Graham Leadbitter MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 26 Feb 2025 · Family Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  The director of Family Business UK, Steve Rigby, has said that the single most important issue for the family businesses he represents is the retention of business property relief. That has come through loud and clear to me in recent weeks when I have been speaking to local businesses, both individually and collectively through organisations such as the Cairngorms Business Partnership and the local chamber of commerce. Other family businesses, which have never come together before and do not usually lobby their MPs, have come together too. They normally just get on with being hard-working and productive family businesses, but they have come together to lobby because they are so concerned about the impact of BPR. To give a flavour of the family businesses in my constituency, we have some of the most iconic family businesses in the UK. Many will know Baxters from its food products, and Walker’s Shortbread food products can be found in pretty much every airport in the world. Glenfiddich, owned by William Grant & Sons, is another family business, and Johnstons of Elgin produces some of the finest cashmere products in the world. In Scotland as a whole, it alone employs 1,000 people. Those businesses are not small fry. They put huge amounts of money and investment into those businesses every single year. I met a group of business owners last week who collectively represent 2,500 years of business ownership. They have a phenomenal story to tell. What is incredible about them is the stewardship of those businesses. They invest their time and energy. Family members get trained up and work in all aspects of the business, ready to take on the mantle of running it when it comes to them later in life. If the business was a limited liability partnership and you got rid of the business management of the business, it would not have any kind of inheritance tax to pay. Yet the only choice for family businesses operating on that scale, given the likely tax bill they will be hit with, is to either put away millions of pounds to cover the tax bill, which means they are not investing, or sell off large parts of the business. For manufacturing businesses, there is a very big chance that they will end up abroad rather than in the UK. They could be bought by a multinational or a conglomerate and the jobs would just be shipped abroad. That is not the way to grow the economy. I was okay with the first couple of bits of the official Opposition’s motion, but they would have been better to have a laser-like focus on inheritance tax and national insurance contributions. Their inclusion of trying to stop a workers’ rights Bill is frankly ridiculous, and as for adding in the beer measures, it seems as though somebody must have been on a heady brew to come up with that notion. Those things make the motion unsupportable, but I hope the Minister is listening to what I have said about those aspects of the motion that I do support and have concerns about.

• 26 Feb 2025 · Family Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  I hear what the hon. Member is saying. There are a number of reliefs in Scotland, and Scotland went further and quicker than the Conservatives did in government when it came to the small business bonus scheme that was in place, so I am not going to take any lessons about what we do with business rates. It is a different system; there are other things going on that make the mix different. Also, that is not the issue that businesses are raising with me. The first and foremost issue, as has been indicated by Family Business UK, is inheritance tax. That is what is causing the most consternation. The businesses that I met last week were saying that their financial advisers—or their finance directors, if they are big enough to have them—are already advising them to set aside substantial amounts of money to cover off risk. These are businesses that have never had to value themselves in their lives. They are family businesses that work on a model of working with what they have and getting on with it. They have never had to place an inheritance value on their business. That is yet another headache for them—another bureaucratic maze for them to work their way through—that does not apply to LLPs, which is a very unfair situation. I do not understand why a Labour Government in particular are tackling family-owned businesses in this way and allowing shareholder-owned businesses or LLPs off the hook. That does not make sense to me. The hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) spoke very well and, had her amendment been selected, I would certainly have gone for it. I am sorry that I cannot, but—

• 26 Feb 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q7. I have the privilege to represent the home of Speyside malts, one the finest Scotch whiskies. Last week, the UK Government unveiled damaging plans to grant a different definition of single malt to English producers from that of Scottish single malts. That is entirely inconsistent with the global reputation of the quality of single malts, and seeks to tear up the well-established definition of a single malt, pulling the rug yet further from under the Scottish whisky industry. Given the backlash from the industry and the damage that it could cause to Scotch whisky exports and jobs, will the Prime Minister’s word on whisky be his whisky bond? Will he back the industry to the hilt and scrap these plans?

• 26 Feb 2025 · High Street Bank Closures · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will the Minister give way?

• 26 Feb 2025 · High Street Bank Closures · Hansard source

  More

  On the point of geographic vulnerabilities, Aviemore, which many people will know as a major ski resort in Scotland, is pretty remote: it is on a major A-road, but it is in the middle of the Cairngorms. It has lost its last bank, and the nearest is Inverness, which is a 40-minute drive away—if someone has a car and it is not minus 10°, which is quite common in the middle of winter. Does the Minister agree that a degree of common sense needs to be applied by Link when looking at banking hubs—because that common sense is critical in making that assessment and it should not just be a tick-box exercise, as has been alluded to?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Online Safety Act: Implementation · Hansard source

  More

  Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that this is not only about Ofcom but regulators more widely, and their ability to be agile? Does he believe them to be more risk-averse in areas such as digital technology, relying on traditional consultation time periods, when the technology is moving way faster?

• 25 Feb 2025 · Draft Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 (Scottish Adult Disability Living Allowance) (Consequential Modifications) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Hobhouse. We fully support this order to support the ongoing work of Social Security Scotland and the Scottish Government. I was not planning to speak for long, but the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, has opened a few doors for me so I might as well take them. Although Scotland may be the highest taxed part of the UK overall, 51% of its workforce pay less tax than they would in the rest of the UK. It is simply a more progressive system than the rest of the UK. The Scottish social security system is based on dignity and respect. Many Government Members, and some Opposition Members, will probably welcome that. The UK social security system is incredibly complex—benefit advisers and experts within the system struggle to navigate their way around, never mind the claimants. With this order, there is an opportunity to simplify how people apply for benefits from Social Security Scotland, especially if they have conditions that are not going to improve. People who move on to this benefit in Scotland have the opportunity potentially to apply for the Scottish adult disability payment rather than Scottish adult disability living allowance. That is a choice for the individual, but people have that opportunity and there is dignity and respect at the heart of the process—something that needs to progress much further in the social security system. My final point is that there is one way to resolve the complexity that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, mentioned: to devolve all the powers of the UK Government to Scotland. I reserve the right to continue to campaign for that circumstance.

• 24 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T4. My constituent Kia McNicoll is a mother of four children, and her three-year-old, Patryk, was recently diagnosed with cancer. Kia’s mother-in-law recently applied for a visa extension so that she can help the family with childcare through these most horrific of circumstances, but her application was rejected. Forgive me, Mr Speaker, but I cannot tell the difference between this Labour Government and the Tories who came before them. Will the Minister commit to looking at this application again, so that my constituent can focus on what matters most: the health of her son?

• 13 Feb 2025 · Rolling Stock: Purchasing Models · Hansard source

  More

  6. What assessment she has made of the potential merits of using alternative funding models to purchase rolling stock.

• 13 Feb 2025 · Rolling Stock: Purchasing Models · Hansard source

  More

  At the moment, the rolling stock leasing companies take more than £1 billion of profit out of the railway. A substantial amount of that could be reinvested in improving the railway network. With the Bill for Great British Railways due to come to Parliament soon, will the Secretary of State look seriously at alternative financing models such as EUROFIMA—the European company for the financing of railroad rolling stock—or even a publicly owned ROSCO that could deliver rolling stock at a considerably lower price? Indeed, will she be more socialist and more ambitious with the Bill?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for the Scotch Whisky Industry · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way first to the hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker).

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for the Scotch Whisky Industry · Hansard source

  More

  I agree entirely with those sentiments. Again, I will touch on that issue shortly. The success of the Scotch whisky industry relies on firm foundations and support. Support can take many forms, and I will endeavour to outline the key areas in which the UK Government can take positive and beneficial action. First, on trade, securing beneficial free trade agreements is absolutely paramount. For example, a free trade agreement with India that reduces the 150% tariff on Scotch whisky could generate up to £1 billion in additional exports over the next five years and create 1,200 jobs. We must also continue to strengthen our trade relationships with the US, recognising the significant investment that the Scotch whisky industry already brings to the US economy.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for the Scotch Whisky Industry · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. As I have mentioned, 43 bottles of whisky are exported every second—that will be 75,000 bottles of whisky by the time we have finished this debate. That is a phenomenal export contribution not just to Scotland’s economy, but to the wider UK economy at the moment. I welcome the efforts made by the UK Government in the area of trade; the question is whether more can be done, and whether those efforts can be made more quickly.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for the Scotch Whisky Industry · Hansard source

  More

  That was a fairly lengthy intervention. The first point I would make is that the key concerns raised by the Scotch whisky industry are trade agreements and spirits taxation—and we are here to scrutinise the Government in Westminster, not Scotland. The tax increase means that a minimum of £12 of the cost of a bottle of Scotch is now claimed by the Exchequer in tax for the first time, disproportionately penalising those who choose to consume Scotch whisky over other beverages. I urge the Government to reconsider excise duty on Scotch whisky to ensure that its global success story is not undermined. On extended producer responsibility, we need a scheme that genuinely promotes a circular economy. The industry is supportive of EPR in principle, but it must not simply function as a packaging tax on producers. The costs imposed on producers through EPR are considerable and place significant additional cost pressures on the industry. Producers must be given clear figures to map their liability and meet their obligations. Better incentives need to be placed on local authorities to use the payments provided by producers to improve recycling and reprocessing services and in turn lower costs per tonne for producers. Supporting the industry’s sustainability goals is absolutely crucial and will, by extension, help meet the wider net zero goals that I believe most of us want to see achieved. The Scotch whisky industry has long taken its responsibility to address its own impact on the environment and to tackle our emissions seriously. The industry is committed to decarbonising its own operations by 2040 and becoming net zero by 2045. The Scottish Government’s Scottish industrial energy transformation fund and the UK Government’s net zero innovation portfolio are welcome and have been strategically important in de-risking new technology, supporting delivery and testing at scale. It is important to note the example of Chivas Brothers, which has set an ambitious target of becoming carbon-neutral in distillation by 2026—I repeat: by 2026, or next year—and is on target to achieve that. That is ahead of the Scotch Whisky Association’s industry target to decarbonise by 2040 and Scotland’s vision of being net zero by 2045. Chivas’s heat recovery technology programme is open source, encouraging the adoption of technologies that unlock the successful reduction of energy intensity and carbon generation at scale. It is extremely heartening to see an energy-intensive business such as distilling being willing not just to invest millions in developing innovative new technology, but to invite competitors, supply chain companies and others to share in that learning and use it in other locations. That is something many other businesses could learn from in terms of how we collectively tackle our energy usage. It is vital to protect the unique sales environment offered by duty-free and global travel retail, a critical market for the whisky industry. Duty-free sales have long contributed to the development of the Scotch whisky industry and are estimated to generate £6.2 billion in annual exports and support 42,000 jobs across the UK. Overseas duty-free sales provide a shop window for Scotland. The vast majority of major airports have shelves lined with an incredible variety of Scotch. Serious consideration of arrivals duty-free here in the UK could provide a new opportunity for whisky brands to showcase their products, while creating a critical new source of revenue through increased employment in the UK-based supply chain. The Scotch whisky industry is a vital part of both the Scottish and UK economies, and is a source of national pride. In my own Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey constituency, the sector operates 48 distilleries—soon to be 49—numerous labs, whisky storage sites and offices with engineers, technicians and architects, and is supported by a vibrant and extensive supply chain and a busy logistics sector. More than 5,000 of my constituents’ jobs are tied to the Scotch whisky industry—one in every nine jobs. It is the most concentrated group of distilleries in the world. By addressing the issues I have outlined today—trade, excise duty, extended producer responsibility, sustainability and duty-free sales—the UK Government can provide the support needed to ensure that the Scotch whisky industry continues to flourish for generations to come. We need all parties to champion our great exports, including Scotch whisky, and ensure that the sector has the support it need at home to deliver growth and investment, to flourish and to deliver on its sustainability objectives.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for the Scotch Whisky Industry · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that point, which I will come on to a little bit later in my speech. In 2022, Scotch whisky distilleries attracted 2 million visitors, making them the most popular tourist attraction in Scotland. Between 2018 and 2022, the industry invested £2.1 billion in capital projects, with many more such projects in the pipeline as we speak.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for the Scotch Whisky Industry · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. That is another point that I will expand on in a bit more detail shortly. We must continue to strengthen our trade relationships. While this debate is rightly focused on UK actions, it will not have bypassed hon. Members that there has been significant media comment on tariff actions taken by the US Administration in recent weeks, and on what potential future actions may be taken. Combined with global headwinds affecting the wider luxury brands market, it has unsurprisingly generated comment and speculation, both from within the sector and elsewhere. Maintaining a watchful eye and accentuating the positives of the existing trade relationships remain vital. On excise duty, the current tax regime is unsustainable. Scotch whisky and other spirits have faced a 14% increase in excise duty in just 18 months. Over the past 18 months the Treasury has lost £255 million, or £500,000 per day, in spirits revenue—a far cry from the £600 million that the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast that the increase in spirits duty would raise. That Treasury loss from lower sales was projected by the industry to increase as the Chancellor’s recent decisions start to bite. If we want to examine the impact higher taxes have had on the retailers and the producers themselves, we need look no closer than right here. Last year a freedom of information request revealed that in the first 10 months of 2024, a year after the Conservatives hiked whisky tax, sales of whisky in Parliament’s gift shops plummeted, with average monthly sales of 5 cl bottles down 36% and 70 cl bottles down 16% by the end of October. That means that, when Labour MPs approved the Chancellor’s plans to further increase taxes on whisky products, they did not even need to leave the building to pass a shop adversely affected by the tax.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for the Scotch Whisky Industry · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I enjoy a dram now and again as well.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for the Scotch Whisky Industry · Hansard source

  More

  I totally agree with the hon. Member. It is really interesting that the industry is diversifying into new brands, new products and new styles of whisky being produced in traditional distilleries.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for the Scotch Whisky Industry · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for the Scotch whisky industry. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. Today I seek to address the critical role of the Scotch whisky industry in the UK economy and to outline the essential support that it requires from the UK Government. Scotch whisky is more than just a drink; it is a cultural and economic asset that is enjoyed around the world. We all share the desire to ensure that it is enjoyed responsibly and sustainably for generations to come. Each bottle shipped from Scotland to every corner of the world leaves behind a measurable impact on our economy. The numbers speak for themselves. The industry provides £7.1 billion in gross value added to the UK economy. It supports 41,000 jobs across Scotland and more than 25,000 more jobs across the UK. Scotch whisky accounts for 74% of Scottish food and drink exports and 22% of UK food and drink exports.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for the Scotch Whisky Industry · Hansard source

  More

  I do not know whether I need to comment on how many different types of drink I consume. Returning to the matters at hand, exports are valued at more than £5 billion, with 43 bottles of Scotch whisky exported every second.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for the Scotch Whisky Industry · Hansard source

  More

  Yes.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Cost of Energy · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 11 Feb 2025 · Cost of Energy · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on securing this morning’s debate. I will not speak for too long, because we have had several debates on this issue; instead, I will focus on the key points that I think need hammering home. For several years colleagues in the highlands and islands, and now my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O'Hara) and I, have worked on the highland energy rebate campaign., which would mean a geographic rebate for people in the highlands and islands affected by higher fuel prices. I am not precious about the mechanism for that. There is a bit of kickback about a geographic mechanism, but it is a very useful debating tool because it hammers home the fact that there is a geographic discrepancy and discrimination for people living in the highlands and islands, and the north of Scotland more generally. We need a solution from the Government, and we need it urgently. For decades, people in the highlands and islands have been paying more for their energy than those in almost any other part of the UK. They pay more for distribution, and no other part of the UK pays more for transmission. All that people see are wires and pylons. The energy infrastructure, much of it in the highlands and islands, is used to send energy hundreds of miles away, but that is not distributed across bills in the same way as the distribution charges are. For example, in the flat that I live in when I am down here in this place, I pay roughly 40p on standing charges, and at home I pay 60p-plus on standing charges. That is a third extra every single day on that standing charge, and that is the same for people across the whole of the highlands and islands, which puts it in perspective for folk. For decades, successive Governments have failed to tackle poor regulation. Ofgem has shown little interest in dealing with energy prices in the north of Scotland. Twenty years ago, we were less focused on decarbonisation issues than we are now. We were trying to get people on grid because there were so many people off-grid in the highlands and islands. The authorities would not look at getting gas into more remote areas; that was very low on the priority list. I am not advocating that we should do that now; new technologies have come in since then and we need to focus on decarbonising our energy systems. But it evidences that this has been going on for a long time, and that solutions have not been found. Governments have always focused on urban areas with big populations to the detriment of rural customers. That is not acceptable, because the highlands and islands of Scotland are the coldest parts of the UK and have the highest levels of fuel poverty per head of population. That major issue needs to be addressed. I want to highlight a couple of strategic issues about generators. We have wind farms consented to produce many gigawatts, but they are not able to progress because the Ministry of Defence has not come up with a radar solution that will allow them to operate. That is a matter of urgency. It is about capacity within the MOD and the amount of effort that it has been able to put into coming up with a solution; it is not because there is no solution, but because not enough people are working on it. As a consequence, we have big projects that would generate employment through their construction and would contribute to our net zero goals, but they cannot get over that hurdle, despite being consented and having passed all the other barriers. If they cannot get over that hurdle, those consents will fall and the projects will be lost. That needs to be urgently addressed, and I urge the Minister to do what he can to work with colleagues in the MOD to get some focus on that. I welcome the work on social tariffs, on which the SNP has a manifesto commitment, and I know from colleagues in the Scottish Government that a lot of close working is going on with the Department, which I welcome. Hopefully we will see a positive resolution to that in the not-too-distant future. Finally, it would be remiss of me not to mention the winter fuel payment. The £300 winter fuel payment has been lost to tens of thousands of people across the highlands and islands. That combines with the points I have already made—along with the cost of energy going up since the Government came in last July and the promise to reduce energy bills by £300 for the most vulnerable pensioners—so we are now looking for £780. I am not entirely sure how that £780 reduction in bills will be achieved, but that is essentially the position that the Government find themselves in—they need to find that for thousands of people in order to maintain that manifesto pledge, and it will be interesting to know how that is going to happen.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms · Hansard source

  More

  Changes to inheritance tax can be made that will prevent people from gaming the system and buying up land to avoid tax. That can be done without an impact on existing farming businesses. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that for the Government not to have even considered such changes in their previous responses is not only unacceptable, but a dereliction when it comes to food security and national security?

• 29 Jan 2025 · Outsourcing: Government Departments · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) on securing this debate. I want to take the debate in a slightly different direction, as there has not been much mention of national security so far. I am a Member for a constituency that has a large Ministry of Defence footprint, particularly in the RAF. Outsourcing of catering and mess facility management over many years has had a significant and detrimental impact on the cohesion of our fighting forces, not just on bases in my constituency, but in every base where outsourcing has occurred. The reason is because we have a two-tier workforce. We have people who have been TUPE-ed across from the civil service, who started their career as MOD civil servants. They are now working alongside people who are on considerably lower pay for doing the same job. That creates division in the workplace. People who are getting paid less, and are valued less, then do not value their employer. This is understandable: why should anyone value an employer that does not particularly value them? We end up in a situation where there is less attention paid and standards fall. There are situations where a contract is ending—with maybe six months left to run—and, for the sake of argument, let us say that the staffing complement for the team should be about 25 but it is now down to 15. Does the employer have any intention whatsoever of bridging that gap with another 10 people, when it is struggling to make a profit in the last six months of a contract? Absolutely not. It will be sucked up by the 15 people doing the job of 25. That is a totally unacceptable way to work. If we parliamentarians and the civil service believe that the people who work directly for them are worth a living wage, they should believe that for every single person that is doing a job that facilitates what that organisation does. It is a simple act of fairness. In the military, they talk about the esprit de corps or a single-force approach; if there is that separation, then that is not there. If people are not getting the quality of food or accommodation they want, they will not stay. We can spend a fortune training them, and they can be very good at what they do, but they will not stay in because the facilities are not good enough for them. If we want a coherent military, people who are dedicated to it and good national security, we must treat all the workers, whether they are service personnel, civilians or contractors —and I would rather they were not contractors—with the same degree of respect and with the same degree of rights. The other problem that I want to highlight is that people who have been TUPE-ed across when contracts have been put out may, broadly speaking, retain their pay and conditions, but what they do not tend to retain is their pension. That is an absolute travesty because it is completely mortgaging their retirement life and their right to a decent retirement. Many of them, particularly in more rural areas where our services are being provided, may not have other opportunities to move into another role within the same organisation to avoid being contracted out. I want to pick up on a point that was made about radical socialism. There is nothing radical about paying a fair wage for a fair day’s work. It is just a matter of human decency. I will leave it at that.