Tom Tugendhat MP: speeches

Speeches

• 12 Nov 2024 · Great British Energy: Job Creation · Hansard source

  More

  We don’t.

• 12 Nov 2024 · Clean Energy by 2030 · Hansard source

  More

  I am delighted that the Minister is setting out that the report promises an extra £40 billion of investment a year in the energy sector and, presumably, the taxes to go with it, which will of course come from the businesses that are paying for everything else in the Budget that has just gone by. Is there anything at all in his proposals that will actually bring down the cost of energy and not be replaced by taxpayer funding? It appears at the moment that there is nothing, and energy prices are already going up.

• 6 Nov 2024 · Strengthening the Union · Hansard source

  More

  First, may I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), who has just taken on the role of shadow Secretary of State for Wales? It is a fantastic opportunity for her to champion a vital part of our Union. Secondly, may I ask the Secretary of State, who is newly in her post, what she will do to ensure that the power that brings our Union together comes out of Ynys Môn—that is Anglesey to her—so that she can ensure that the nuclear projects that keep us safe are properly invested in and not dropped, as they have been by this Labour Government? Labour Governments control both sides of the M4 now, and it is about time they delivered.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady can play politics if she likes; I am trying to think about the future of the country. Dyson, who was not in any Government, is pointing out the problems being raised. Minette Batters, who was not in any Government, is pointing out the problems being raised.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  As the hon. Gentleman is an old friend, I will—for one minute.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  I will not, because I have been asked to be quick. That is not just a burden on those kids, but a rejection of the relationship between family members in their willingness and desire to invest in the future. I know that the Labour Government claim that the only way for investment to be done is by the state, that the only thing that really matters is when that is done by a bureaucrat and a civil servant, that the only thing that really counts is when the Government pay for it. But we know that is simply not true. We know that business and the freedom to invest, plan and forecast are what make an economy grow. Sadly, the Government have tried to nationalise the future, shorten the time horizon and make us all pay for it. That is why growth is falling, taxes are rising and the future is made worse again and again under Labour.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles), who gave a very full description of the constituency that she is privileged to represent. Her predecessor, Suzanne Webb, was a great friend of mine. The hon. Lady has taken over from a fine individual, who is now contributing in many other ways to our national life. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance), who has the great good fortune of representing my godson, a farmer in his constituency, who will no doubt be contacting the hon. Gentleman shortly about some of the issues that have arisen in recent days. I myself want to speak about those issues. Today, we are rightly speaking about public services—the NHS, on which we all rely, and those important elements in our lives that keep us together, underpin our economy and really hold us strong. But we are not just speaking about the product, the outcome—the output of those doctors, that money or those services. We are also speaking about the input, because we simply cannot have the one without the other. That is what I want to address. What we have seen in this Budget is not just the largest tax rise in decades, the highest tax take since the war and greater indebtedness, effectively burdening our children with what we are spending today. When it comes to the fundamental challenge, the Budget is failing to understand how an economy works and why the relationship between generations matters so much. The story that the Budget tells is about a Government who do not understand what a family, generation or business is and do not understand why businesses investing today need the ability to plan long-term and not just be taxed halfway through. The point is seen most obviously in the tax on farming and on the inheritability of farming property. The truth is that farms are unlike many businesses; they cannot simply be salami-sliced in the hope that they will survive. That just does not work. Individuals end up being forced to decide not just to pay the 20% that the Government ask for but to sell the 100% to liquidate the assets required. That is injecting a dangerous short-termism into the economy. The truth is that the Government can really only do two things. The first, really important thing is to keep us safe. We all know that the first job of government is national defence and national security. But the second thing, often overlooked, is the ability to extend time horizons. It is very difficult for individuals to have time horizons beyond a certain point. In early human existence, the horizon was a harvest or a season; in the Anglo-Saxon period, people may have got it to a generation or possibly even a reign. But the genius of the industrial age and our democratic age has been to extend that time horizon over generations. We have done that through the rule of law and through understanding taxation and the predictability of an economy. We have done it because we have understood that if parents invest, children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren can reap the rewards. What the Government have done, I am afraid, is to reverse that. They have shortened the time horizon and assumed that people—all our citizens—are not investors in the future, but employees of today. That fundamental misunderstanding of what it is to grow an economy is why this Budget is so bad.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to hear the hon. Gentleman, who has come off the fence and now has a seat; he can express his views freely. What fills me with sorrow is when I look at the future—when I look at the businesses that have invested so hard in places such as Tonbridge and now cannot pass that on over generations and over time. The investment timeline is being reduced and so is the growth. Do not just take my word for it—the Office for Budget Responsibility, the National Farmers Union and every business in this country have been clear on the point. The Government are not just taking the eggs from the golden goose; they are slaughtering the goose by trying to get the eggs out quicker. That simply does not work. We all know what is going to happen next: the Government are going to have to come back for more. We just need to look at the predictions by various financial bodies over the last few days, which have been talking about our running out of the money raised in the Budget in the next two or three years. We know why that is going to happen. This Budget is not investing—worse than that, it is not encouraging investing. It is trying to exploit.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  No, not just now. The truth is that what we are seeing is a level of short-termism. That is completely clear in agriculture and industry, but the tragedy is that it is also clear in education. A great privilege of being the MP for Tonbridge is that I represent some of the finest schools in this country—others may claim that title, but I know that I speak the truth when I say that. Many of those schools are grant-maintained in different ways; others are private. They are, in many ways, a web of education that works extremely well together in our community. Some, such as Hillview School for Girls—a fantastic school at which I was privileged to be on the governing board—are state schools, while others, such as the Judd school, are grammar schools, and one, Tonbridge school, is private. The truth is that the 20% plus business rates—I think the extra cost that will now fall on private schools comes to about 40%—means that every single kid in my constituency will have to pay for the VAT in some way. Either they will have to pay for it because fees go up, or they will pay for it because class sizes are larger. I am afraid that the schools will not be able to swallow the costs, so we will see pressure all the way through.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I tabled the new clause on the SIA for the simple reason that its reputation goes before it. Work that was done in the Department under a previous regime demonstrated that there were alternatives, which we felt would offer not only better value for money but greater ministerial oversight and better accountability to those who are forced to use its services. But clearly, with the Government’s majority, it is for the Minister to decide. Question put and agreed to. Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 3 agreed to . Clause 13 Compliance notices Question proposed , That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We are nearly there, Sir Edward.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It’s your chairmanship! I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 32, page 22, line 20, leave out from “for” to “in” in line 21 and insert “enhanced duty premises to be standard duty premises.” This amendment prevents standard duty premises from becoming enhanced duty premises at the discretion of the Secretary of State.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Sir Edward. I will comment on it very happily, and merely repeat that the SIA is a regulator that has faced significant challenges over recent years and, again, I raise the question as to whether it is the appropriate regulator. As usual, however, the Minister would have the numbers in a vote.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It would be churlish of me not to thank you, Sir Edward, for the speed and efficiency with which you have guided us through this. This is also an opportunity to put on the record my thanks to the Minister, who has been a friend for many years—nearly 20 years, actually. It is a wonderful symmetry that, on my last day on the Front Bench for my party, I am doing what I did when we first met, which is scrutinising him.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 37, page 25, line 5, after “force” insert “for enhanced duty premises and qualifying events requirements”. See explanatory statement to NC1.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Simply to say that, although there needs to be a maximum sum to levy as a penalty, £18 million strikes any reasonable person as extremely high. Although we completely agree with compliance, the fines strike me as a little out of proportion. Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Amendments made: 5, in clause 18, page 13, line 10, at end insert— “(za) in the case of a contravention of a requirement imposed by a notice under paragraph 3(1)(b) of Schedule 3 (requirement to attend and answer questions), £5,000; paragraph 3(1)(b)” This amendment sets at £5,000 the maximum monetary penalty that an individual may be given for failure to comply with a requirement imposed under paragraph 3(1)(b) of Schedule 3. Amendment 6, in clause 18, page 13, line 11, after “if” insert “, in a case to which paragraph (za) does not apply,” This amendment is consequential on amendment 5. Amendment 7, in clause 18, page 13, line 13, after “if” insert “, in a case to which paragraph (za) does not apply,” This amendment is consequential on amendment 5. Amendment 8, in clause 18, page 14, line 1, at end insert— “(za) subsection (1)(za),”— (Dan Jarvis.) This amendment is consequential on amendment 5. Clause 18, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 19 to 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 24 Offences of failing to comply with compliance notice or restriction notice Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  This is a simple repetition of the amendments we have made throughout the Bill to alleviate the burden on small businesses and ensure that the balance is appropriate.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am afraid that amendment 18 is on the same point we have made throughout, which is about overburdening.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 33 Interpretation of this Part Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  No, I am not withdrawing it; I am just not moving it.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Given the very obvious numbers on the Committee, there is no point in pushing the amendment to a vote, but I still believe that the burden on small businesses is too great. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 1 Specified uses of premises

• 31 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  This very simple amendment is in line with the others that I have already spoken about. It would limit the Government’s power to exert extra burdens on small businesses.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I tabled the amendments for the simple reason that a burden will fall on businesses and on individuals; we can belittle it and say that complying will take only an hour or two, but for many small businesses that is a significant burden. As was made clear in the evidence session only the other day, the burden on local authorities, including at parish level for parish halls, can change the way in which trustees approach this issue, which is why we looked to make the changes that I recognise the Minister has indeed made. It is important to ensure that the burdens do not grow. That is why I have tabled some of the amendments before us, which change some of the fines and request a change from simply issuing an instruction to introducing a statutory instrument—a very specific moment when the Minister actually has to make a decision and bring the issue back to Parliament. We can belittle the hours, but trustees and volunteers at village halls make their own time available—I speak from personal experience, and others will have seen this as well—so if the burden is too great, plenty of village halls will simply close because we are asking people to take on more than they are willing to give. That is why we have tabled the amendments, but as they all speak to the same point, which is not overburdening people, my remarks can be taken to apply to them as a whole.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 2, page 2, line 11, leave out “200” and insert “300”. This amendment sets the threshold for qualifying premises at 300 individuals.