Nigel Huddleston MP: speeches

Speeches

• 10 Dec 2025 · Seasonal Work · Hansard source

  More

  Members of Parliament may not have to work in business, but I expect every one to come to this House and advocate for business.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Seasonal Work · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House regrets Government policies that are making seasonal, flexible and part-time work more difficult; notes that these policies particularly impact young people who are likely to start their first job in the hospitality, leisure and retail sectors, and specifically regrets Government policy to increase business rates on the hospitality, leisure and retail sectors; further regrets the Employment Rights Bill, with its provisions on guaranteed hours, and late notice cancellation of shifts, which will effectively destroy seasonal, flexible and part-time work; also regrets raising the rate of employer National Insurance contributions; regrets that 84,000 jobs in the hospitality sector have therefore been lost; and calls on the Government to cut public expenditure in order to abolish business rates for thousands of high street businesses, and not to proceed with the Employment Rights Bill so that it is easier for young people to get their first job, and easier for people to move from receiving welfare into work. Last year’s Budget, with its increases in national insurance contributions, increases in business rates and inflation-busting pay rises, led to more than 180,000 job losses, because it increased the cost of labour. Most economists, and indeed most sensible people, understand that when you increase the price of something, there is less demand for it. By increasing the cost of jobs, Labour caused unemployment—yet this year, fully aware of rising unemployment, the Chancellor remarkably came back for more. Along with her colleagues in the Cabinet, she is imposing even more costs on business through the unemployment Bill, with more regulations and a whole new set of taxes, like the tourism tax. These decisions will do even more damage, snatching the opportunity of a first job, a seasonal job or an entire career from young people—and, indeed, people of all ages.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Seasonal Work · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend again makes some really important points not only with specific examples, but about the fundamental difference in political and economic philosophy between the Conservative side and the Labour side of the Chamber. We believe in personal responsibility, low tax, small Government, living within one’s means and being unapologetically pro-business because we recognise that the private sector generates jobs and the economic activity that pays for our vital public services. Labour Members are agreed on the complete opposite. We recognise that, as the Leader of the Opposition has said many times, we get into difficulty when we stray too far away from these things—we let down the country and the economy when we stray from our principles—but Labour lets down the country and destroys the economy when it sticks to its principles.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Seasonal Work · Hansard source

  More

  I do agree with some the principles the hon. Gentleman articulates about the need for economic growth outside the M25 as well. London is a great dynamo—it needs to be London-plus—but we do need to make sure we grow across the country. That was, of course, exactly the point of the levelling-up agenda. However, I am afraid we cannot have this wishful thinking of forgetting that both the economic crisis in 2008 and of course the pandemic and other global crises had a major impact on the economy, and therefore economies around the world were challenged. The difference now is that our economy is doing badly uniquely because of Labour Government decisions. That is the difference. The national insurance increases in last year’s Budget alone cost the hospitality industry more than £1 billion. The business rates increases that it now faces make matters even worse. This is not so much giving with one hand and taking with the other; it is giving with one hand, then punching them in the face and giving them a good kicking when they are down on the ground. That is an appalling attitude to take towards business, but that is this Government’s attitude.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Seasonal Work · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady has obviously been speaking to her constituents and businesses in her constituency, and young people are of course extremely disappointed and feel let down by this Government and their economic philosophy. That is why the Budget announcement followed by this other announcement—“Oh, we’re now going to kind of help them a little bit with some public money”—is just bizarre. It shows that they do not get basic economics, and that is hitting young people in particular.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Seasonal Work · Hansard source

  More

  I won’t. I will give way in a moment to somebody behind me, but I am aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am on the final stretch. I can only assume the Labour Government just do not understand the negative impact their tax policies are having on tourism, hospitality and leisure, because to do such harm willingly is pure economic vandalism. The Government’s lack of understanding of the private sector and how jobs are created beggars belief. None of this would be necessary with a competent, pro-business Government. There is an alternative: a pro-business Conservative alternative that backs business, that wants the private sector to succeed, that backs entrepreneurs and wealth creators, and has policies that enable job creation and economic growth through policies such as 100% business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure. Instead, the Government have decided on an economic strategy that punishes enterprise, burdens the taxpayer, disincentivises work, increases dependency on welfare and grows the size of the public sector. That is the wrong strategy. The Labour Government are destroying the economy. They promised change at the last election. Well, we certainly got it: slower growth, higher taxes, higher spending, more debt, more welfare and higher unemployment. Time and again, Labour has betrayed the trust of the British public and we on the Conservative Benches will not tire of holding this disastrous Labour Government to account for their utter incompetence. The country cannot afford three more years of this. Britain deserves better.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Seasonal Work · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. We see that the hospitality sector is hard-hit, because numbers for the sector are easily available, and there have been a great many reports about the job losses there, but multiple sectors will be hit by these changes. As he points out, the problem is not just the tax hit but the regulatory burden, and that reinforces my point that the Government do not understand business.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Happy Lancashire Day, Mr Speaker. May I join the Secretary of State in expressing congratulations to Scotland? At Department for Culture, Media and Sport oral questions in September, the former tourism Minister, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), said that the Government have “no plans” to bring in a tourism tax and admitted that the tourism sector is already “taxed enough”, yet this week the Government announced that they are bringing in a tourism tax. When did they start planning for this tax? Was any form of impact assessment carried out before they decided that whacking up taxes on a sector that has already lost 90,000 jobs because of increases in last year’s Budget is such a great idea?

• 27 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I am afraid I disagree. For a second time, DCMS sectors are left reeling following a Labour Budget that failed to deliver meaningful support on business rates for hospitality and leisure. The Government introduced a new tax on tourism and whacked up taxes on the gambling industry. Instead of being supported, DCMS sectors just got hammered. Who is to blame for this disastrous Budget for DCMS sectors? Is it DCMS Ministers for failing to make the case, or the Treasury for not listening?

• 26 Nov 2025 · Financial Statement and Budget Report · Hansard source

  More

  Just increase tax.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Energy · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today we had an urgent question on the process for appointing the Independent Football Regulator. In her response, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport was unable to give crystal clear answers about the involvement of the Prime Minister in that process. This evening we learned from No. 10 that the Prime Minister did sign off on the appointment of David Kogan, who donated to the Prime Minister’s campaign—an involvement that the Prime Minister’s ethics adviser has called regrettable. Can you advise if the Prime Minister will make a statement? What alternative mechanisms are there for him to inform the House and update the record?

• 11 Nov 2025 · BBC Leadership · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Lady for giving advance notice of her statement. The BBC is in a sorry mess—sadly, one of its own making—that has resulted in the resignation of the director general and its CEO of news. Those recent leadership changes are a response to the growing number of examples of bias in the BBC, one of which has resulted in a potential $1 billion lawsuit. That is why the Leader of the Opposition has said that the BBC needs to change and needs saving from itself. Otherwise, we may all pay the price, through reputational damage, and from our pockets, as licence fee payers. We all want the BBC to succeed and be the best possible version of itself, but that requires institutional change, and far more than a few moves at the top. I will first acknowledge some of the many things that the BBC does well, and the ways in which it delivers on its commitment to inform, educate and entertain. Those things range from “Strictly” and “Traitors” to its world-class natural history programming, sport and local radio, and its coverage of major national events, including the recent remembrance services. Those are things that we can all be proud of, and that contribute positively to the BBC’s brand, and its reputation at home and abroad. But the BBC also has a charter obligation of impartiality, and too many examples have come to light of bias at the BBC, particularly in relation to its news and current affairs output. It has often strayed far from its editorial guidelines, including in its coverage of trans rights, its selective push notifications of news, in the Gaza documentary, in the output of the Arabic news service, and in its reliance on stats provided by Hamas. All those things speak to bias at the BBC. At a time when antisemitism is rising around the world, the BBC should surely think twice about distributing questionable data from a terrorist organisation bent on the destruction of Israel. We expect better from our national broadcaster. I am glad that the BBC chair has admitted an error of judgment relating to the “Panorama” programme on Donald Trump, which involved editing his speech to give the impression that he said something that he did not. The BBC now faces a hefty lawsuit, and we do not want to see the taxpayer, the licence fee payer, or the rest of the BBC suffer because of the poor judgment of the “Panorama” programme makers, who seem unable to distinguish opinion from impartial journalism, and who clearly all thought the same. That is precisely the problem. It is remarkable that in every area of its operations, the BBC seeks inclusivity and diversity, other than in thought, and in political thinking. Does the Secretary of State agree that that must change—that the BBC’s culture needs to change? Does she agree that the BBC must provide a full apology to the US President, and, hopefully, avoid legal action, and does she agree that the BBC would do well to apologise to the British public, too? Does the Secretary of State also agree that we need a root-and-branch review of the BBC’s adherence to impartiality standards, particularly when it comes to news and current affairs, and that we need more than apologies and resignations at the top—that we need clear actions on complaints processing, governance, oversight and compliance, to ensure that the BBC sticks to its charter obligations on impartiality, and rigidly and consistently abides by its own editorial guidelines? The Secretary of State mentioned the next steps and the BBC charter review, but we would appreciate more detail on timelines as soon as possible. What discussions is she having with the BBC leadership about the search for the new director general? Given that the BBC Arabic service is funded in part by the British taxpayer through a Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office grant, what discussions is she having with her FCDO colleagues about its future funding and governance arrangements, and about the impact that the BBC’s editorial failings have had on Israel and our partners in the middle east? Action must be taken, and the serious issues discussed today must be addressed, because the BBC must once again become an institution of which all of us, not just some of us, can be proud.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the decision to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv FC fans from attending their fixture against Aston Villa.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Lady for those comments, because I am sure most of us in this House believe that the decision to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv fans from the upcoming Europa league game against Villa was the wrong one. It is also embarrassing and a disgrace. Have we really reached the point where we cannot welcome visitors from overseas to our second city, because we cannot guarantee their safety on British streets and in British football grounds? This is not how modern Britain should present itself to the world. Some, astoundingly including some in this House, have claimed that the ban on Israeli fans is for their own safety. That safety has been put at risk precisely because of the anger and hatred being whipped up by some of those very same people demanding a ban, such as by equating football fans with terrorists. We cannot give in to that kind of rhetoric, and I hope the Minister will join me in condemning it. Football and all sport has incredible potential to bring people together. It should not be used as a deliberate tool to divide. The UK has a great and hard-won reputation for hosting major international sporting events, and banning an entire fanbase sends the wrong signal and may jeopardise our ability to host such events in the future. How disappointing this decision must be to the residents of Birmingham, who only three years ago welcomed people from around the world to the Commonwealth games, which showcased Birmingham and the west midlands at their diverse, vibrant and hospitable best. We therefore call on the Government to intervene and get this ban reversed. Aston Villa and the safety advisory group may only be able to reverse the ban with guarantees of additional support from the Government. Can the Minister therefore confirm what additional resources may be provided and who will pay for them? Can she confirm when the Home Office and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport were first made aware of the intent of the safety advisory group to make this obviously controversial decision? Is she confident that they talked to all the right people before making the decision? If the decision is reversed, what practical steps will be taken to ensure the safety of all fans and residents? While many football teams have some undesirable supporters intent on causing trouble, let us recognise that the vast majority of fans want nothing more than to enjoy a good game of football. Does the Minister agree that, if we are truly to wrap our arms around the Jewish community, as the Prime Minister promised following the attack on the synagogue in Manchester, we need to take action and not just spout warm words? Finally, is she confident that this incident will not jeopardise our ability to host major international sporting events in the future?

• 16 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the new Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), to his role, and I thank the Secretary of State for her welcoming comments to me earlier. She is right: we have had many conversations in the past about many aspects of DCMS not being overtly party political, and that is a good thing. However, there are areas of disagreement, including this Government’s anti-business attitude and policies. Increasing national insurance and business rates has caused untold damage to swathes of DCMS sectors. Will the Secretary of State therefore support the Conservative policy of 100% business rates relief on the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors? At the very least, can she assure me that she is begging and pleading with the Chancellor not to do any more damage to those sectors in the upcoming Budget?

• 16 Oct 2025 · Youth Services: Deprived Communities · Hansard source

  More

  We all recognise the value of youth services, but the right hon. Lady will be well aware that many youth services, from mental health support to sport provision, are commissioned and then provided by charities, which are under quite severe financial pressures, yet incredibly charities were not exempt from Labour’s national insurance increases. Even children’s hospices were not. Why not? Is the Department engaging constructively with the Chancellor about the plight of children’s and youth charities? There is no point having a youth strategy if the Government are undermining the viability of the providers of the services.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  Before I start, may I refer hon. Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? I have also taken hospitality below the declarable amount from UKHospitality and the BBPA—I am sure I am not the only one. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions from across the UK. We have heard some enthusiastic and supportive comments on the industry, but it is a pity that the policies are not so supportive. From the start I was left wondering what planet some of those on the Government Benches are on. They are clearly not talking to the same hard-working and angry people working in the hospitality sector as those on the Opposition Benches are. If they had been, I do not believe for one minute they would have been so enthusiastically supportive of decisions and policies that are doing such immense damage to an industry that supports 3.5 million jobs in the UK. Hospitality is one of the most important economic sectors and is our third biggest employer. It was a British success story. While we were in power between 2010 and 2024, we oversaw the creation of 4 million jobs—that is 800 jobs a day—and nearly 20% of all those new jobs created were in the hospitality sector. However, since Labour’s disastrous Budget, nearly half of all jobs lost have been in hospitality. Where Conservatives create, Labour destroys. The irony of this Government is that they say they are prioritising growth, yet they are implementing policies that do the opposite. The job losses in hospitality are a direct result of the unexpected and unnecessary employer national insurance increases that have added £1 billion to the cost of hiring people in this sector. The Government also whacked up business rates on hospitality, costing the sector a further half a billion pounds. As a result of Labour’s decisions, a generation of young people will miss out on their first job opportunity in hospitality—a sector that is particularly enthusiastic about employing young people. Of the 164,000 job losses in the UK since last year’s Budget, almost 89,000 have been lost in hospitality, and more are expected. According to UKHospitality, 79% of hospitality businesses have had to raise prices, and more than half have cut staff. That is before the Deputy Prime Minister’s further attacks on business with her unemployment Bill, burdening UK businesses with more rules and regulations and costing businesses another £5 billion, according to the Government’s own estimates. As I said last year, the Chancellor’s Budget will go down in history as the most anti-business Budget that this country has ever had. Her legacy will be as the destroyer of jobs. We will see how much further she goes in this year’s Budget. This Government are well on the way to securing the unenviable record of every Labour Government since the second world war of leaving office with unemployment higher than when they started. It is the private sector, business and especially the hospitality sector that are paying the price for Labour’s mistakes and poor judgment.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  I will not because of time, I am afraid. I spent a good chunk of the summer travelling around the country, meeting key players in the tourism, hospitality, heritage and leisure sectors. Everyone was complaining about how hard they have been hit by this Government’s policies, and the sector is angry—so angry, in fact, that they have given the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor a middle name, and a good Anglo-Saxon one at that. They told me about job losses, inability to invest, and profit margins being eroded or disappearing all together. Seaside amusement arcades, for example, are closing their doors early, or on certain days, or all together, because it is no longer profitable to stay open. The focus today is on hospitality, but it is clear that the wider tourism, hospitality and leisure sectors are all being hit. Nearly every sector overseen by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has been hit by Labour policies, and this is a big deal. Why do people holiday in the UK, or come here from overseas to visit? It is because of our heritage sites, our museums, our art, our culture, our theatres, our festivals and our sporting events. About a million people visit the UK every year just to come and watch football games. All these sectors are being hit, and the 40 million-plus overseas visitors who come to the UK each year spend £33 billion in our pubs, bars, restaurants, hotels and so on. All that is at risk. Tourism is a highly competitive global industry, but this Government’s decisions are undermining our competitiveness in respect of both domestic and inbound visitors. We should always remember that inbound travel spend is all-important export revenue. Let me respond to some of the comments made during the debate. The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism said that this Government had made the “difficult” decisions to increase taxes. What a load of nonsense! The easiest—the laziest—thing for any Government to do is dip into other people’s pockets and spend money on their behalf. The difficult decision is to be restrained about spending and to reduce taxes, which is what we were doing before the election. The hon. Members for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) and for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance), among others, asked why we were not supporting the Deputy Prime Minister’s unemployment Bill. The answer is simple: it will cause more unemployment. The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) asked why we were attacking the industry and talking it down. We are doing no such thing: we are talking this Government down and talking this Government’s policies down. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) pointed out that when we were in government, we rightly supported this sector to the tune of about £25 billion during the pandemic, with measures such as the furlough scheme, the cutting of VAT on tourism, the culture recovery fund and the sport survival fund. We were desperate to get the sector open as soon and as safely as possible while the then Opposition were saying that we should keep things closed for longer, so we will take no lectures from them on that. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) rightly drew attention to the disgraceful fact that the hospitality sector is almost completely absent from the Government’s industrial strategy despite its importance. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) spoke of the need to talk to industry and then talk to the Treasury, credibly and confidently, with statistics and information. I do not believe that the DCMS is doing that. It does not appear that it carries any weight with the Treasury, as evidenced by the policies that are attacking all these sectors. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) invited us all for a pint. I will take him up on that offer; the first round is on him. I believe that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), my constituency neighbour, did the same. Several Members, especially Government Members, asked where the money would come from if we did not increase national insurance contributions. The answer is simple. We would not have spent £10 billion on inflation-busting pay rises for union mates. We would not have spent £8 billion on the National Wealth Fund, £7 billion on GB Energy—which does not produce any energy—or £35 billion on the Chagos surrender Bill. There is the answer. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) highlighted the additional concerns of this sector given the impending hits to inheritance tax, business property relief and agricultural property relief, which are especially worrying for rural and farming communities. That point was also made by my hon. Friends the Members for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) and for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth). It is clear from its policies, and from today’s debate, that Labour simply does not get business. Perhaps that should not be surprising, given how few members of the Cabinet have actually started or run a business, or even worked for or spent any significant time in the private sector. Few Labour Members have any understanding of, or appreciation for, the hard work and effort put in by entrepreneurs, risk-takers and owners of businesses, especially small businesses, who work so hard to employ others and generate taxes. Labour certainly knows how to spend other people’s money; it just has no idea how that money is generated in the first place. On the Conservative Benches, we have a party that is unapologetically pro-business, because the Conservatives know that we can have good public services only if we have a dynamic private sector generating the taxes to pay for them. Supporting the private sector and enabling it to succeed is good for public services, too. The hospitality and tourism sectors know that they have a friend in the Conservative party. We appreciate them, and we want them to succeed. We stood by them during the pandemic, we appreciated and applauded their growth when we were in power, and we will be there again to work with them when this Government collapse and we pick up the pieces once more. We will back business. We will revive the economy and bring opportunity and prosperity back to this country through pro-enterprise policies based on core Conservative principles: lower taxes, smaller Government, light regulation, personal responsibility, fiscal responsibility and living within our means—principles that my party, and only my party, understand and abide by. The British people deserve so much better than this shambolic Labour Government, and we will not rest until they get it.

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will not, out of respect for everybody else who wishes to speak. At some point in the future, a Bill with different words, stronger safeguards and a more robust impact assessment, perhaps brought forward through a different parliamentary route, might pass that confidence test. This Bill does not. But it may well pass, and I have joined others in arguing and voting for enhancements to safeguards, particularly for the disabled, those with eating disorders or mental health problems, those who may feel that they are a burden and, of course, the vulnerable, who are exposed to the risk of coercion. I believe that some improvements have been made to the Bill, but not enough. I continue to have significant concerns about the potential for assisted dying to be abused and to be extended way beyond the originally intended scope. Finally, I must mention one area of disappointment, in what has otherwise been an extremely respectful debate, and that is about the tone of some of the discussions and the somewhat dismissive attitude that has been expressed towards those with religious beliefs, as though such beliefs are not valid in this debate. They absolutely are. Those who express a belief in God and the sanctity of life should be respected, not sneered at. It is perfectly legitimate for religious beliefs to influence one’s views on assisted dying. Otherwise, this debate has been largely respectful and has indeed shown the House at its best. Again, I would like to thank all my constituents who have contacted me. While I know that some will disagree with the decision and the vote I will cast today, I hope they recognise that I have tried to exercise my judgment carefully and in good faith, as indeed has every colleague in this House.

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is always an honour to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah). Like many hon. and right hon. Members in this House, I have genuinely agonised over which way to vote on this issue, because I have changed my mind over the years, largely influenced by constituents coming into surgeries or informing me about their own deeply personal experiences. That includes horrific stories of seeing loved ones in their final days, but I also recall a lady whose mother did go to Dignitas. She said that it was a decision that she thought was absolutely right at the time, yet, since then, she has regretted helping her mother with that every single day of her life, and believes that she helped contribute towards her death. Therefore, these are very complex and deeply personal issues. I also respect the more than 1,000 constituents who have contacted me about this issue over the last few weeks. I would also like to acknowledge the contributions of two people who I greatly admire: Dame Esther Rantzen and Tanni Grey-Thompson. I got to know Dame Esther Rantzen in unusual circumstances, when we stood against each other in Luton South in the 2010 general election. Well, it did not end well for either of us. Tanni Grey-Thompson, of course, I got to know very well as the sports Minister. They are on different sides of this debate, but I appreciate their contributions, which show that people can productively use their profiles and personalities in order to contribute to debates. However, I am afraid, Esther Rantzen, I do love you, but I respectfully disagree with you on this issue. I know that every MP wants to do the right thing on this issue today. No one side has a monopoly on compassion. All of us want to make the right decision, and this is not an easy choice. Every now and again in this place, we have the awesome responsibility of making decisions that we know could ease suffering or could cost or save lives. This is one such decision—this is one such vote. If I am making such a choice—making a decision that will inevitably lead to the shortening of life—I want to be absolutely confident that I am doing so for the right reasons and that the risks and unintended consequences are minimised, and I am afraid that this Bill does not meet that high confidence bar.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Pension Credit: Processing of Applications · Hansard source

  More

  We on the Conservative Benches are deeply concerned about all those who will lose their winter fuel payments under Labour. Some pensioners will keep the winter fuel payment if they claim pension credit, but we know that some will not apply or will have difficulty applying. Can the Minister confirm how many people the Treasury assumes are eligible for pension credit but will not claim it, therefore losing their winter fuel payment, and what is the Treasury doing to close that gap?

• 21 Oct 2024 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that my hon. Friend will be aware of the history of Labour Governments since the second world war. Every single one of them has left office with employment higher than it was when they started. Is he concerned about the possibility that this Government will repeat the same mistakes, especially given their lack of business awareness and understanding of the private sector?

• 17 Oct 2024 · Business Property Relief and Agricultural Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) on securing this important debate. I thank all hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions: I was particularly entertained to hear everybody’s friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) say that he does not give anybody a hard time. I warn the Minister that he can expect persistent, relentless and vigorous but polite nudging; it may not be defined as a hard time, but it certainly sometimes feels like that. It is very polite, I have to say. A few other points were raised today, but I will not delve into all the issues. Under different circumstances, I would be happy to have a debate with the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) about international trade. Having negotiated some of the trade deals, I can reassure him that the NFU and others had a very strong voice and that we listened to them very carefully. Their opinions, views and points were very often made. We tried to put safeguards in place; that has not always been acknowledged, but that is a debate for another day. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster), raised a bunch of other issues—again, a debate for another day. Just two weeks before the Government deliver the Budget, I am aware that the Minister will be unwilling—and, to be fair, unable—to comment in detail on the issues that have been raised today. Nevertheless, I think it important that he and the Treasury team hear and reflect on the concerns and fears that Members have expressed on behalf of their constituents and other stakeholders who could be considerably affected by any changes to inheritance tax relief and particularly to business property relief and agricultural property relief. My party supports wealth creation, which is important and which helps to pay for our public services, but we also understand the importance of ensuring that wealthy individuals make a fair contribution and pay tax appropriately. Earlier this year, the Minister and I had a debate about the broader issues of inheritance tax in which we recognised that we do not have a wealth tax in this country, but that there are taxes on wealth. Inheritance tax is an important such tax: it brought in something like £7.6 billion last year. We have a progressive tax system. The top 1% of income taxpayers pay 28% of all income tax, so they contribute a huge amount. The vast majority of estates do not pay inheritance tax: only about 5% do so, because there are so many exemptions and reliefs. It is important to recognise those reliefs as legitimate. There is abuse in the tax system—there are loopholes that need closing, and HM Revenue and Customs, the Treasury and others spend a lot of time closing them—but let us not forget that the reliefs are there for a reason. Business property relief and agricultural property relief are perfectly legitimate reliefs. Without them, many businesses, including farms, would cease to exist or would be broken up on the passing of their owner. The reliefs form a critical part of overall business planning and especially of succession planning. Many businesses, particularly small businesses, have expressed anxiety about the prospect of changes to or the abolition of business property relief. Currently, business relief is applied at either 50% or 100% on qualifying businesses when working out how much inheritance tax should be paid. That allows businesses and business assets or shares to be passed on to the next generation without the need to jeopardise the viability or even existence of vital businesses. Without that relief, many more family-owned businesses would have to be sold or broken up to pay a big inheritance tax bill. Prior to the election, many businesses and business bodies, including the Federation of Small Businesses, believed that they had heard and received commitments and assurances on inheritance tax and BPR from the Labour party. Many small businesses in my constituency and across the country seek the reiteration of those assurances. BPR also plays an important part in attracting and retaining certain investments, for example in the alternative investment market. According to some analysts, the removal of BPR from the alternative investment market could result in a loss of between £14 billion and £21 billion in value to UK shareholders and would permanently damage the AIM. Given the importance of inheritance tax relief to the AIM, they are also looking for the Government to confirm its continuation. Uncertainty and speculation around its continuation may already be jeopardising investment. Many hon. Members’ speeches have focused on agricultural property relief, because it is vital to the continuation of our rural way of life and our countryside. The NFU, the Country Land and Business Association and others are concerned about the renewed uncertainty and the impact on farming, including on tenant farmers. Some fear that APR may be removed and that some form of BPR may be kept, but even that could deter landowners from letting their land to tenants; the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) spoke about some of the further considerations and concerns for tenant farmers in particular. As many colleagues have said, many farms would simply not survive the imposition of inheritance tax. Families who have farmed the land for generations could be forced to give up their businesses, their farms and their homes, which could jeopardise the sustainability of the rural economy, as well as undermining efforts towards greater self-sufficiency in food production and compromising environmental goals broadly agreed by both the former Government and the current Government. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs confirmed last year, when he was the shadow Secretary of State, that the Labour party had no plans to change inheritance tax, including APR, if Labour won the election. Sadly, speculation has since arisen, and I do not believe that further assurances have been given by the Secretary of State or the Treasury. If the Minister can provide any certainty or even an indication to provide additional confidence, I and many of my constituents will welcome it, as will many other hon. Members’ constituents, many farmers, many investors and many business owners across the country. Labour did not mention APR or BPR in its manifesto, nor did it make statements about them during the election campaign, but it clearly stated that it would not increase taxes on working people. As we have heard today, farmers and family business owners are very clearly working people; my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) made that point very well. Given all the comments we have heard from the Labour party, I hope the Minister agrees that it is perfectly reasonable to assume that there are no plans, and should be no plans, to change the inheritance tax relief system, especially because those reliefs play such an important part in investment decisions and business planning. I therefore look forward to the Minister’s speech providing at least some of the reassurances that we seek today.

• 10 Oct 2024 · Sport: Team GB and ParalympicsGB · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the hon. Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) to the House and congratulate her on a very eloquent, gracious and personal maiden speech. She has shown today that she will make great contributions to this place over the coming years. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my declarations when I was Sports Minister—I may touch on that in a moment. I also take this opportunity to congratulate the Sports Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), and the shadow Sports Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) on their roles. As a former Sports Minister, I know that the role has upsides, but it also comes with a lot of hard work and graft. The role often involves dealing with the downsides of sport—regulation, racism in cricket, head injuries in rugby, financial distress and so on—with sports governing bodies, and coming up with solutions in challenging areas such as trans, where we are all trying to ensure we get the right balance between accessibility and fairness and safety. I know how hard governing bodies work on that, and I know that will be a challenging area for the Minister. There are some upsides, too. I know there is a lot of noise at the moment around declarations and attending sporting events, but as Sports Minister it is the hon. Lady’s duty and responsibility to get around the country and be a champion for all sorts of sports. I hope the noise around that does not stop her from doing her job. That is really important, because not all sporting events are Wimbledon; the job is also about championing disability sports, women’s sports and lower league sports around the country. I want to see her at those events every weekend. She will not get criticism from me for doing any of that. There is another downside to being Sports Minister. On calls with Sports Ministers from around the world, they all introduce themselves as the former world champion of this and the former gold medallist of that. Then it comes to the Brit and it’s like, “I’ve got a medal from sports day at my school back in 1984.” Slightly embarrassing! The other downside, I am afraid, is often being required to be in photos along with a lot of very fit, handsome and beautiful people, which is slightly challenging, or being invited to enter the ring to spar with a world champion boxer. I would get asked, “Minister, would you like to participate in the 100 metres final?” with journalists waiting there with cameras just to humiliate you. “No, thank you very much!” But it is an amazing job and one that I enjoyed very much. If you will allow me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to say a huge thank you, as I have never had the opportunity to do so. I was appointed Minister for sport and tourism in February 2020. It was the job I had always wanted. A few weeks later, however, we were in lockdown and there was no sport and no tourism. As a result of the work with the various sports governing bodies, in particular Sally Munday and Dame Katherine Grainger at UK Sport, and Tim Hollingsworth at Sport England, and the incredible team at the Department, we were able, over time, to get sport up and running again. I am really proud that we did, because we all know how important it is to health and mental health. And let us not forget that sport is a major economic contributor to the UK. It is a massive export earner for the UK. There are hundreds of thousands of people involved in sport and supported by sport, plus it makes us all feel good and unites us. That brings me to another point, which the Under-Secretary will find out about at some point in the future, should she ever be unfortunate enough to be reshuffled into a different role. A number of Members would say to me, “We used to like you when you were Sports Minister, but not so much now,” because the role is not particularly party political. I am glad that that will be the tone of today’s debate. We should not and cannot take the amazing success of our Olympians and Paralympians for granted, and we are all here to applaud them today. They have put in an incredible amount of personal effort to achieve that success. The United Kingdom punches way above our weight in sport. That is not an accident. I think all of us would applaud the work of John Major, for example, on the initiative back in the 1990s to ensure that money went into sport—which was often controversial—through the national lottery. That has continued ever since. I know how difficult it is to argue for money for sport, but sport is so impactful on the health and mental health of the country. What incredible success we saw this year, not only in the medal haul, which is important, but in the personal success stories and personal bests. The medals are a really good indicator of our global success, in particular —my God!—that of the Paralympians. They were second in the medal table again. That speaks volumes of the United Kingdom. We champion people with disabilities: we applaud them and literally put them on a pedestal. The Paralympics is a way to show what people with disabilities can do, as opposed to focusing all on the time on the things they cannot do. The UK has a fantastic global reputation, in particular for disability sport. I thank everybody involved: not only, as I say, the governing bodies UK Sport and Sport England, but the broadcasters who put the Paralympics on TV at prime time. The British public watched the games in their millions. That is not the case in many other countries around the world. The Under-Secretary is probably being approached by other sports Ministers from around the world saying, “How do you do it? You have incredible success. How did you come second to China in the medal table?” and TV is one of the reasons why. As my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said, we are very successful. Back in 1996, we got just one gold medal. We are the only country to have achieved gold medals in every single Olympics in the modern era. That is remarkable, and funding is fundamental to that. From 1996, because of co-operation and taking politics out of a lot of it, we have had a broad consensus on backing sport. Long may that continue. I would also like to take the opportunity—many of us in the House are very proud of our constituents who participated in the Olympics and Paralympics this year—to applaud Olympic swimmer Matt Richards, Matt Skelhon, Issy Bailey, Rebecca Redfern and Matthew Redfern on their incredible success. I know—I have met them multiple times—that they have very proud parents. Let us not take sport for granted. We like to applaud our sportspeople for very good reasons. Funding is majorly important. I express my huge gratitude and thanks to the sports governing bodies, UK Sport and Sport England, for what they did during the pandemic when I was Sports Minister, as well as for what they do now. I applaud them; they make us all proud. I applaud the Olympians and Paralympians too. They make us feel good and we are so proud to support them.

• 10 Oct 2024 · Midlands Rail Hub: Stakeholders · Hansard source

  More

  4. If she will meet stakeholders in the midlands to discuss plans to build the midlands rail hub.