for making that point.
When an owner of a small business or a farm dies unexpectedly, the family should be focused on keeping the business going and the staff in work, not on raising a tax bill by selling off pieces of the business until there is nothing left. The Government cannot talk about growth and then take apart small businesses because an owner has died. That is completely the wrong approach.
What will we do in Government? A Conservative Government will abolish inheritance tax on the family home; that is the right thing to do. We will replace today’s complicated allowances with a single £500,000 allowance per person—£1 million per couple. We will restore agricultural and business property relief in full, so that no family farm or firm is broken up to fund Labour’s welfare spending.
The Prime Minister says we cannot have national security without social security—an absolutely shocking statement. But we cannot have either without economic security; without an economy where people create jobs, expand businesses, buy homes and feel the benefits of doing so. Our reforms would ensure that welfare works for British citizens, that people with lower-level mental health conditions get treatment rather than being written off with a cheque, that more assessments are done face to face, and that the obligation to look for work means something. Getting people into work is good for them, good for their families and good for the taxpayer.
In two weeks’ time the Chancellor will deliver his first Budget. I know that Conservative Members are really looking forward to that day. The Chancellor has a choice: he can keep taxing work, savings and inheritance—taxing everything people own that is not nailed down and more besides, perhaps; let us see—to pay for a welfare bill that is truly out of control, or he can change course, get a grip on spending and help to power the engines of growth that will make us all richer. I know which choice families in Mid Bedfordshire would make.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker, “We do not only ask today, ‘How much have you got?’, we also ask, ‘How did you get it? Did you earn it yourself, or has it just been left to you by others?’”. The estate duties provide a “corrective against the development” of the “idle rich”. And, “It is a far better thing to tax the accumulation of the past than to burden the industry of the present.”
Those are not my words, Madam Deputy Speaker, but those of Winston Churchill, speaking 100 years ago. They raise a question that remains relevant today: do we want a country that gives people a fair chance to get on in life or one that keeps finding new ways to protect the wealth of those who already have the most?
This motion tells us exactly where the Conservative party’s priorities lie. It calls on the Government to cut public spending in order to abolish inheritance tax, but it does not tell us which services they would cut, whose support they would withdraw or which communities would pay the price. It simply says “cut public spending.”
That is easy enough to demand when one does not have to explain what it means for people’s lives. The Conservatives are asking us to approve billions of pounds in tax cuts without telling us how they would pay for them. That is not a serious plan; it is a tax giveaway looking for someone else to pick up the bill. They say that the proposals would cost around £6 billion by 2029-30, but as we have already heard from other hon. Members, once we take behavioural effects into account, the cost could be up to £10.8 billion.
Who would benefit? Around 30,000 estates are expected to benefit. Estimates suggest that around 90% of the gains would go to the wealthiest 20% of pensioner households, with around 40% going to the wealthiest 5%. Around 70% of the benefits would go to London and the south-east, despite those areas accounting for only a quarter of pensioner households. Meanwhile, under the current system, fewer than one in 20 estates face an inheritance tax charge—a figure that has remained relatively stable for several decades now.
Let us stop pretending that this is a tax cut for everyone; it is a substantial giveaway that would disproportionately benefit the wealthiest households to the tune of £10.8 billion. Nobody disputes that family farms matter, and families should be able to pass on and plan for the future of those farms and businesses. But wrapping a policy in the language of family farms does not mean that we should stop asking who benefits, and this proposal goes much further than targeted help—it is a wider tax break for the very wealthiest in society.
There are questions about how it would work in practice. Conservatives say that they want to help people to pass on their homes, but what happens if those tax changes give older people a reason to stay in a larger property rather than downsize? Someone might want to sell a large home, move somewhere smaller and release money to support their retirement or help their family, but if inheritance tax treatment makes moving financially unattractive, their policy could discourage exactly the behaviour that they say they want to encourage.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
That is exactly why we would abolish stamp duty when people buy their home as well.
Tim Roca
The Conservatives point to stamp duty as a barrier and promise to scrap it on a home, but removing one cost does not automatically resolve every other tax consequence, and we know that changes in tax policy are very behaviour sensitive. This is what happens when a party writes a policy to win a headline for a conference.
It brings me back to Churchill. More than a century ago, he challenged the idea that inherited wealth should be waved through simply because it happened to belong to the right family. He asked the straightforward question that I quoted at the beginning: did you earn your wealth, or was it left to you?
As my hon. Friends have said, people want to leave something to their children. There is nothing wrong with that. But why should the Government spend billions helping those who are already wealthy pass on even more while telling everyone else that public spending should be cut?
Dr Johnson
The hon. Gentleman is making a distinction between money earned by somebody and money earned by their father. If a man and his daughter run a business together and the father dies, should the daughter not inherit? How much did she earn the money by working in that business? Did she not earn it? Why should it matter? That business employs people—whom the hon. Gentleman has talked about—who will lose their job if that business must close.
Tim Roca
If the hon. Lady wants to have an argument with Churchill, she may do so, but I will not join her. I believe he was a great man.
Why should the Government spend billions helping those who are already wealthy? Why should families inheriting millions take priority over families struggling with bills? That is the choice at the heart of this motion: invest in services and support people who rely on them or hand a huge tax break to a small minority and leave everyone else to bear the cost.
The Conservatives’ record makes their claims of fiscal responsibility even harder to take seriously. Between 2010 and 2019 the national debt increased from £1 trillion to £1.8 trillion. That was before covid and the war in Ukraine. Debt to GDP increased from 69% to 84%. As Members have pointed out, we then got treated to the Liz Truss magic of a disastrous experiment in unfunded tax cuts that sent markets into turmoil and damaged confidence in the UK.
Then before the 2024 election we had many other promises of tax cuts worth billions that did not have any credible funding plans set behind them. Here they are again with another enormous tax giveaway but unable to tell us precisely which public services would pay the price. They have not learned the lessons of their failure; they just found new ways to replicate them.
The public finances are not a bottomless pit that politicians can dip into whenever they fancy announcing a tax cut. Every promise has to be funded properly, because it has consequences for real people. The Conservatives spent years telling people that there was no alternative to difficult decisions, yet when it comes to their own priorities, they make the promise and leave somebody else to deal with the bill. That is not fiscal responsibility; it is fiscal incontinence.
Their priorities are clear when we look at the two-child limit. The Conservatives indicated that they would reinstate a policy that would push 500,000 children back into poverty. At the same time, they want to direct a substantial tax benefit towards a tiny number of wealthy estates. The contrast is clear: they tell families on low incomes that the country cannot afford to help them, but they propose billions in tax cuts for the very wealthy. That is a choice, and it tells us who they put first in our society.
Dr Johnson
What proportion of people working in the private sector on low wages are employed by people who own businesses?
Tim Roca
As they say in “Father Ted”, that is an ecumenical matter. I am sure that the Minister will pick it up in his wind-up.
Labour Members have done a great job of outlining the fantastic measures that the Government are taking, including measures on VAT and electricity bills, capping bus fares and 24-hour bus travel for disabled people from next April, so I will not touch on those. I will finish on what has—I hope—been the main theme of my speech. Today is all about one thing: tax cuts for the wealthiest, cuts to public services for everyone else. It is the same old Conservatives. They have not changed at all.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Nothing illustrates the great divide between rural Britain and this urban-centric Labour Government quite like the family farm tax. This was a comprehensive failure to grasp how intergenerational farming works and a wilful failure to understand that asset-rich does not equate to cash-rich, as evidenced by the hon. Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance), who is sadly not in her place.
A chill was sent through rural Dumfries and Galloway by changes to agricultural property relief, for this was not just about farmers but the wider community and the many jobs intertwined with dairy and beef, pigs and sheep, arable and horticulture. Since my election to this place, I have seen military veterans—some of the toughest people I have ever had the privilege to meet—well up, recalling comrades lost and maimed in the service of this country, and a woman in tears because duff pension advice had robbed her. I have had farmers weeping, too—men in their 80s, with hard knocks enough for many lifetimes under their belts. Those proud old men were crying not for themselves and what they thought they might lose in what little time lay ahead, but about what future generations would lose.
Many families realise that no child will now take on the stark new financial reality of farming. How incredible was it to sit in this place and watch Ministers giving advice on how to mitigate the damage their own policies were doing? Labour likes to roar about the 14 years we Conservatives had in power, but what were they doing in their 14 years in opposition? Clearly precious little proper planning, because the inheritance tax changes, which were so toxic that no one else would touch them, were dusted off in jig time amid a scramble to be seen to be doing something—anything—in that first 100 days.
Inheritance tax is invidious in all its forms: it is the state exacting a last drop from estates, which is gathered despite the taxman’s previous depredations. It is double taxation, for anything in the purview of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on death has already come through the storm of income tax, capital gains tax and VAT. That is why we Conservatives have pledged to reverse the cuts to agricultural property relief, abolish inheritance tax on the family home and raise the individual threshold to £500,000. That would mean that a couple could pass on their main home to direct descendants free from inheritance tax, plus a further £1 million without any inheritance tax liability.
Dr Hudson
These are people who are doing the right thing: farmers who feed us and look after our precious environment, family businesses supporting their local economy and families who work hard to provide a family home. Is not their being able to pass on their farms, family businesses and family homes to the next generation free from inheritance tax, about fairness?
John Cooper
I thank my hon. Friend, who speaks to farmers far more than Labour Front-Bench Members ever do. Indeed, he knows that this is about fairness. We Conservatives believe in rewarding those who have done the right thing: those who have strived and who have saved.
There is further positive news from our plan, as highlighted by the TaxPayers’ Alliance. In October 2024, the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer announced an increase in the interest rate on the late payment of taxes. The rate had been calculated on the Bank of England base rate plus 2.5%, but the Budget saw an increase in the surcharge to 4% above base, so the interest rate on late payment of tax is currently a usurious 7.75%. Asset-heavy, cash-light taxpayers such as farmers are particularly vulnerable to that change as it takes time to convert assets into a form that allows them to pay that balance.
Inheritance tax is due six months after death, after which interest is charged daily on unpaid tax. However, executors may struggle to meet the deadline because properties are illiquid assets that can take considerable time to sell, particularly when probate is required. Selling properties quickly may mean accepting a lower price, while waiting for a better offer can result in additional punitive interest charges. The probate process creates further difficulties as executors often need probate to sell inherited properties, yet generally inheritance tax must be paid before probate is granted.
Noah Law
The hon. Member is making a set of technical and important points. Does he not accept that for businesses of the size and scale he is talking about, whether family owned or not, succession planning and perhaps even life insurance are important tools that should be considered to mitigate some of the things he is describing? [Interruption.] I do not think that is unreasonable.
John Cooper
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but he is talking about adding yet more costs on to businesses. I have heard from farmers who tried inheritance planning but were told that the bank would not pass on the working overdraft to young members of the family. It is much more complicated than he pretends.
Although HMRC may allow payments in instalments over 10 years or grant credit in certain circumstances, interest can still accrue after six months. That leaves taxpayers with higher bills through no fault of their own. The Conservatives’ allowing family homes to be excluded from inheritance tax, plus the additional £1 million allowance, would restrict the effect of that pernicious interest.
Meanwhile, we need to see agriculture not as a dripping roast on which the Treasury may feast, but as a rural powerhouse helping to feed the nation. If this Government were serious about their mantra “food security is national security”, they would halt the family farm tax right now and stop turning the human drama of a death into a financial crisis for the living.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
I know from bitter personal experience that a period of opposition is an opportunity for a political party to reflect on what went wrong in government, so that it can take a different approach and seek to win the trust of the country again. Unfortunately, it appears that the Conservative party is instead using its time in opposition to double down on the mistakes made in government. Of course, we must support our farms and our family businesses, but the complete abolition of inheritance tax, not only on farms and family businesses but on all family homes, does not represent sound stewardship of this nation’s finances. I am afraid that it is a proposal all too worthy of one of the key architects of Liz Truss’s disastrous mini-Budget.
For me, the key question about the proposal is its impact on my constituents in Glenrothes and Mid Fife. They are already paying the price of the SNP’s failures in education and health services, with still too many people in pain on NHS waiting lists. Medium-sized and large businesses in Scotland are paying some £54 million more each in year in business rates than their counterparts in England, and if the Scottish economy under the SNP had grown at the same rate as Manchester’s with Andy Burnham over the past 10 years, it would be £33 billion bigger.
My constituents need fiscal policies that meet their priorities, protecting both the economy and public services. The Opposition’s proposal does not meet that test. The latest available figures show that inheritance tax is payable on fewer than one in 20 estates. Just 1,620 of those estates were in Scotland, and in Glenrothes and Mid Fife, so few estates pay inheritance tax that HMRC withholds the figures to protect confidentiality. In other words, the number of people in my constituency who would benefit from the proposal is so diminishingly small that it is not possible for HMRC to publish the figures. With so few people in Glenrothes and Mid Fife qualifying for the theoretical benefit of the policy, we must look at the costs.
The Opposition have said that the proposal would cost £6 billion, but as a number of hon. Friends have mentioned, Tax Policy Associates estimates that the cost could be up to £11 billion a year once behaviours as a result of the tax change are taken into consideration. Forty per cent. of the benefit of the cut would go to the richest 5%. Once again, the Conservatives are the party of the few and not the many.
Given the pressures being felt by UK households because of the challenges facing the global economy, the cost of living increases for families across the country and the challenges facing key public services such as social care, how on earth can this be a policy priority? How can the abolition of inheritance tax, not just on farms and family businesses but on all family homes, be a priority for any Government who truly have the interests of the whole country at heart?
My constituents need actions like those already taken by this Government, which include scrapping VAT on energy bills, action on business rates, which is needed in Scotland as well, and procurement changes to back British businesses and jobs. They do not need billions of pounds of investment in policies that will benefit precious few people in the communities I represent. Our pensioners and our older people need a Government who are prepared to act on real priorities, such as social care.
It is highly regrettable that the First Minister of Scotland has spent more time propagating factually incorrect statements on the proposal to adjust the triple lock than on dealing with the reality of social care in Scotland. Just as in England, in Scotland people who require care support face high social care charges, services are under-resourced and social care workers are underpaid.
Paul Holmes
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 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?
Richard Baker
We are already acting. We have already cut VAT from energy bills. What we are not going to do is invest up to £11 billion in priorities that do not represent the needs of people who are facing those high energy bills at the moment. It is this Government who are showing that they are prepared to take action on the real priorities of my constituents and this country. The spending proposals from the Opposition show, regrettably, just how far they remain from being a credible party of Government again.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Every day, millions of hard-working people work, earn and contribute to our economy with the principal goal of providing for their children, both in the present and in the future. For many, these jobs are much more than a payslip. They are the pillars that allow a family to function, grow and thrive. As a former family business owner, I know just how valuable such opportunities can be. Today’s debate is important not simply because it is about business, but because it is about protecting opportunity. It is about ensuring that the next generation has the chance to develop the skills, confidence and experience that will shape the rest of their lives and careers.
I spent my summer on my annual work experience tour in South West Hertfordshire, visiting local businesses to volunteer my time and understand how they operate, and to learn about the challenges they face. In Kings Langley, I went to Wayside farm to shadow Charlie, who has been running the farm for over 30 years. It is one of only two dairy farms remaining in Hertfordshire. I pulled pints behind the bar of the Unicorn in Abbots Langley, run by Debbie and Ady. Debbie started as an employee, learning all about the pub before taking over. This is exactly the sort of entrepreneurship we should be encouraging. I visited Unit VII in Rickmansworth, an artisan coffee shop owned by married couple Raman and Zarina, who also host community-focused events for my residents. Finally, I visited a car parts store in Kings Langley, a family-owned business that has grown so successfully that it has opened more stores and employed people across the country, helping the local economy in my constituency and, I am sure, in those of many other MPs in this Chamber.
All those businesses repeated the same message: Labour’s harmful policies of increasing national insurance contributions, strict rules and regulations, and soaring energy costs mean that these small, independent businesses are now having to make difficult decisions about hiring and opening hours, when they should be supported and encouraged to grow their businesses. Labour has also reduced opportunities for young people to get their foot on the career ladder. Hospitality businesses in particular, which have historically relied on seasonal work and training young people up, can no longer afford to do so, meaning that our young people are going without the opportunities that should shape the rest of their lives.
Growth happens when family businesses have the confidence to invest, expand and create jobs. That is why this Government must work with businesses, not against them, and it is why the Conservatives would abolish the high rates of inheritance tax on the farms, homes and businesses that support economic growth and local communities. We would abolish business rates for thousands of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, cut the red tape that prevents employers from recruiting young people, and introduce our cheap power plan, which would cut electricity bills by 20% for businesses.
In conclusion, this debate is ultimately about opportunity. My residents should not work hard to provide for their children’s future, only to have that investment taken away to pay for an ever-increasing welfare bill. Every family business is a testament to community, to innovation and to shared prosperity, and these opportunities are worth protecting. I am incredibly proud of all the family-run businesses I have in South West Hertfordshire. I urge the Government to recognise the damage that they are doing to these family businesses, and to work tirelessly to ensure that my residents are not punished for a life of hard work.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
The Conservatives’ decision to cut inheritance tax for the wealthiest tells us exactly where their priorities lie: not with the everyday working man or woman but with the very wealthiest in our society, and not with constituents such as mine but with the wealthiest 4% or so, whose estates are affected by inheritance tax.
The Conservatives’ proposal would allow couples to leave their children £1 million of wealth, on top of a potentially very large home, without paying a penny in tax. They claim we are the party of welfare, but what does that make them? Tax cuts for the wealthiest paid for by spending cuts that take our country’s public services backwards. They tried that for 14 years, and it left our country poorer, sicker and economically stagnant. It is clear that they have not learned their lesson. Arguing for the effective abolition of inheritance tax sends a different message to what could be a much more reasonable debate about, say, uprating the threshold in line with inflation.
Chris Vince
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that the Conservatives’ argument would be far stronger if it was focused, as many of their speakers are, on family businesses and family farms? The motion talks about the abolition of all inheritance tax, including on estates. Surely that weakens their argument.
Noah Law
That is quite right. This is not pragmatic at all; this is complete ideology and returning to— [Interruption.] It is. It is pure ideology. The Conservatives are returning to their core comfort zone of defending only the very wealthiest at the expense of all the rest of us.
Rebecca Smith
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 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.
Noah Law
I respect the point the hon. Member makes and fully respect what she says about the aspirations of those of us who grew up in rural areas where property prices are often inflated. But I will be honest: I know very few people from back home who have ever paid inheritance tax. I do not know these people. If she would like to correct me on that—
Dr Johnson
On the point of ideology, what I have tried to get from my interventions is an understanding on the Government Benches that inheritance tax penalises people at all levels. If people do not start a business because it is not worth the bother, if they do not invest because it will be taken off them, and if they cannot pass a business on to their children and, as a result, it has to be sold and the jobs are lost, people do not have jobs and employment, and everyone is affected.
Noah Law
It is objectively untrue that inheritance tax penalises people at all levels. It penalises, at best, 4% or 5% of people with the wealthiest estates. I understand the cultural arguments that the Conservatives are making about aspiration and all the rest of it—we should all strive to support that—but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) pointed out, this proposal is not pragmatic at all; this is bonkers.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) referred to Winston Churchill. I often like to refer to Shakespeare, because I think that goes a little above that. Shakespeare said:
“no legacy is so rich as honesty.”
Does my hon. Friend agree that this debate from the Opposition is dishonest? They left the finances of this country in a mess, and they have to be honest about it and face up to that.
Noah Law
We would do far better to have a pragmatic debate, as my hon. Friend suggests. Perhaps we should look at uprating the thresholds or bringing in more tax revenue through some of the means that the Treasury is exploring. I would be keen to hear in the Minister’s winding-up about progress on that.
This Government are already investing £1.7 billion in improving the efficiency of tax collection and cracking down on tax avoidance. That should yield an extra £7.5 billion a year by 2029-30. Are these not the kind of discussions we should be having, rather than just encouraging more and more tax avoidance by people who, quite frankly, can afford to pay their way? It should be clear to those on both sides of the House that the answer to the very richest avoiding taxes is to legislate to close those loopholes and not to cut their taxes, which is exactly what a would-be Tory Government are proposing to do.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
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, 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.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, because I have been involved in a family farm and have created a family business—[Interruption.] Thank you. One of the really odd aspects of this issue is that the Government seem to be confusing business assets with personal wealth. How can that possibly be fair?
Robbie Moore
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 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.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, but I wonder if he spotted this quote?
“Although many of my farmers tell me the earlier U-turns made a substantial difference, others are still deeply worried about the impact this policy will have when passing a sustainable farm business to the next generation”.
He might be aware that those are the words of the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours)—a Labour Member; they are part of his call for the Labour Government to completely scrap their plans to abolish agricultural property relief. The hon. Gentleman is right: the Labour Government should scrap it completely.
Robbie Moore
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.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I regret that the hon. Gentleman has talked about suicide in this debate. Where was he when we heard the reports of the austerity implemented by his Government causing suicide? Are any Members on the Opposition Benches willing to defend that record? When invoking suicide in this debate, they have to acknowledge their own record.
Robbie Moore
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 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.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
There is a principle at the heart of the motion and it is a simple one: what a person earns through a lifetime of work belongs to them and not the Treasury, and that when the time comes, they have the right to pass on what they have earned to the people they love. It is neither a loophole nor a privilege. It is the oldest instinct there is: for people to work, to save and to leave their children better off than they were. That stands in stark contrast with the Government’s approach. The question that we have put before the House is not complicated: should Governments spend less so that families can keep more? The Conservatives’ answer to that question is yes.
In the Mandelson files published this summer, we saw that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions wrote to Peter Mandelson:
“Every meeting I have is, ‘Who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others’.”
He was right to be exasperated. Some 7 million people—more than 10% of our population—now claim at least one benefit. We will spend over £100 billion on health and disability benefits just this year. A full-time worker on the national living wage takes home £22,500 a year. Someone out of work on credit, with the average housing support and personal independence payment, receives £25,000 a year. We now pay more not to work than to work. However, if somebody has worked and then dies, her unspent pension will now be taxed because of this Government, and the house that she spent her life paying for will be taxed. It beggars belief that Labour MPs looked at those figures, recognised how they are strangling our country, and concluded that they would rebel against the modest reforms proposed by the last Prime Minister. Indeed, the Labour party would rather remove a sitting Prime Minister than attempt to create a fairer system.
I ask Members to imagine that they are farmers in the communities that I serve. You are up at the crack of dawn and working until very, very late. It is relentless every day. Your profit margins are the lowest of almost any industry, but you persevere, because you value your land and your family’s connection to it, and you take pride in feeding our country. But Labour hits you with increased road taxes on double-cab pick-up trucks, increased employer NICs and minimum wage, taxes on fertilisers, the cruel family farm tax, and now a levy on the land itself when it passes from parent to child.
Lincolnshire and Rutland are the breadbasket and agricultural heartland of Britain. We are proud of what we do to feed this country, so it is offensive when the Nature Minister says that traditional rural Britain—the pubs, ale and loyal dogs that we adore—is a far-right fantasy that never really existed. I invite her and any Labour MP to come and visit Rutland, Stamford and the Harborough and South Kesteven villages, because we are not a fantasy; we are communities who deserve respect—although if I came from her constituency, I would also consider it a fantasy to see the type of idyllic life that we lead in our villages. We will never apologise for valuing the traditions and way of life that make our rural communities so special.
The Nature Minister was wrong when she claimed that rural pubs “never really existed”. She would, however, have been correct if she said that she and her Government are doing their best to wipe them out of existence. Under Labour’s plans, the Bertie Arms in Uffington faces a 2,000% increase in business rates by 2029. The hard-working landlady has dismissed the minor relief that came as tokenistic and says that it will make no difference because of Labour’s other tax hikes.
Daisy Cooper
I agree with the hon. Lady. The business rates increases under this Government are very damaging, but she will remember that the previous Government also pledged to fundamentally reform business rates and completely failed to do so. Does she understand why businesses across the country are fed up with both the Conservatives and Labour on this point?
Alicia Kearns
I am grateful to have the chance to state our record. We cut employee national insurance twice, taking 9 million workers out of it. We raised the national insurance threshold. We abolished the lifetime allowance. We cut fuel duty. We had business rates relief for hospitality and pubs. We did all those things to support our pubs and businesses.
The Prime Minister told the voters of Makerfield that the family farm tax “needs looking at again”, so I wonder whether Members in this Chamber who have given it their full-throated support this week will regret their words in a few weeks’ time. Let us see. Since he took office, Members on his Front Bench have excitedly chattered about reindustrialisation, as if the word on its own builds a factory; it does not, and neither does taxing a business at the moment that it passes to the next generation. From April, the family firms in my communities, such as Rutland Plastics, Coles Plant Centre, Arnold Wills, CS Ellis and Rutland Garden Village, and independent family shops on my high street, like Harrison & Dunn and Walkers Bookshops, will all face the same death tax as our wonderful farmers, like Percy Gilman.
Business property relief existed for a reason—so that a company need never be broken up to pay the Treasury. Those same businesses are not just economic powerhouses in communities like mine, but social powerhouses, as Philippa Wills said to me this morning. They are rooted in our communities and make decisions for the longer term, because they care about what happens to our people, communities and towns. The Government do not care about that; they have broken the social contract between businesses and our young people and those in part-time work, because they have made it so much harder to hire them. Who loses out the most, apart from young people? Women, because it is women who rely on part-time employment when raising their children who are now unable to pick up additional work. That is the true cost of this tax: not the £15 billion a year that the Government forecast it will raise by 2030, but the businesses never started, the capital that leaves, and the women and young people left without jobs.
Tax cuts must be paid for, which is why we have put spending cuts first, but let us be clear. If we tax a family firm at death, the founder sells early, moves abroad or never builds at all. If we tax a farm, the fields go to a solar developer, or they are built on and we become reliant on foreign imports. If we tax the people who work and pay the people who do not, we should not be surprised when fewer people work. We want people to work—we want them to be able to celebrate and benefit from a lifetime of toil and hard work. That is human nature, and nothing to be ashamed of.
We have a Government who are asking who they can tax, and an Opposition asking how much more people can keep. Labour’s assault on farms and businesses, its insistence that rural life does not exist, and its addiction to spending will destroy this country. We want people to succeed, and we hold our rural way of life close to our hearts. That is why everyone must support this motion today.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
While I am following a vast number of extraordinarily excellent speeches from Opposition Members, unfortunately I am going to have to start with some of the really quite stunning comments from Government Members—comments that clearly demonstrate that the Government have absolutely no clue about what creates wealth in this country, what drives growth in our economy, and what real people who are working hard have to face in Britain every single day. There was no greater example of this than the comments of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), who I notice has just scuttled out of the Chamber. He had the audacity to misquote Churchill and to call the people who are working hard in this country—the people who are grafting hard—the “idle rich”. What a disgraceful thing to say to those people who are building a business! What a disgraceful thing to say to the farmers who are up at the crack of dawn trying to make their businesses work! He should come back to the Chamber and apologise to them, because they deserve an apology.
I prefer another Churchill quote. He said:
“Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy”,
and we have seen a lot of failure, ignorance and envy from Government Members today. The real people who are going to be hit by these taxes are not the idle rich who the hon. Member for Macclesfield mentioned; they are the grafters who put in—people like my father’s family, who ran a business for over a century in Hazlemere. They worked hard, took risks, saved, and stood on their own two feet. These are the sort of people who this Labour Government have decided they want to tax to the hilt—to tax out of existence.
For decades, business property relief meant that a family firm could pass to the next generation without a bill. This Government ended that. Relief was capped at £1 million in 2024. Only after a backlash did it rise to £2.5 million of combined business and agricultural property relief. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) said, though, businesses are not a bank account. Cash and capital are two different things. A business’s value is in its premises, its machinery, its stock and its good will, not necessarily in its cash, so the people who inherit it must find money from the very businesses that employ their staff and extend growth.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend fear, like I do, that we will see so many more family firms being sold, and often sold to foreign buyers—people who have no interest in investing for the long term and investing in local communities?
Gregory Stafford
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. In my constituency—and, I am sure, in his constituency and across the country—small family businesses are having to make really tough decisions about what they are going to do. He is right that they will often go to foreign firms, because those firms will not be hit by this level of taxes. Hitting British businesses so that they will be sold to foreign ones is an odd focus for this Labour Government. It is extraordinary, and if the Government do not see that, they really must think again.
Think of an owner in their 60s deciding whether to buy a new machine or take on another apprentice. Now they must first ask, “What will this do to my tax bill that my children will inherit?”—a tax that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) said, makes owners think twice before investing and building growth.
Dr Johnson
My husband is a farmer and runs businesses. He feels a huge responsibility not just in building his business, but to the people he employs. Those people will be affected if the business does not grow or does not invest because he is worried about this tax.
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and she neatly brings me on to some comments about family farms. She is right: it is not just the people who are running these businesses or those people who might inherit them who will end up losing out, but the employees of those businesses too. That is why we are not getting the growth that Labour claims it wants.
With family farms such as Luff’s in Headley, the land, tractors, buildings and a lifetime of labour are passed from generation to generation. The National Farmers Union has calculated that a typical cereals farm making roughly £34,000 a year would face 10 annual instalments of £53,000 a year at the original £1 million threshold. Even at the new threshold, payments of £33,000 a year would swallow nearly all the profit. Essentially, in order to pay, a farmer will have to sell the very fields that earn the living.
The Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution found that more than a third of farmers are probably or possibly depressed. The Farming Community Network, which supports more than 10,000 people, says that its helpline has been taking calls linked to the upcoming Budget for weeks. As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) said, this tax has led to suicides. That is a disgrace, and the Government should recognise that and do everything they can to repair the damage that they have done emotionally and economically to our farms. It was only when Ministers were challenged by the shadow Environment Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), that they raised that threshold. If it was right to raise the threshold then, because it was the wrong threshold, can the Government not look at it again and remove it?
Moving on briefly to the general inheritance tax points, the nil rate band has been at £325,000 since 2009. Labour has now said that it will freeze it until April 2031. Had that band risen with inflation, it would be at more than half a million pounds today. To dispel the myth that has been put forward by the Government that inheritance tax affects only a small number of people, the OBR expects one in 10 estates to pay by the end of the decade. The Institute for Fiscal Studies puts that figure at one in six. It will not hit just a small number of people.
A married couple can pass on up to £1 million if their home goes to their children. That might sound generous, but once we add a family home in my constituency to a lifetime of savings and, from April 2027, their pension pots, it is not a significant amount of money in the grand scheme of things. That is especially important when that pension relief is what we on all sides of this House were telling people to do. We were telling people to save for their future, and the reward for their saving is the Government taking more of it in tax. Households that never thought of themselves as wealthy are being pulled in. Under Labour, aspirational families are hit on the way in and unfortunately they are hit on the way out. As Members have said, the shopkeeper will sell their business to fund retirement and the farmer will sell the fields to try to keep just a small measure of their farm.
The Minister on the Treasury Bench must take this message back to the Chancellor: rule out these changes and make things better for our local areas. As the Conservative Opposition, we present an alternative. We will abolish tax on the family home, and we will do that by slashing the welfare bill by £7 billion. It is the first step, and the shadow Chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition have outlined their ambition to go further.
It comes down to a fundamental point. On the one side, we have a Government who see a lifetime of savings and a business built over generations as just another tax opportunity. On the other, we have an Opposition who believe that those savings belong to the family who earned them—not the grifters, not the idle rich, but the grafters. They built this country, and unlike Labour, a Conservative Government will let them keep those savings.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
There is an immediate five-minute time limit.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
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.”
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.
Rebecca Smith
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.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
One of the liberating elements of speaking at this stage of the debate is that many excellent and eminently sensible points have already been made, so I can do an assorted highlights of the best bits that have come out of it. But it has made me reflect that perhaps if we all took a stroll down to Clapham, got on the omnibus, and spoke to the man and woman who had boarded it, I suspect that their vision of this country would not be the same as the purported utopia that we have heard from those on the Government Benches today. I suspect that if we asked people what they want to see from the tax system, they would want to see something that is not unnecessarily detrimental to a single group and not punitive in its intent. Fundamentally, it should not be something that disincentivises those who have done the right thing.
Looking at the tax landscape in this country, it has become far too complicated and burdensome—we are now at more than 20,000 pages of tax codes, whereas in 1997 there were fewer than 5,000.
Dr Arthur
I have never been on the Clapham omnibus, but I expect that there may well be people in low-paid jobs on that who are struggling with the cost of living crisis. When the hon. Gentleman speaks to people on the omnibus, do they tell him that they want people who inherit properties worth half a million pounds or more to pay less tax? Is that the answer to the problems facing people on the Clapham omnibus? Is that what they are saying?
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I recommend that the hon. Gentleman get on the Clapham omnibus, because it is a great opportunity to have his finger on the pulse of the British public. I think most will say that they want a fair system so that when they have worked, strived and built up a legacy for the next generation, they have something to hand down, because that is the most loving thing that people can do. I have not built up a family business or run a family farm, and I cannot imagine the stresses and strains that that involves, but these individuals understandably want to hand their businesses down to the next generation. We need them to do so, because if we do not have the farmers of tomorrow and the generation after that, we will not have on our tables the food that we enjoy today and that we hope our children will enjoy in years to come.
Daisy Cooper
Was the hon. Gentleman sticking up for farmers when his party negotiated trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, which undermined farmers in the UK?
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I fundamentally do not agree with the hon. Lady’s point, and I suspect that farmers in this country will be wondering why her party has not stood up for farmers over fertilisers today.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
From a sedentary position, my hon. Friend makes a very valid point.
Let us not kid ourselves: this debate has been framed as though we have some sort of Dickensian model of the idle rich and then the poor who are propping up the state. That is not the truth. The reality is that, as my hon. Friends have said, those who are very rich will inevitably put their affairs into trusts and escape inheritance tax. We are talking about those who are just about managing: those who are trying to earn a crust and to support their families. It is the middle class who get caught—those who go out to work every day to provide for their families.
The average property price in my constituency of Solihull West and Shirley is now £345,000. Such properties are owned not by the toffs who are often derided by those on the Labour Benches, but by people who get up every morning and often work more than one job to provide for their families. People have tripped into paying inheritance tax by virtue of property prices being pushed up and the threshold remaining the same. The reality is that this tax is not operating as it was intended. It is not capturing the individuals it was intended to capture; it is capturing the ordinary man and woman. The fact that the Government have frozen the threshold until 2031—a threshold that was first put in place in 2009—means that, whereas only 4% of deaths were captured by this particular tax between 2001 and 2024, 9.5% of deaths will be captured by 2030.
When we compare ourselves with other OECD nations, we see that 18 of those 38 nations do not pay any inheritance tax at all—Australia, Canada and New Zealand among them—and none of the remaining 20 has it at such a punitive rate as we have here. The purpose of a tax system is of course to help fund our public services, but it also has to be fair, sensible and aspirational in its intent. It must ensure that those who strive and work hard are not penalised as a consequence, and I am afraid that this Government’s direction of travel is simply taking out those that do work hard—our family farms, our family businesses and others—by the knee.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I want to support the family home, family farms and small businesses right across the United Kingdom, and I back this motion. It is a fundamental Conservative principle that, as Margaret Thatcher once said, “freedom flourishes” when people can rely on the security of owning their own home. In the same speech, she made a very important point relevant to this debate when she said that a home is more than a financial asset, as it is a “stake in the future” and something to be passed on to the next generation. That is why inheritance tax matters.
As we have heard, when someone dies, 40% of their money and property is taken by the taxman, if the total value exceeds £325,000. By raising the threshold, hon. Members on all sides of this House accused us of cutting taxes for the wealthiest in our society. I can tell them that the constituents I represent in Broxbourne are certainly not some of the wealthiest in our society. In fact, there are parts of my constituency that rank among the most deprived in the UK. Despite that, average house prices across Broxbourne are £433,000. Houses in my constituency that are just over the threshold include a two-bedroom maisonette in Cheshunt and a two-bedroom bungalow in Hoddesdon. Those properties are not mansions. Homeowners in Broxbourne have worked hard to live in those places, and it is not their fault that property values have risen by more than 10% in the last five years. On that trend, more and more ordinary families are being pulled into paying inheritance tax.
Labour is making this worse by freezing the threshold until 2031. By then, one in six families will face paying an inheritance tax bill. I believe this is wrong. As my hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor set out, we would completely abolish inheritance tax on the family home and raise the threshold to £1 million for a couple. We have a clear plan.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
I wonder—I have not read this anywhere—is there a cap on the value of the family home that will be exempt? For example, would the penthouse at One Hyde Park, which sold for about £175 million, be completely exempt?
Lewis Cocking
If the hon. Member had been listening to my speech, he would know that this is not people’s fault. If someone works hard and buys a family home, they have no idea what the value of that family home is going to be when they die. That is why we are exempting the family home from inheritance tax.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
My hon. Friend will remember that the centre-left Social Democratic party in Sweden abolished inheritance tax years ago, because it had gone down the route of this envy-filled, left-wing, socialist approach, and found that it was counterproductive, led to complexity and reduced wealth in the country. Afterwards, business thrived, and even the Communist party in Sweden, in the face of the facts 20 years ago, could see how wrong it was. It is a shame that the modern Labour party does not understand that.
Lewis Cocking
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a tax on aspiration.
Lewis Cocking
No, I will not give way. I have taken two interventions, and a number of Members want to speak.
If we want to unlock the next generation of entrepreneurs and back the people who give their blood, sweat and tears when they go out to work every day to make our country great and what it is today, this is what we need to do, and we have a clear plan to pay for it. We will cut Government spending by £71 billion, including by cutting overseas aid to £1 billion a year. We would reduce welfare spending by £36 billion and support young people into work, rather than a life on benefits. Alongside our pledges to scrap the family farm tax and scrap the family business tax, these are bold changes that will get our economy growing.
Enabling people to keep and pass on more of their own money is how we encourage people to invest, take risks and create new opportunities. Inheritance tax is not the only example. I regularly speak to constituents who feel that they are better off financially to refuse a promotion or more hours at work, because it does not make sense for them to work harder and get less. I have spoken to self-employed tradespeople who turn down work because they are too close to the VAT threshold. That just cannot be right. I speak to businesses and to people who work. It is absolutely crazy that they turn down employment and business because they will be worse off, paying more taxes under this Labour Government.
Until we shift the incentives in our economy—incentives that make a life on benefits more attractive than getting a job and that will put off businesses from creating new jobs—we will never improve the situation our country faces. Labour has a choice at the Budget on 28 October: they can copy the clear plan we have set out to make savings and cut welfare, or they can continue down the same road. Sadly, I just think they are not listening.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With an immediate four-minute time limit, I call Dr Ben Spencer.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
This is, without doubt, one of the most important debates we can have, because it goes to the heart of a simple question: when someone works hard, saves diligently, builds a business, a family farm or buys a family home and wants to plan for their children’s future, why are they penalised by this Government? Why is their success targeted? And when will fairness be restored, so that those who work hard to achieve success are rewarded, not attacked and subject to the politics of envy? The answer, I hope, will be after the next election.
Labour’s answer is always the same. Its instinct is to ask, “Who can we tax?” That is not me saying that, but the Work and Pensions Secretary, who admitted that every conversation he had had with Labour Back-Bench MPs was them asking who they can tax to pay for increased welfare spending. It is constituencies like Runnymede and Weybridge that are firmly in their sights. I can picture them now, sitting high in their Whitehall ivory tower, looking for new ways to tax and spend. Surrey and the south-west comes into their sights: the successful businesses, the skilled workforce and the resulting high house prices. Rather than looking to replicate that growth and success, they simply look at their spreadsheet. They see a house price. They see something they think they can tax.
But people’s assets are not lottery winnings. They are the product of decades of hard work, discipline and sacrifice. To tax wealth and savings in this way is not fairness; it is a penalty on individual responsibility. It sends a damaging message that those who work hard, build a business, and save for their and their family’s future will be punished for doing so.
I believe in fairness, not redistribution. At the next election, the country will be offered a clear choice: a Labour Government whose priorities put welfare spending above our country’s defence and whose commitment to raising taxation will bankrupt our children’s future; or a Conservative party that believes aspiration should be rewarded, not targeted, that savings belong to the individual not the state, and that planning for the future should be encouraged, not penalised. Whether it is an increase in taxation on savings and investments, increased taxation on businesses, the mansion tax or the family farm tax, Labour’s approach is to tax success. Labour is asset-stripping our country, and targeting the very people and businesses that create growth, prosperity and opportunity.
At the next general election, the choice could not be clearer: a Labour party, facilitated by the Liberal Democrats, that sees taxpayers as targets; or a Conservative party that backs enterprise and rewards hard work, and stands up for those who want to build a better future for their children. People’s money is their own. It is not the Government’s money that Labour has not taxed yet.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
If we want our children to have a better life than us, to enjoy a better standard of living than ourselves, to enjoy better healthcare and to live in a better environment, then it is necessary to grow our economy. Conservatives understand that Governments do not create growth. A wise Government will try to create the conditions for growth and then stand back and allow individuals, families, partnerships and businesses to do their best to work hard, provide goods and services that people want to buy, and thus improve the world we live in.
Creating wealth is hard work. I do not suppose that many Government Members are aware of that, because so few of them have ever worked in the private sector. It is quite remarkable that the shadow Chancellor has more experience in the private sector—23 years, I believe—than the whole of the Cabinet put together. This Government often talk about supporting business, yet time and again they do the opposite: higher national insurance charges that make it more expensive to employ people; 350 pages of the un-Employment Rights Act to further drive up the cost of labour; plans for a tourist tax—eagerly embraced by the Liberal Democrats—that will place additional burdens on a tourism sector made up largely of family businesses.
Instead of helping local enterprises flourish, this Government’s first instinct is to ask, “How much more can we tax them?” We know that because the Work and Pensions Secretary told us that his colleagues are always asking him to pay more benefits to more people. Conservatives understand that the drive, innovation and hard work of family farms and businesses do more to create jobs, train apprentices and sustain communities than Government ever could.
My constituency in Bridgwater sits in the heart of rural Somerset; ours is overwhelmingly a small business economy. More than 99% of the businesses in Somerset employ fewer than 250 employees. Those businesses are rooted in the places they serve; they support local sports teams, support village events and provide opportunities for local people. For those of us representing rural communities, small-scale family businesses underpin our local economies. They grow our food, make up our high streets, support tourism and more. That makes the fact that the Government feel no remorse in penalising their hard work, in the name of subsidising those who avoid it, even more depressing.
Conservatives are on the side of those who work hard, save, invest, and create jobs and wealth. We will reward those who do the right thing. That is why we will abolish inheritance tax on family homes, farms and businesses. We will restore fairness to a system that has neglected those who play by the rules. Because when a business passes from one generation to the next, we should help it grow and continue a legacy, not force it to sell assets to pay a tax bill.
Markus Campbell-Savours
The motion says “family homes”; it does not specifically say “family farms or businesses”. The hon. Gentleman raises family businesses, so how would someone define a family business for the purposes of legislation?
Sir Ashley Fox
If the hon. Gentleman reads it, the motion does specifically refer to family businesses. It is about agricultural property relief and business property relief—they are agricultural and business assets that form part of an estate. We will reverse Labour’s family farm and family business taxes.
The Conservatives believe that allowing families to retain and reinvest their assets supports growth, encourages long-term planning, and strengthens local communities. It will actively put money in pockets, rather than take out more. If we want a prosperous Britain, we must back the people who have invested their lives in the community, building businesses, farms and homes that can be passed to the next generation.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
As I have listened to this debate today, I too have been reminded of the chilling words describing Labour MPs by their own Work and Pensions Secretary:
“Every meeting I have is ‘who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others’.”
This debate today once again sets out the battle of ideas between the welfare party and the Conservatives. This is the eighth vote the Conservatives have forced on the family farm and family business taxes since the disastrous first Labour Budget of broken promises. In that time, we have seen off a Prime Minister, a Chancellor and two DEFRA Secretaries of State, and discovered that one DEFRA Minister views black Labradors, warm ale and pubs as a far-right fantasy.
We have also shown the power of rural and coastal communities, because through their protests here and across the country, the heartrending stories we have heard from families of the terrible discussions and decisions they have had to make in order to avoid this vindictive death tax, as set out eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), and the pressure we have exerted here in Westminster, we forced the Government into one of their most humiliating U-turns. There have been many, but this one was humiliating: their partial U-turn on these vindictive taxes.
We are forcing another vote today, ahead of Budget, because we know the damage that these vindictive taxes continue to cause to the rural economy. We know that this Government have overseen the highest number of farms closing on record in a year—shameful. The Financial Secretary did not admit that.
We also know, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) has set out, that the 10-year payment scheme that the Government keep talking about applies only if the estate is able to make the first payment within six months of the death, probate having been settled. Does anyone know of such a scenario in their own constituencies? This means that the 10-year payment plan is nothing but warm words from those on the Treasury Bench. It is an absolutely impossible condition to fulfil for the overwhelming majority of family farms and businesses that will be hit by these taxes.
The Financial Secretary also did not acknowledge that investment in rural economies has dropped off a cliff. [Interruption.] He is not listening, but he might want to do so. In a recent Country Land and Business Association survey, nearly nine in 10 rural family businesses stated that they have paused investment; in fact, 85% say that the current threshold of which the Financial Secretary is so proud is not enough to cover the value of their business, given the cost of machinery and livestock and the other business costs imposed by this Government. Of course, two pubs are also closing every day under this Government. In short, rural communities cannot afford Labour.
Despite their protestations over the past two years, every single Labour MP has voted for the family farm tax and the family business tax multiple times; only one had the courage to vote for his constituents. There is one other who did not: the Prime Minister, because he was not in Parliament at the time of the other votes. He knows that Labour has a rural problem, though. He has said that he recognises that the Government have a
“long way to go to build back trust”
with the farming community across the country.
It is therefore a shame that today of all days, the Prime Minister has put another tax on family farms—the fertiliser tax. And every Labour MP voted for it. Again, the Work and Pensions Secretary was right. This is another hammer blow to British farming, only weeks after the shambolic handling of the sustainable farming incentive, the collapse of the Government’s environmental policy and the Prime Minister’s botched response on how his deal with the EU will, in fact, favour foreign farmers over British farmers and hand control over our food laws to the European Union.
In the battle of ideas today, we have heard some superb speeches from the Conservatives Benches. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) painted a picture of the many local pubs and black Labradors in his Suffolk constituency—the DEFRA Minister may wish to take note. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) set out sound economic analysis, even if he admitted that his cricketing skills are not quite what they should be. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) set out a description of the Labour party that I think hits home almost as much as the words of the Work and Pension Secretary: Labour is the party that taxes aspiration. This vote tonight is the proof of that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) made an excellent intervention about the fact that the tax focuses only on British family farms and family businesses and does not affect foreign owners of farmland. Perhaps the Minister will explain how it is fair that foreign farmers should not pay this tax but British farmers should do so.
We heard other excellent speeches, including by my hon. Friends the Members for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), and for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), who described Labour’s approach to taxation as “asset stripping our country”.
Let me turn to some of the speeches from the Labour Benches. We heard from the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin), who by the way voted for the family farm and family business tax seven times—tonight will be an eighth—and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), who only voted for it three times. I am sure his farmers are so happy about that. Both of them asked, “What can be done to help those who are not yet on the housing ladder?” I am delighted to tell them that the Conservative party has the answer. We will be scrapping—
Victoria Atkins
No, if the hon. Gentleman sits down—[Interruption.] I have some words about his AI-generated speech in a moment.
The Conservatives have the answer: we will scrap stamp duty on primary residences. That is how we help people back on the housing ladder. The hon. Member for Macclesfield also described his own constituents who want to pass on their family homes or family businesses to their children as the “idle rich”. I hope that was just the AI.
Victoria Atkins
I will, and I genuinely hope that he will explain his “idle rich” comment. Go on.
Victoria Atkins
That will not plough any furrows with the farmers in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency whom he has just described as the “idle rich”. What is more, he has got his figures wrong. He keeps throwing these figures around, but in fact that Tax Policy Associates think-tank that so many Labour colleagues seem to rely on has said that by the end of this decade one in six families will pay inheritance tax—many of them in his constituency, which I know well.
The hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) voted for the family farm and family business tax only a mere six times—he missed one of them—but he had the bright idea that farmers should get life insurance and planning advice. How on earth are farmers in his constituency on an income of around £20,000 a year going to afford that? It is yet more business taxes.
We also heard a reliance on Dan Neidle and his organisation Tax Policy Associates. I merely make the point, so that it is open and transparent, that Dan Neidle is a senior member of the Labour party and served for three years on its disciplinary committee.
The Conservatives are setting out the tough decisions to cut spending and help hard-working families up and down the country invest in their businesses and homes, ready to hand over to their families. People who have worked hard, paid their income tax, lived within their means and saved have not done so in order for the current Labour Chancellor to tax that all over again. They have done so because they have a deep desire to leave something to help the next generation prosper when they are no longer here.
Dr Arthur
Where domestic properties are concerned, of course more people are getting drawn into paying the tax because the thresholds have been frozen. I am sure that the Minister who came to the House in 2022 to say that the rates at that time were to be frozen until 2028 is currently at the Opposition’s Dispatch Box.
Victoria Atkins
I am so glad that the hon. Gentleman has brought that up, because not only did his first Chancellor extend the freeze, but she dragged pensioners into it. It is literally the worst of all words.
Let me reiterate the point I just made, because it is an important one. Under this Government, one in six families will be liable to pay inheritance tax by 2030. That means many more constituents being liable to pay the tax. The hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay said that our idea to axe inheritance tax on the family home was bonkers. I hate to break it to him, but Austria, Portugal, Sweden, Norway, Australia, Canada and New Zealand have all done the same.
The reason why we are doing it, and why this is so important, is that we know it is families who build this country; it is families who put down roots. They build a home, they run a farm or they start a business, and they bring prosperity and vibrancy to our villages and our towns. So I make the promise that the Conservatives will axe these taxes if Labour does not does so at the Budget, because only the Conservatives are the party of the family home, the family business and the family farm, and only the Conservatives will get Britain working again.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
I thank hon. Members from both sides of the House for their contributions throughout the debate. Some of them definitely had the volume to enable all of us in the House to hear them. I thank the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), who is herself a former Treasury Minister, for her contributions. Given her experience, having spent some time working in the Treasury, we may have expected at least a hint of self-awareness from Opposition Front-Bench Members. The previous Government left Britain with crumbling public services, broken public finances and the worst Parliament on record for living standards.
Today, the Conservatives have come to the House demanding more unfunded tax cuts, worth up to £11 billion a year, without any clear plan whatsoever for how they would pay for them other than a vague commitment in the motion to cutting public spending. We all know what that means: it means cutting spending on the NHS, cutting spending on our schools and cutting spending on our police. That is what they did when they had 14 years in charge. We know that if they ever get on to the Government Benches again, their first port of call will be taking away money from our public services, which constituents up and down the country rely on.
The Conservatives’ plans would do nothing to help ordinary families with the cost of living and would benefit the very wealthiest estates. I do not think it is the right priority to give a £3.74 million tax cut to someone living in a £10 million mansion, but it is clear that their priority is to give massive tax cuts to people in £10 million homes. We will not take that decision on the Labour side of the House.
Over and again, the Conservative party sets out fantasy spending cuts that nobody believes it will deliver, and which clearly demonstrate its inability to add up or even to watch what the Government are doing. For example, some Opposition Members talked about changes to welfare spending and how the Conservatives plan to bring back face-to-face assessments. Yes, that would be a very good idea, and that is why the Government are doing that after Conservative Members scrapped face-to-face assessments during the pandemic and did not get round to reinstating them. We are bringing them back to ensure that we can move people off welfare and into work, because that is a Labour value and we support work.
In stark contrast to the Conservative party, it is because of the action that the Government have taken since coming to office that our economy is demonstrating strong resilience in the face of global challenges. Earlier this week, the IMF upgraded our forecast of growth for this year. We were the fastest growing economy in the G7 in the first half of the year. The IMF has also projected that we will have the lowest deficit in the G7 by 2031, and we are on track to cut the deficit by more than any other G7 economy between 2025 and 2030. From 2029, we will have the lowest borrowing in the G7.
Robbie Moore
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?
Dan Tomlinson
The Government’s policy on inheritance tax has been set out today. We will not be voting for the motion before us today because we do not believe that slashing public services and public spending for people living in £10 million mansions is the right priority. That is the Conservatives’ choice; it is not ours.
This Government will deliver good growth in every postcode and provide breathing space for families and businesses. Underneath all that, we will continue to focus on fiscal discipline. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have been clear that we will meet our fiscal rules at the Budget later this month with a buffer against uncertainty, and we will continue to control borrowing so we can bring down inflation and reduce the long-term pressures on our public finances. That is the right thing to do, because there is nothing progressive about a Government spending £1 in every £10 on debt interest rather than on the priorities of working people.
Alicia Kearns
The Minister has just touched on what the Prime Minister has said. The Prime Minister also told the people of Makerfield that he needed to look again at the family farm tax. Why are the Labour Benches so full of MPs this evening saying that we are absolutely not moving on it when the Prime Minister made that very clear promise during the by-election? Who are we to believe: the Prime Minister then or the Prime Minister now?
Dan Tomlinson
We will vote against the Opposition motion this evening. The responsible approach that this Government are taking stands in stark—
Markus Campbell-Savours
I ask the Minister to please not let the Opposition distract us from what can be done. The SFI debacle the other day demonstrated that farmers are struggling. There is an opportunity to do the right thing at the Budget. He must not let the party that wants to give tax benefits to the owners of £175 million penthouses distract us. There is something in what the Conservatives have written about farm taxes, but it is very different from the wider issue they have raised in this daft motion.
Dan Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for his continued advocacy for the farmers in his constituency and across the country. Labour Members engaged constructively with me, the then DEFRA Minister and the then Prime Minister on the issue of the threshold in the inheritance tax changes for farms and businesses, and we made a change late last year to reflect the conversations and concerns on the Government Benches and the representations received then.
On the changes for residential property, it is worth noting before the House that independent analysis has shown that such changes could cost £10.8 billion a year once behavioural effects, which the Opposition did not cost, are taken into account. That means that there is a massive £5 billion black hole in their plans. That shows, as I think the whole House can agree, that the Opposition simply have not learned from the Liz Truss debacle, which pushed up interest rates and the cost of mortgages for constituents of mine in Chipping Barnet and for people across the country. We will not make the mistake that the Opposition made.
The changes on agricultural property relief and business property relief introduced in April this year are expected to raise around £300 million a year while offering protection for family farms and businesses. Through 100% relief on the first £2.5 million of qualifying agricultural and business assets, a couple can pass on up to £5 million of assets between them tax-free, in addition to existing allowances such as the nil rate band.
As we reach 7 pm, I think I should come to a conclusion. To fix our economy for the long term, we must ignore the fantasy economics and the unfunded commitments of the Conservatives, which will lead to economic ruin. Instead, we will stay focused on maintaining the resilience of our economy, where GDP growth has been revised up and we now have the highest growth in the G7, where living standards are rising after they fell in the previous Parliament, where investment is up in the public sector and the private sector, and where productivity is rising at its fastest rate, outside of the pandemic, in more than a decade.
We will reject this motion this evening because we reject tax cuts for those in £10 million homes being paid for by cuts to our public services, including the NHS, police and local government up and down the country. Instead, we on this side of the House will stay focused on delivering good growth in every postcode and, as someone once said, hope in every heart.
Question put.
Business without Debate
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Devon and Cornwall MPs have received a letter from the Department of Health and Social Care stating that a decision on reopening North Devon district hospital’s maternity unit could be made next week. That directly contradicts the Royal Devon university healthcare NHS foundation trust, which has insisted to me and the public again today that a decision will be made on 26 October. For the sake of many worried families in North Devon, it is important that Government communications are accurate, so please can I put this point on the record?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. He has successfully put his point on the record, and I am sure it will have been noted by Members on the Treasury Bench, who can make the relevant Ministers aware.
North Devon Maternity Services
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
Further to our online petition signed by more than 15,000 people calling for births to be restored at North Devon district hospital’s maternity unit, I present this petition on behalf of all those families across northern Devon and Cornwall who need local maternity services at North Devon district hospital reinstated at the earliest possible date that it is safe to do so.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to bolster recruitment and maternity staffing levels among NHS Trusts,…build local resilience in the NHS to prevent dangerous travel distances for expectant mothers, and ensure that the National Maternity and Neonatal Task Force works to stop emergency suspensions of maternity services at NHS hospitals.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Northern Devon,
Declares that Maternity Services should be urgently reinstated at North Devon District Hospital on the earliest possible date it is safe to do so.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to bolster recruitment and maternity staffing levels among NHS Trusts - especially consultant gynaecologists and obstetricians - build local resilience in the NHS to prevent dangerous travel distances for expectant mothers, and ensure that the National Maternity and Neonatal Task Force works to stop emergency suspensions of maternity services at NHS hospitals.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003244]
Benefit Entitlements: War Pension and Armed Forces Compensation
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Debate and discussion about issues of benefits, entitlements and calculations can often be relegated to the mere spreadsheet, but we all know that there are individuals who sit behind each and every one of those awards and numbers. One of those people—an individual who I have mentioned more than I have mentioned anybody else when speaking in the Chamber—is Pauline Cole.
Staff Sergeant Pauline Cole served our country during the Aden emergency in 1967. She was a trailblazer and she told her story in her book, “Army Girl: The Untold Story”. I believe the Minister has a signed copy of that book. Pauline was funny, fierce and utterly determined, as the Minister got to experience at first hand. She also carried the cost of her service for the rest of her life. Her service left her with skin damage and post-traumatic stress disorder. The military tribunal rightly recognised that reality and awarded her compensation for those lifelong conditions.
That compensation was meant to acknowledge her pain, her injury and the quality of life that she had lost. It should have given her a little bit more security and dignity in her retirement. Instead, the opposite happened. Because military compensation is treated as income when calculating pension credit, which Pauline was receiving, most of what Pauline won at tribunal was effectively clawed back by the Department for Work and Pensions.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this debate. He is a fearless, zealous and assiduous Member for his constituents. We love to hear him come to the Chamber to make his case, and he has done that again tonight. Does he agree that it is a grave injustice when the very compensation awarded to our brave veterans for injuries sustained while serving King, Queen and country is subsequently counted against them as income when calculating means-tested benefits such as pension credit, which he referred to? Does he also agree that the Government must fix this disparity across all welfare and pension benefits, ensuring that our veterans are never penalised financially for the sacrifices that they have made, unlike his constituent?
Josh Babarinde
I completely agree. No one should be penalised for serving their country, although that is effectively what happens under the current system. I will come to some of the other benefits that the hon. Gentleman refers to shortly.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for his dedication, and for his commitment to this issue. The Defence Committee last year published its report into the armed forces covenant. We looked at this issue in detail and heard harrowing testimony from many of our veterans and their families about the disadvantage they experienced as a result of their service—despite their sacrifices. Does he agree that at the next armed forces compensation scheme review, Ministers need to look into this issue in detail and take remedial action? Those who have made enormous sacrifices or have been willing to lay down their lives should be treated with the dignity and respect that we as a society owe them.
Josh Babarinde
I agree with the Chair of the Defence Committee, who I know has worked on this issue for some time. I think his suggestion needs to be done sooner than the next armed forces compensation scheme review. We also need to remember that the war pensions scheme, from before that system—before 2003—needs to be looked at. I hope the Minister will be able to give us some commitments to that effect later, and I will spell them out specifically.
Caroline Voaden
I have heard from several veterans in my constituency who have served and left the forces with a modest occupational pension but now need universal credit to make ends meet. Because their pension is counted as income, they receive less support, and for some the reduction is substantial. Does my hon. Friend agree that the current treatment is not consistent with the armed forces covenant and that something needs to change?
Josh Babarinde
I agree. I will talk later about the armed forces covenant and the new legal duties that will be on the Department for Work and Pensions and other Departments from the new year.
Let me animate what my hon. Friend describes with the example of what happened to Pauline. Her pension credit fell from £77 a week to just £11 a week on being awarded military compensation. Let me put that very plainly, just as others have done: she was financially punished for being injured in the service of her country. That was not an abstract loss. The material impact was that Pauline was, in the end, forced to leave her home because she could no longer afford to keep up with the living costs. That is what this policy and the status quo mean for people like Pauline.
I made Pauline a promise that I would fight this injustice on her behalf. I used my first ever question in Prime Minister’s questions to raise the case, and I met the Pensions Minister to press it further. It is with huge sadness that I say that Pauline died on 30 November last year, without seeing the justice that she was so determined to secure. At her funeral, I renewed the promise that I made to Pauline to her sons, Les and Simon Haffenden, and to everyone who loved her, and I am here tonight in an endeavour to keep it. That is why, earlier today, I tabled the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme and War Pension Scheme (Report) Bill—that is a bit of a mouthful, so Pauline’s law will do. However, this is not just Pauline’s story. According to the Royal British Legion, some 144,000 veterans and their families receive compensation for injury, illness or bereavement caused by their service. Over half of our veterans are over 65.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way, and the assiduous way in which he has gone about campaigning on this issue throughout his time in this place—it is to his enormous credit. In November 2023, when I was just a local councillor, I moved a motion so that in Hartlepool, all locally administered benefits would have military compensation disregarded. I am really proud that that is now the case in Hartlepool, but many councils across the country are not doing the same. In addition to the demands for national action that the hon. Gentleman is making of the Minister—which I support—is it not also incumbent on our local councils to do the exact same thing in order to honour our veterans who receive military compensation?
Josh Babarinde
There are so many who need to act here. It is not just a Department for Work and Pensions issue; it is a local authority issue as well. The Royal British Legion has a very helpful map that Members can access to find their local authority and identify which locally administered benefits are disregarded.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for being generous with his time. Will he join me in congratulating the veterans of the Taunton and Wellington branches of the Royal British Legion, who have been campaigning on this issue with me and have secured a commitment from my colleagues on Somerset council to review benefits so that all military service compensation is disregarded as income?
Josh Babarinde
I absolutely congratulate my hon. Friend’s local veterans and commend them for their service. When I speak at his annual dinner in a couple of weeks’ time, I will pass on the message personally, if any of those veterans are local members.
Of the folks I mentioned earlier, an estimated 146,000 are eligible for pension credit. Only around one in five receive an occupational pension for their time in service, so many of them live on low incomes. The most important number when assessing the viability of the disregard in question, though, is 4,120. That is the number of veterans and bereaved spouses who currently receive military compensation and would be claiming pension credit. These are the people I prioritise in pushing for this reform. If someone is ruled ineligible for pension credit, they do not just lose pension credit; they lose the passported help that comes with it. There is a ripple effect across the forms of support that folks can receive. On average, they can be denied around £5,900 a year in direct and passported support. For our poorest veterans, that is the difference between getting by and going without.
I know the argument that the Department has made before. It is the argument against so-called double tapping—the principle that someone should not receive two separate payments from the state that meet the same need. I do not dispute that principle, which is a very long-held one within the Treasury, but it simply does not apply here. Double tapping assumes that both payments meet the same need; these payments do not. Pension credit exists to provide a minimum income for ordinary living costs; military compensation exists to recognise injury, loss or bereavement caused by service. They are different payments for different purposes meeting different needs, so the double tapping excuse will not fly.
Counting compensation against pension credit simply uses the benefits system to claw back part of an award that was made for an entirely separate purpose, and the Government’s own policy already proves the point. Universal credit fully disregards war pension scheme and armed forces compensation scheme payments. The Government have themselves stated that this is in line with the treatment of civil compensation for personal injury, which does not impact pension credit calculations, so if military compensation is not double funding under universal credit, it cannot be double funding under pension credit. The Department cannot accept the principle for working-age veterans but reject it for older veterans.
There is a further inconsistency within pension credit itself. Only the first £10 a week of military compensation is disregarded. The Minister has told me in correspondence that this partial disregard exists in recognition of veterans’ service. The Government already accept that service deserves to be treated differently, but everything above that £10 is treated as income for everyday living costs. I am yet to hear a clear rationale as to why £10 is the right figure. It seems arbitrary to me. If the Department believes that £10 of compensation serves a separate purpose, why not the rest?
Meanwhile, under pension credit, a civilian with a personal injury compensation award, trust or structured settlement may have that compensation wholly disregarded. Pension credit therefore currently gives greater protection to compensation for an injury suffered at work or on the road than to compensation for an injury suffered in service of our country, one of the most valiant forms of work. The armed forces covenant promises that members of the armed forces community should face no disadvantage as a result of their service.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
The hon. Member has mentioned inconsistency quite a bit, and I hope he will not mind me echoing what other Members have already said tonight. Alongside the issue he has raised is the related issue of how local authorities treat compensation. The Royal British Legion’s “Credit their Service” campaign highlights significant inconsistencies with local authorities’ policies in determining how military compensation is treated under different circumstances. Does he agree that there should not be a postcode lottery? It should not be about where someone lives; everybody should be treated fairly and equitably across the country.
Josh Babarinde
The Royal British Legion’s “Credit their Service” campaign is one reason I am here. I pay particular tribute to Elliot, Jo, Claire, Hannah and Hermine, who were in Parliament today running an event to help promote the campaign. While I am here, I pay tribute not only to Sam McManus from my team, but to Euan Morrison. He started out as a case worker, picked up Pauline’s case and fought and fought.
Through the Armed Forces Act, the covenant of duty is being extended to central Government, to welfare benefits and to service-related compensation. When it comes into force early next year, the Department for Work and Pensions will be legally required to pay due regard to those principles. Treating military compensation as income for pension credit fails both tests, in my view. It disadvantages veterans as compared with civilians who receive compensation.
I am ultimately asking the Government to act with a few key asks. First, will the Minister commit to amending the pension credit regulations so that military compensation is fully disregarded, bringing it into line with pension credit? Secondly, if he is not ready to go that far tonight, will he at least set out a commitment to review how much that would cost? Currently, the DWP has said that it has not done that piece of work. Thirdly, will he meet me, the Royal British Legion and the veterans affected so that we can find a way forward?
Members across this House—from the Labour party, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, the Green party, Alliance, the Ulster Unionist party, the Democratic Unionist party and more—have signed my amendment on this issue in the past and have signed my cross-party letter. We are determined for change, because people like Pauline deserved better, our veterans deserve better and this House must do better.
The Minister for Pensions (Torsten Bell)
I join other Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) on securing this debate on an issue that I know he has championed passionately for some time. I also congratulate him on how he has gone about it, both today and over the past few years in which I have been engaging with him on the issue. Indeed, I think he first raised it with me a month into my time as the Minister for Pensions, when I met him and his constituents, including the late Staff Sergeant Pauline Cole, and members of his team. It was nice to hear him paying tribute to them today. They have obviously worked hard on this issue.
The hon. Member’s speech included a touching and fitting tribute to Pauline, who served our country and campaigned not only for herself but on behalf of other veterans. I was very glad to meet her and to have the chance of knowing how accurate the hon. Member’s description of her was, and again I offer my condolences to her family, who have continued to support the campaign that she championed. I have corresponded with at least one of her sons about this case.
As well as paying tribute to all our armed forces and veterans, I want to acknowledge the work that the Royal British Legion does on their behalf, working to promote and secure the welfare of veterans, campaigning on issues involving armed forces personnel such as the one we are discussing today, and securing a wider recognition of what our armed forces have given to this country. I should also recognise the work of veterans’ hubs beyond the Royal British Legion, including the one in Swansea, where I have discussed this and many other issues with veterans face to face.
The hon. Member has been a fierce and determined campaigner on this issue. He mentioned the first question that he asked during Prime Minister’s Question Time—always a stressful but meaningful moment for a new MP. He has also persistently raised the subject of the interaction between military compensation and the benefits system, and I note that his private Member’s Bill was reintroduced in the House today. I have listened to him and to others, including Members in the House today, and, as I am sure he knows, my colleague the Minister of State in the House of Lords met representatives of the Royal British Legion in November and discussed the matter.
Let me now turn to the long-standing policy issues in this area, and try to do justice to the matters that the hon. Member has raised. He is right to say that there is no single rule for how compensation payments are treated in the benefits system. Treatment depends on the nature and purpose of a payment, whether it is in the form of a regular income or a lump sum capital payment, as well as the legislation governing the relevant schemes. In pension credit, most income is taken into account, because the benefit is intended to top up the retirement income that a person already has. Pension credit is intended to do something different from any other element of the benefits system: to provide a guaranteed minimum level that our pensioners will always have to live on. During the 2000s, it drove the halving of pensioner poverty that was such a big feature of the previous Labour Government.
Pension credit rules already recognise veterans’ specific circumstances. As the hon. Member said, the first £10 of specified war pension scheme and armed forces compensation scheme income is disregarded. I should add—because this is important and it has not been discussed in the debate so far—that the armed forces independence payment and specific additions to the war disablement pension are disregarded in full, in recognition of the different nature of those payments. Lump sum payments under the armed forces compensation scheme are treated as personal injury capital, which can remain protected through a trust or annuity under the applicable rules. Those arrangements are more favourable than the treatment of other similar schemes with disablement elements. For example, the industrial injuries disablement benefit is taken fully into account for pension credit, and the fire and police service schemes also have no disregards applied.
However, I think that the centre of the hon. Member’s argument is the different treatment in respect of universal credit. That is the point that he dwelt on, so I will try to do justice to it. Universal credit was introduced with no partial disregards, which is what drove the initial change. Pension credit predates the introduction of universal credit and does retain the partial disregard structure that all the legacy benefits had. A more important point is that the two benefits serve very different purposes: one takes work incentives into account, while the other is intended to provide that minimum guaranteed income.
What is probably more relevant to this specific case is the fact that pension credit rates are significantly higher than the standard allowances in universal credit, because the House decided, in passing the legislation, that our aim was to more or less guarantee pensioners’ incomes up to a minimum level. Pension credit is also more generous in its treatment of capital: the first £10,000 has no effect on entitlement and, unlike universal credit, it has no upper capital limit. That is for the obvious reason that pensioners tend to have larger savings, and those savings provide other contributions to people’s income. By contrast, capital above £6,000 can affect universal credit entitlement, and that entitlement normally ends if somebody has over £16,000 of capital.
Comparisons with civilian personal injury compensation should be made carefully. I know why the hon. Member makes that point, but I want to be clear that lump sums paid under the armed forces compensation scheme are treated as personal injury capital, so they would be treated exactly the same as the payments that I think he said were more generous. That would not be the case; they would be treated identically. By contrast, ongoing war pension scheme payments, and guaranteed income payments under the armed forces compensation scheme, are income payments. That is the fundamental point on which there is probably disagreement. Comparisons can sometimes involve payments with different legal status, but they are not like-for-like payments.
The hon. Member has argued that pension credit and service-related compensation meet different needs—again, that was an important part of his speech today. I actually agree with him on that point, but I think I need to explain what that means. Pension credit is a means-tested income safety net, and it provides a guaranteed minimum income. That is why we take people’s other income into account when assessing eligibility and need. Pension credit operates in a totally different way from universal credit, which sets a level of support and then tapers that away as other income comes in. It is not really about double funding; it is about the level of support that the state provides in addition to the income that a person already has. That was the nature of how pension credit was introduced.
The hon. Member draws a parallel with the LGBT+ compensation payments. I hope that he will agree that the circumstances surrounding the Government setting up that financial recognition scheme are quite different and involve a different set of considerations.
More broadly, no one is ever going to say that everything about the benefits system is perfect—certainly not anybody who spent a long time working on it and trying to help people navigate it prior to coming into Parliament, and who, like all hon. Members, has helped their constituents to navigate it—but I will try to give an explanation of what sits behind the logic. I absolutely recognise that, as Pauline set out clearly, it feels like an arbitrary system to people.
Where there are lump sums or extra cost payments, those are disregarded within pension credit. Where there are regular payments that support income—one type of such payments is the focus of the debate and relates to how Pauline received her treatment—those are treated as income, and then the legislation requires us to partially disregard them. I appreciate that that is a technocratic explanation that does not do justice to Pauline’s individual circumstances, or to the circumstances of veterans with whom we all engage every day.
Josh Babarinde
In Pauline’s case, she did not choose whether to receive monthly instalments or a lump sum. If she had had a choice, she may have preferred a lump sum—first, because it was a big amount of money to do something with, and secondly, because she would not have fallen foul of the rules. Why should whether payments are disregarded be a lottery that is based on whether someone receives a lump sum or instalments?
Torsten Bell
Whether compensation is provided via income or lump sums is obviously part of the compensation schemes, but I would be happy to have a conversation with the hon. Gentleman about that. I do not know enough about the specifics of Pauline’s case to say how that would have played out, but it is the scheme rules, rather than the benefit system itself, that determine lump sum payments or ongoing payments.
More broadly, I just want to say that I absolutely hear the hon. Member’s arguments and have done so on a number of occasions. I have also heard them from Pauline and from her family. I hear his clear request for the Government to change the regulations, and I recognise the power of those arguments. He has asked a straight question. I think the most I can do for him is to give him a straight answer: the Government are not in a position to change the regulations. I am not in a position to give him the first answer that he would like tonight, but he at least deserves a straight answer. This is a long-standing position, for the reasons I have set out. It is about the consistency of how the benefit system deals with a very large and growing number of compensation payments, all of which have similar issues to the ones we are discussing.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
The Minister has given an incredibly detailed answer, and I agree that it is a straight answer to the arguments made by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde). Does he think that the system he has described will fall foul of the armed forces covenant?
Torsten Bell
The straight answer is that my hon. Friend’s question has been tested on a number of occasions and the answer is no, but the legal question is not sufficient. The question is this: what is the right thing to do and are we supporting our veterans? The legal answer to his question is yes, but that does not take away from the need to test that more broadly in the way that we are doing tonight and have done on other occasions.
Josh Babarinde
I thank the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) for his point on the armed forces covenant. The DWP’s position in relation to the covenant has changed in the light of the Armed Forces Act’s new legal duties that the DWP will have to adhere to come January. What assessment has the DWP made of its obligations with respect to that change in the context of this pension credit disregard?
Torsten Bell
The answer to that is the legal position I have just set out, which is that the DWP does take that seriously, has considered it and is content that this is consistent with our obligations under the armed forces covenant. I think the hon. Member is trying to go beyond that to say that there are other things we should take into account, including arguments in this place, the position of veterans and the rest. However, narrowly on the legal question, the answer is yes. That has been tested, and our position is that it is consistent with the armed forces covenant. The fact that that is our position in no way undermines the powerful arguments that he has made and other hon. Members have supported, or those we have heard from our veterans, and I want to put that clearly on the record.
I should finish by emphasising again the Government’s deep-felt gratitude to our armed forces for their professionalism, bravery and dedication to duty, and to those in such a position previously. Veterans now represent large parts of all our communities, and we continue to honour them for the work they did while they were serving, but also for being active citizens supporting all kinds of work. I have mentioned the veterans hub in Swansea, where I see brilliant work being done by people day in and day out.
Question put and agreed to.
Deferred Divisions
That the draft ACAS Code of Practice on Time Off for Trade Union Duties and Activities, which was laid before this House on 6 July, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 328 / Noes: 114 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the draft Code of Practice on the Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces, which was laid before this House on 6 July, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 329 / Noes: 115 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the draft Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 6 July, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 326 / Noes: 115 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (Calculation of CBAM Rate and Determination of Carbon Price Relief) Regulations 2026 (SI, 2026, No. 809), dated 13 July 2026, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14 July, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 319 / Noes: 115 - Question accordingly agreed to.