Daisy Cooper MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 10 Jun 2025 · Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme: Capital Disregard · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member not only on securing this debate, but on leading the charge on this issue in the House and commanding such enormous and widespread cross-party support. Does he agree that justice delayed is justice denied? We all agree with what he is calling for, and we hope the Minister may agree with it later, too. However, it is not good enough just to agree. There is a real urgency about getting justice for those women who were affected, and for their descendants and families, to whom we all pay tribute.

• 4 Jun 2025 · Regional Growth · Hansard source

  More

  We Liberal Democrats believe that when the economy is growing, every nation, every region and every person should feel and see the benefits, so we are pleased to see investment in public transport and public infrastructure, but I must ask the Minister: where is the plan and the money for rural areas? He will remember that, at the Budget, we Liberal Democrats supported and welcomed the Government’s changes to the fiscal rules that allowed for borrowing and more productive investment, and we are delighted to see that one of the beneficiaries of today’s announcement is the Metrolink to Stockport, which is a testimony to the hard work of the Liberal Democrats, who have been campaigning on this for far longer than the mayor and the combined authority have even existed. From Shropshire to the south-west, from Cumbria to Cornwall, and from Norfolk to Newton Abbot, rural areas once again feel as if they have been forgotten. Will the Government therefore bring forward a rural growth strategy? May I also ask the Minister about Wales? We know that HS2 and the Oxford-Cambridge line have been designated England-Wales lines, as opposed to England-only lines. Can he explain to the people of Wales why that has happened and why they are set to lose out on Barnett consequentials? There is one big piece missing from the puzzle. Many of us rightminded people want to see investment in infrastructure, but if we want to build stuff, we need skilled people to build it. Will the Government now fix the apprenticeship levy so that it can be spent on skills and training? When will the Government produce their skills strategy? Why has Skills England been set up as an executive agency of the Department for Education rather than having employers at its heart, as was promised? And why are the Government scrapping the level 7 apprenticeship when we know that it supports social mobility, including into engineering? We welcome this investment into transport infrastructure, but that transport infrastructure will not build itself; we need the people skilled to do it.

• 20 May 2025 · Business Costs: Impact of Autumn Budget · Hansard source

  More

  In the Budget the Government reduced business rates relief, which is hitting small businesses hard. Under current plans, in the next financial year small independent businesses could see their rates go up by 80% and chains could see theirs go down by 40%. I have shared that analysis with Ministers; will the Chancellor please promise that she will look at it personally to ensure that this—I think—unintended consequence does not come to pass and independent businesses do not close, leaving even more of our high streets looking the same?

• 20 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Yesterday the Chancellor said that she understands the concerns that some people have about the limit at which the winter fuel payment is removed. Does she therefore now agree that restricting the eligibility so tightly was a mistake?

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will the hon. Lady give way?

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I supported the Bill on Second Reading on condition that it would be strengthened to tackle the issue of capacity. Does the right hon. Lady accept that the Bill that we see today is very different from the one that we saw on Second Reading? There is a requirement for capacity. If there is any doubt at all, a doctor is compelled to report that person for additional assessment, and independent advocates have been introduced for people with learning disabilities, autism or mental disorders. Social workers are now included in the panel of experts, specific training on mental capacity is required, and there is a disability advisory board too. Does the right hon. Lady—

• 14 May 2025 · Draft Pension Fund Clearing Obligation Exemption (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister made her case very well. The Liberal Democrats recognise that there is no viable widely adopted method for pension funds to meet the CCP margin requirements without harming pension outcomes. Although we all recognise how important clearing is for broader market stability, we also recognise that enforcing it on pension funds right now could do more harm than good. In that spirit, I add our support to the cross-party agreement on the draft regulations, which will create a permanent exemption.

• 12 May 2025 · Income Tax: Personal Allowance · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I start by thanking Mr Frost for launching this petition and the 250,000 people who have signed it. The number of people who have signed it speaks to the strength of public feeling about this issue, which is a serious policy challenge for all political parties. Indeed, I think the petition does more than showing the strength of feeling that exists. I regard it as a cry for help, because right around the country there are struggling families gripped by a cost of living crisis, there are high streets and small businesses gripped by the cost of doing business crisis, and people are crying out for the change they were promised. Most ordinary folk work hard, play by the rules, pay their taxes and expect certain public services to be there for them when they need them. Even when they become pensioners, they may well still be working. I hear time and again that pensioners want certainty. They have worked for their entire lives, they know how much money they have coming in and they need to know how much money is going out. They need to budget. When a shock comes along—whether something like the mini-Budget, a cut to the winter fuel payment or sky-high energy prices—they do not know what to do. They have far less capacity than other people to increase their income. Increasingly, pensioners have caring responsibilities, not just for their spouses but for their children, grandchildren or, even in some cases, their great-grandchildren. I take the petition as a cry for help. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, I am incredibly proud that our policy when we were in government was to raise the personal allowance. That went through, and by April 2015, more than 3 million people had been taken out of paying income tax all together. It remains our priority to raise the tax-free personal allowance, as the best and fairest way of cutting tax when the public finances allow. And there is the rub, because the public finances are under enormous pressure and strain and, at the same time, there are very few signs of economic growth. We know that the public finances are in a terrible state in large part because of the mess left behind by the Conservative Government; in part, too, because of the growth-crushing Labour Budget, but also because of President Trump’s trade war. We have a toxic combination that means that people are seeing their seeing their taxes go up but not seeing services improve. It is leading to that cry for help. As has been mentioned, the House of Commons Library briefing estimates that this measure alone would cost around £50 billion, and additional measures to equalise it with national insurance could cost £60 billion to £65 billion. If I remember correctly, I think the pandemic cost £40 billion, so this would be 1.5 pandemics, which is a staggering amount of money. None the less, we should not dismiss the call. There are other things that we could do. We Liberal Democrats have said that the key to sorting out the public finances is to get more economic growth. We think that a key way of doing that is to improve our trading relationship with the European Union. Liberal Democrat research has shown that since the Brexit deal came into effect, small businesses have had to fill in 2 billion pieces of paper—enough paper to go round the world 15 times. The cost of that red tape is falling on to the shoulders of small businesses and, through them, their customers as well. Sorting out that trading relationship and ripping away that red tape will improve our economic growth. We have also said that there are fairer ways of raising taxes. We have suggested that the Government look at increasing the digital services tax on the 20 largest online social media platforms and search engines. We have suggested that the Government look at increasing the remote gaming duty on those big gaming companies that made an enormous amount of money—billions of pounds in profits—during the pandemic, who we believe could pay a little bit more to help public services back on their feet. We know that the Labour Government have gone some way to reforming capital gains tax. We have suggested alternative ways of reforming it to raise even more money than the Labour Government have raised, but also that we should raise that money from the 0.1% richest—the super-wealthy. There are fairer ways in which this Government could raise taxes from those with the broadest shoulders—those big corporations—to bring in billions of pounds in order to support people at the other end of the ladder. There are other things that the Government could do. We have suggested that a home insulation scheme not only would be good for the planet by reducing carbon emissions, but would reduce people’s energy bills, meaning that the money that they do have would go further. Equally, by improving investment in our farming and reducing the cost of healthy, locally grown food, people would not have to spend so much of their money on food bills. I thank Mr Frost again, and everybody who signed the petition. We as policymakers should take this challenge very seriously. We see it as a cry for help from those who are struggling the most at this incredibly difficult time. I urge the Minister again, as I have done many times in previous months, to look at some of the suggestions from the Liberal Democrats and to engage in those conversations about how we raise tax in a fairer way and support those who are struggling at this very difficult time.

• 7 May 2025 · United States Film Tariff · Hansard source

  More

  Film studios are a really important part of our economy in Hertfordshire and give opportunities, jobs, apprenticeships and work experience to people in my constituency. As the Minister has recognised, it is not remotely clear yet how the tariffs will operate, and many have said that they are unworkable, but if America goes ahead and we have to take action in this country to ensure that our film industry is competitive, I urge him to look at the business rates regime with the Treasury. Sky Studios Elstree near my constituency has seen its business rates go up by more than 600%—they now account for 30% of its operating costs. I encourage the Minister to look at tackling that regime, as one measure to ensure that we protect our creative industries and the film sector here in the UK.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State referred to rare ecological rivers that can be damaged by sewage pollution. In my constituency, we have a very rare chalk stream, the River Ver. Thames Water says that many of the sewage spills happen because the pipes are old and porous. Part of the solution is to line them, but when Thames Water is lining pipes, it is not prioritising pipes that are close to rare chalk streams. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss my Chalk Streams (Sewerage Investment) Bill, which would make water companies prioritise those pipes that are close to chalk streams, because of their rare ecological status?

• 23 Apr 2025 · Hospitals · Hansard source

  More

  On the point of trust, the Conservatives completely blew trust with the constituents of West Hertfordshire. They promised a new hospital—they even said in 2023 that it would be fully funded, and it clearly was not. At the most recent general election, the Labour party promised that Watford general hospital would be a priority. Will the Minister make a new promise to keep that trust by coming to visit that hospital this year?

• 23 Apr 2025 · Hospitals · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend mentions the inordinate delays that occur with regard to applications for capital funds. I have watched with horror as my local hospital trust in West Hertfordshire has had to submit business case after business case while watching the costs rack up. Does she agree that one way to spend the allocated money more efficiently would be by devolving those budgets to local hospital trusts, rather than having a centralised programme that drives up the costs?

• 23 Apr 2025 · Hospitals · Hansard source

  More

  On promises not meaning much, the hon. Lady will be aware that the previous Conservative Government promised West Hertfordshire a new hospital. In 2023, they said it was fully funded, yet there is still not a spade in the ground. Can she explain where that money disappeared to, please?

• 22 Apr 2025 · Retail Investment · Hansard source

  More

  May I start by being a little off topic? This is my first opportunity to congratulate you in person, Mrs Hobhouse, on your heartwarming reunion with your family. Congratulations—that was delightful to see over the Easter weekend. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson) on securing this incredibly important debate. As he highlighted, the UK has history and status as a global financial centre. We have a reputation for being very strong at securing international investment, but domestic investment has never always been quite as strong. The domestic investment that we do have is often propped up by pension auto-enrolment. That masks the fact that the share of UK wealth in company stocks is the lowest in the G7 and, as hon. Members have highlighted, it is lower now than it used to be. The net effect is that individuals are missing out on financial returns and on having a stake in our economy, and companies are missing out on investment. That leads many companies to choose not to list here in the UK; they list in other countries where they can secure higher valuations and more capital investment. Other Members have rehearsed some of the reasons for that. Some individuals cannot afford, or feel that they cannot afford, to invest, while others are risk-averse. There are those who lack the knowledge or confidence about how to invest. Some choose to invest in property: house prices and building prices in this country continue to go up and up, and that often means that people choose to invest in that. As has been highlighted, people are often saving for a rainy day. Our public services remain on their knees, so individuals and families are increasingly saving money, whether for social care, knee operations, private education, healthcare assessments or mental health appointments. Clearly, we need get our public services back on their feet. Boosting people’s confidence in public services will convince them that they will not have to pay out when they should be relying on public services. We have seen many moves by different agencies to address some of these problems. The Financial Conduct Authority is looking to offer more than just generic guidance on how to invest, and we can all welcome that. Some banks are calling for a badging scheme to identify entry-level investment products. I think we can all welcome that as well, particularly long-term, low-risk investments for those people who want to get going. I am sure that, irrespective of political party, we can agree with calls for greater financial literacy. It is vital that we do more on all these fronts because people are missing out on financial returns and companies are missing out on investment and choosing to go elsewhere. I was particularly interested in some of the recommendations and calls for action from the hon. Member for Buckingham and Bletchley. I wholeheartedly agree with his call for a long-term retail investment strategy, and I hope that the Minister will say a little more about that. I urge some caution around the call to simplify the four ISAs. Many individuals are fairly au fait with choice, and choice in itself is a good thing. People have more agency when they can choose between different products, and I would be wary about throwing the baby out with the bathwater; if more information is available about the differences between the ISAs, choice is a good thing. Increasingly, people want to choose how they invest their money. They may want to invest in a particular sector. They may want to make investments in line with their outlook on the world, whether those are green investments or something that has another impact. Some people are willing to sacrifice a bit of financial return if they feel they are using their money for a good cause. I urge the Government and colleagues to reflect on that point. I am interested in the calls to revisit tax exemptions so that we incentivise people to invest in companies that genuinely contribute to building Britain and the British economy and to providing more secure jobs. In addition to the financial literacy, that call for a campaign to, effectively, democratise investment is a really good idea. We Liberal Democrats would be keen to hear more from the Government on that point. On green investment, we know there is a green stocks and shares ISA. The Government have talked about a social impact investment vehicle; it would be interesting to hear whether they have more to say on that, perhaps before we get to the spending review. I urge the Government to consider tackling crypto scams. We see warnings on an almost weekly basis about such scams, and we would like the Government to do more to tackle them, especially on social media platforms, and guarantee that protections would not be watered down in any future Trump trade deal. We need to see greater stability more generally, of course. I also urge the Government to consider more long-term, responsible investment opportunities for individuals. At the moment, a lot of people’s confidence in retail investment might be a little shaken because of global headwinds and the geopolitical situation that. None the less, there is still a very strong argument for longer-term investment, and the rewards that can provide. Finally, I have a comment for the Minister in the spirit of constructive opposition: there are lots of rumours flying around at the moment about whether and how the Government may change various ISAs, and whether they are looking at a particular cap, and that has created a little uncertainty. I have heard from a few constituents anxious about what the changes might be, and what they might mean for them. We all want to make sure that our constituents are well informed and do not take rash decisions because of rumours they have heard, so I urge the Minister to assure us that whatever plans the Government may bring forward will be phased in and that people have no cause to panic or be anxious about what may change. Such reassurances would be well received by some of our constituents.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Retail Investment · Hansard source

  More

  I recognise that the Minister will not accept my invitation to divulge more information about the Government’s thinking on this issue, but I would be grateful if she could at least confirm that the Government’s position is that they are not ruling out a phased approach to introducing whatever they may introduce. It is important that our constituents who are anxious and worried about their money and what they should be doing with it, and who are currently consulting with financial advisers and whatnot, are given the reassurance they need that whatever changes the Government introduce will be phased in a way that makes it easy for them to make decisions, and that they should not make snap decisions now.

• 12 Apr 2025 · Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Recalling Parliament today was absolutely the right thing to do, but to be frank, it is extraordinary that we find ourselves in a situation in which our sovereign steel industry is in such peril as a result of the Conservatives’ failings and the Labour Government are now trying to give themselves unprecedented powers. It is astounding that, even after British Steel was sold for £1, even after it entered insolvency and even after the Government’s Insolvency Service temporarily ran it, the Conservatives pressed ahead to erect more trade barriers through their botched Brexit deal, scrapped the Industrial Strategy Council and allowed the sale of the steel plant to a Chinese firm that, according to Ministers, is now refusing to negotiate in good faith at least to keep the plant going. The Conservatives were asleep at the wheel. They failed to tackle energy costs and business rates, and now Trump’s tariffs and contagious protectionism are the straw that has broken the camel’s back.

• 12 Apr 2025 · Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As the hon. Member knows, the three things that I have just outlined—British Steel being sold for a pound, British Steel entering insolvency and the Government’s Insolvency Service being left temporarily running the firm—all happened in 2019. With Putin’s barbaric war in Europe and Donald Trump’s disastrous tariffs causing economic turmoil around the world, we must secure the future of steel production here at home. We Liberal Democrats welcome the sense of seriousness and urgency shown by the Government in recalling Parliament. We must work together to rescue our steel sector and the tens of thousands of jobs that directly and indirectly rely on it. But under the terms of the Bill, the Secretary of State is giving himself huge and unconstrained powers that could set a very dangerous precedent. I urge him to make a commitment, in the strongest possible terms, to repeal the powers that he is giving himself as soon as possible—within six months at the latest—and to come back to this House for another vote to extend those powers if they are still required after that.

• 12 Apr 2025 · Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Member give way on that point?

• 12 Apr 2025 · Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am incredibly grateful to the Secretary of State for giving that assurance, which is important in the context of what the powers in the Bill actually are. Clause 3(4)(a) gives the Secretary of State the power to break into anywhere to seize assets. Clause 3(4)(c) gives the Secretary of State the power to take whatever steps he considers appropriate—not what a court or a reasonable person might consider to be appropriate—to seize or secure assets. Clause 4(3), on offences, makes it a crime for anyone not to follow the instructions of the Secretary of State, or to refuse to assist the Secretary of State in taking those steps without a “reasonable excuse”. However, a “reasonable excuse” is not defined in the Bill, no examples are given, and, quite frankly, it is hard to work out what defence of a “reasonable excuse” might be accepted given that, under clause 3(4)(c), it is whatever the Secretary of State himself considers to be okay. Clause 6(1), on indemnities appears to give the Secretary of State and potentially any other person who is with him—a police officer, a civil servant, or a Border Force official—immunity from prosecution for using any of these wide-ranging powers. These powers are unprecedented and they are unconstrained. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for saying that that is precisely why he intends to repeal them as soon as possible. More broadly, the Government must now also bring forward plans to guarantee the future of this vital sector. We know the steel industry is surrounded by crippling uncertainty. After decades of underinvestment and shocking indifference to our sovereign economic security, the previous Conservative Government have left our sovereign national capacity on steel diminished and endangered. Yet there is no chance that UK demand for steel will disappear. How absurd and irresponsible is it that we have a sustainable and enduring long-term market for British steel, but that our supply could keel over in a matter of days because of the failures of the failed Conservative party? So looking ahead, let us remember that saving Scunthorpe is necessary, but not sufficient on its own. There have been significant discussions about the future ownership structure of this company. Given the precarious fiscal position in which the Government find themselves, it is important that all options on ownership are put on the table, so that this House can take an informed decision about what they mean for the public finances. I hope the Government will make a commitment that, in the coming weeks, they will bring forward a report that sets out options for future ownership of the plant. Looking ahead, many big questions remain unanswered. Will the Government immediately designate UK-made steel a nationally strategic asset? Will they be using direct reduced iron, and, if so, will that form part of the UK’s plans alongside protecting the production of virgin steel at Scunthorpe? When will the Government bring forward a comprehensive plan to ensure that more British steel is used in vital infrastructure projects, from defence to renewable energy? Will Ministers work shoulder to shoulder with our European and Commonwealth partners to tear down trade barriers, including by negotiating a customs union by 2030? Will they develop initiatives to retrain and upskill workers across the country as we transition to greener methods of steel production? How do the Government intend to respond to calls from UK Steel for the Government to achieve the lowest electricity prices in Europe, parity with competitors on network charges, and wholesale electricity market reform? This case should also raise concerns about the role of Chinese corporate interests in the UK’s national critical infrastructure. The decision by British Steel’s Chinese owners to turn down the Government’s offer of £500 million to support the future of the Scunthorpe plant has directly precipitated this crisis. We must now be clear-eyed about the risks posed by Chinese involvement in our country’s vital infrastructure. To that end, will the Minister tell the House when the Government’s promised UK-China audit will be released, and how the Government plan to strengthen protections for critical infrastructure? Can he assure the House that the Government have assessed whether there is any risk that Jingye, on behalf of the Chinese Government, has deliberately run down the plant to jeopardise the UK’s capacity to produce steel? We are in a precarious position, and it is not as if there were no warnings. In 2022, the Royal United Services Institute think-tank said: “Domestically produced steel is used in defence applications, and offshoring the supply chain may have security implications—for example, in a scenario where multiple allied countries rearm simultaneously at a time of global supply disruption, such as during a major geopolitical confrontation.” The fact that Jingye has now closed down the supply of raw materials is further evidence that the plant should not have been sold to it in the first place. Quite frankly, the fact that some Conservative MPs are calling for nationalisation shows how far through the looking glass we really are. Is not the Conservatives’ attitude abundantly clear? On national security, they cut troop numbers by 10,000; on food security, they undermined our farmers with unforgiveably bad trade deals; and on economic security, they left our country with almost no sovereign steel capacity. On security, the Conservatives left our island nation severely vulnerable, like flotsam in the sea, passively bobbing up and down or being bashed around by the tides of international events. As for hon. Members from the private limited company Reform Ltd, they have a bit of cheek to claim to support UK steelworkers while cheering on their pal President Trump, whose punishing trade war is putting those steelworkers’ jobs at risk. Perhaps the company’s directors who sit in this House will come clean about whose side they are really on. Time and again, we have seen the failures of an ad hoc, piecemeal approach to industry across all sectors, from the failure of our water companies to the shocking state of our housing nationally and the dismal situation of our health service. For too long, there has been no stability for these industries, which are constantly fixed on a short-term basis only, to the point where they are practically held together by string and tape and the dedicated workers who remain. We Liberal Democrats stand ready to help constructively to bring about an outcome that delivers real change.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Horizon Redress and Post Office Update · Hansard source

  More

  We Liberal Democrats welcome the progress that the Government have made, but the redress payment processes are still too slow. First, victims claiming under the Horizon shortfall scheme continue to face significant up-front complexity without legal advice. I welcome the Minister’s announcement that the Government will be writing to that group, but could he please outline a time by which they will receive those letters? Secondly, the Minister announced that any compensation will not be subject to a penny of income tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax or other taxes. Could he confirm whether that will require primary legislation? If so, will it be limited to this scandal or apply to other scandals as well? I am thinking in particular of the cross-party campaign on Philomena’s law because some victims of that scandal are struggling to access their compensation. Thirdly, this scandal has involved many individuals working at the Post Office, Fujitsu and others. The Government have committed to bringing forward a statutory duty of candour; they initially said they would do so by 15 April, which is the 36th anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster. At business questions last week, the Leader of the House cast doubt on whether that deadline would be met, because the Government say they will take whatever time is necessary to get the issue right. We Liberal Democrats want the drafting to be done correctly, but is there any update on when we can expect the statutory duty to be brought forward? Fourthly, the evidence of whistleblowers at Fujitsu was crucial in exposing the lies about Horizon. We Liberal Democrats have repeatedly called for an office of the whistleblower, and we have put down amendments to the Employment Rights Bill to strengthen protections for whistleblowers. Would the Government work with us on that issue? Finally, I was surprised to see the announcement about directly managed post offices. The Minister will be aware that a cross-party group of Members has been infuriated by the poor communication from Post Office bosses on this process. I recognise that today’s announcement states that the Post Office will move to a fully franchised network, but that still provides no guarantee about the range or quality of services that will be available, no guarantee on the definition of “nearby”, no guarantee that there will not be a break in service and no guarantee that those post offices will not eventually be closed if the franchises do not work. Will the Minister please set out the next stages? Those will affect my constituents in St Albans and many constituents represented by Members here.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the fast action by the Government to convene the automotive industry in reaction to President Trump’s damaging tariffs, but the measures in and of themselves will not create new export markets or stimulate demand here in the UK. Will Ministers look at Liberal Democrat calls to reintroduce the plug-in car grant and equalise VAT for electric vehicle pavement charging? Will the Government instruct the valuation office to scrap business rates for EV charging bays until the transition is complete?

• 8 Apr 2025 · Speaker’s Statement · Hansard source

  More

  People up and down the country will be incredibly concerned about what Trump’s trade war means for their living standards and their communities. At the same time, people want to show that Britain is not going to take Donald Trump’s trade tariffs lying down. We welcome the Chancellor’s announcement that the Government will be working further and faster with our allies abroad. Can she confirm that any new trade deals will be brought before this House for a vote before they are ratified? At the same time as working with our allies abroad to create new export markets, will the Chancellor and the Government commit to a “Buy British” campaign as part of a broader national effort to encourage people to buy British here at home?

• 8 Apr 2025 · High Streets: Liverpool Riverside · Hansard source

  More

  To follow on from what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, high streets up and down the land, be they in Liverpool Riverside, St Albans or anywhere else, have just been hit with the double whammy of the jobs tax and higher business rates bills. What steps are Ministers taking to prevent an epidemic of boarded-up shop fronts in the next 12 months, before the new rate comes in next year?

• 3 Apr 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  On 6 February, I asked the Leader of the House if she would “use every lever in her power” to ensure that this House had a debate on the climate emissions framework “before any new airport expansion is given the green light”, including at Luton airport. The Leader of the House replied, saying “I will ensure that any such decisions are brought to this House first for scrutiny by her and others.” —[ Official Report , 6 February 2025; Vol. 761, c. 954.] And yet, it has been reported this morning that the Government intend to give the green light to Luton airport expansion via a letter on the national infrastructure planning website at 2 pm—in less than three hours—with no debate at all. Is that true? If so, why has there been no debate in Government time about the climate emissions framework, as the Leader of the House had promised?

• 3 Apr 2025 · UK-US Trade and Tariffs · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Donald Trump has launched a destructive trade war that threatens the jobs and living standards of people across the UK and around the world. Let us be clear: this is not about reciprocity or a level playing field. The US is conflating our high British standards with trade barriers, and it is doing so on purpose. This is Donald Trump saying to the UK that he will lower tariffs only if we lower standards. He is saying, “Sell out your NHS to US vulture firms, or else; sell out your farmers to US big business, or else; and give up protections against online scammers and for children’s safety to US tech barons, or else.” If the Government give in to Trump’s threats, it will only encourage him to use the same bullying tactics again and again. It is simultaneously true that the way the White House has made its crude calculation actually makes Britain’s negotiating position a bit better than the position of other countries, and we genuinely welcome that—it is a relief to us all. With regret, there is, however, no sign that the Government’s lobbying has borne any fruit, given that we have been put on the same regime as a number of other countries such as Honduras, Peru and Guatemala. This must be a wake-up call. We Liberal Democrats believe that we must end this trade war as quickly as possible, which means standing firm with our allies against Trump’s attempts to divide and rule. Will the Government take urgent steps to bring our Commonwealth and European partners together in an economic coalition of the willing against Trump’s tariffs? We welcome the month of consultation with business; will the Government confirm that they will look at energy costs and business rates reform as part of that four-week consultation, especially in respect of the car industry? Will the consultation run in parallel with talks with our allies to draw up plans for the co-ordinated use of retaliatory tariffs? When do the Government expect to publish an assessment of the impact of the tariffs on small businesses, jobs and the cost of living? Will they look seriously at launching talks with the EU to create a bespoke customs union? Let us be clear: the UK would not be in a worse place if the Government had heeded our calls to negotiate a customs union. Even the Conservative party should be able to see that Turkey has been in a customs union with the EU since 1995, and it has likewise been hit with tariffs of only 10%. Finally, will the Government rule out once and for all the watering down of the digital services tax, or our digital competition regulations, to appease Trump’s billionaire backers?