John Cooper MP: speeches

Speeches

• 20 Mar 2025 · Coastal Communities · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has begun what I am sure will be an exquisite speech, and she hits the nail on the head when she talks about transport connectivity. One of the great problems that unites all our coastal communities is that it is difficult to get anywhere. For a community like mine in Dumfries and Galloway, it is 80 miles to the nearest hospital. Perhaps rather than a new Minister looking at coastal communities, we need existing Transport Ministers to put their foot down.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Large spending announcements for defence would make people think that Britain is marching to war, but the Ministry of Defence is bimbling along with procurement systems that are better designed for peacetime. Will the Prime Minister use his good offices to bring British industry into this fight, and quickly?

• 13 Mar 2025 · Farming · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is in fact my neighbour, for giving way. He talks about the number of farms that will be affected by this. It is far higher than the Treasury tells us. We know that the Scotland Office is compiling its own figures, to push back against the Treasury figures, which will no doubt be trotted out here again today. Is there not a fundamental problem here, as the vast majority of farms will be affected by this?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is a fearsome campaigner on the Business and Trade Committee. She talks about intimidation and paints a lovely picture of unions working actively for their workers, but how can we square that with the version of intimidation that the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) seems to be referring to with the return of flying pickets?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise as a former member of a trade union, and the harsh lessons I learned then are what concern me about this Bill. As a low-paid journalist on a local paper, I had hoped that the union would go in to bat for me. Instead, it was more interested in Cuban socialism and collective bargaining, more concerned about traducing Mrs Thatcher’s legacy than the tribulations of a junior reporter, more interested in funding the Labour party than supporting me and my newsroom colleagues. That is why I am backing amendments such as amendment 292, which seeks to defuse what has been called a subscription trap, where inertia is used to allow political donations taken from members to tick up year in, year out. Is this the clean money of which the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) spoke? In the Business and Trade Committee we have heard that good relations are possible between employers and trade unions. Of course they are—not all union reps are agitators, any more than all bosses are grasping exploiters of the workers. But stripping out existing protections, as this Bill does, risks tilting the law too far in favour of the unions, making strikes more frequent and more damaging thanks to, for example, lower notice periods. We know that the unions are already restive; just ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, unable to attend an event with, ironically, the Scottish Confederation of British Industry in his own office because he would not cross a picket line, and he has had to cancel at least one other event as the pickets strike on. If a Cabinet Minister is already at the unions’ mercy, what chance do the general public have? We have heard about positive trade union benefits, but it is not all sunlit uplands. One rail union refuses to let bosses use email for rotas, insisting on fax machines— I imagine I am one of the few Members who remembers those. Another left passengers inconvenienced when it ordered members not to use a footbridge as it had a skim of snow on it no thicker than the icing on a cake. They must be licking their lips at clauses that remove previous thresholds for strike action such as the 50% turnout requirement and the 40% support requirement. I think the public will support amendments that would keep existing benchmarks as modest guardrails, not to crack down on unions but to limit the damage that hotheads might inflict. This skimpy Bill, cobbled together with indecent haste to meet Labour’s “first 100 days” deadline, bears all the hallmarks of a thank you note from Labour to its union backers. If it passes, the unions are going to party like it’s 1979. However, Labour Members pocketing supposedly pristine union donations should have a care, because that 1979 winter of discontent saw the public lose patience with a Labour Prime Minister captured by the unions. History does not repeat precisely, but this does look awfully familiar.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Changes to APR and BPR: Number of Farms Affected · Hansard source

  More

  3. What estimate she has made with Cabinet colleagues of the number of farms affected by changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief in Wales.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Changes to APR and BPR: Number of Farms Affected · Hansard source

  More

  The Scotland Office is conducting a series of agricultural roundtables, talking directly to farmers and putting together statistics to push back against the orthodoxy that only a tiny number of very wealthy estates will be affected, which is simply not the case. This increasingly looks like a war on farmers by the Treasury. What part is the Minister playing in fighting back against it?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. He is a very experienced parliamentarian and knows full well that to arrive at this stage with, as we have heard from other Members, a telephone directory of amendments is quite an incredible situation. How could any self-respecting Secretary of State for Business and Trade stand over the anti-growth regulations contained in—but not confined to—parts 1, 2 and 4 of this Bill? Even a trainee solicitor can see that they strip out flexibility for both employees and employers, making it less likely that people—especially young people and people with sketchy backgrounds—will be hired for that all-important first job. Whither your employee rights if you have no job? As someone who bends his elbow, I am familiar with the occasionally coarse atmosphere in pubs. My daughter took a part-time job in a bar while studying at university, but I see nothing useful for her in the Bill’s bid to make employers liable for third-party harassment. It is why I also support our amendment to exclude the hospitality sector from this onerous clause. Aside from the fact that my daughter was well capable of dealing with the rare rude, sexist or obstreperous client under existing laws, clause 18 risks the Bill becoming a snooper’s charter—a busybody’s dream. If our amendment 289 falls, the public bar will no longer be the cockpit of free speech, but placed in the purview of the censorious, and the malicious gauleiters of orthodoxy. Set as we are in a sea of troubles amid global turmoil, are Labour really so afraid of off-colour jokes, or the bar stool crank with outré political views, that it will establish the banter police? One of my criticisms of the Holyrood Parliament in Edinburgh is that it passes “never mind the quality, feel the width” legislation in a bid for self-justification. With this Bill, that accusation could rightly be levelled at this Government, too.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  If growth is the intended destination, as my friends in Dublin would say, “You can’t get there from here”. This Bill—so long on amendments and so short on detail—cannot be reconciled with this Government’s stated mantra of growth, growth, growth. By their own estimate, the Bill will cost business £5 billion—so easily dismissed by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles (Michael Wheeler), despite being a serious amount of money. The only growth will be in the mountain of red tape in which the Bill will snare businesses. I rise to speak in favour of new clause 87, which would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the objective of the “international competitiveness of the economy” and its growth in the medium to long term. The Secretary of State for Business must surely recognise the importance of this—after all, I saw him just days ago in a slick video, with cuts quicker than the shower scene in Hitchcock’s “Psycho”, boasting of “working together abroad to deliver growth at home”. Now, I love a fantasy film as much as anyone, but the Secretary of State is in danger of jumping the shark with this level of sophistry and stretching credulity beyond snapping point. Growth at home is feeble, and this Bill is its enemy. So lacking in detail is this Bill, which was clearly scrabbled together to beat the Government’s own deadline of the first 100 days, that it is the equivalent of a parliamentary blank cheque—sign here, and we will fill in all those pesky details later—handing sweeping powers to the Secretary of State. We are being asked to walk into a cage without a key. I have seen this before with the SNP’s woeful prospectus for Scottish independence in 2014. Scots were bright enough then to see through the smokescreen. Will Members across the House be sharp enough to discern the dangers here?

• 6 Mar 2025 · North Sea Energy · Hansard source

  More

  With due deference to the newly appointed Minister for Aberdeen on the Conservative Benches, the question of these jobs is not a matter purely for the north-east or purely for Scotland. Those 200,000 jobs are spread across every constituency in this country and they are all at risk. As we heard from the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), they are being pushed off a cliff edge. The Minister talked about our energy bills being in the hands of Vladimir Putin. Does she not agree with me that we are stuck between a rock and a hard place? We have Vladimir Putin on one side driving up energy bills and her dogmatic Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero on the other.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Department for Business and Trade · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree that much more needs to be done on international trade. As I said, we lack ambition in this field, because we base so much of what we expect on previous deals. Frankly, there has never been a deal like CPTPP, the putative deal with India and the dripping roast that is a free trade deal with the US. The Department for Business and Trade needs to step up, not be beaten before we even start. Growth is the destination that we in this House should all agree on; the path there is where the disputes lie. We are in an economic relegation zone after a dud Budget. Can the Department for Business and Trade help pull off the shock result that we all need? Britain’s got talent, and the Department for Business and Trade can boost it.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Department for Business and Trade · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, am a member of the Select Committee. Perhaps no other Department has an impact on the lives of so many Britons. The economy affects each and every one of us, and when the Government’s No. 1 priority is the fastest sustained economic growth in the G7, then—to use football parlance—the Chancellor is the midfield general and the Department for Business and Trade is the big striker in the opposition box. The rest of us—all of us—have a spot on the terraces, but oh dear! We have barely kicked off, and we are pinned in our own half. Where is business confidence, given that less than a quarter of the businesses that cheered Labour on, signing a letter ahead of the election, are still waving their red scarves? One said that it now feels “duped”. What of the financial back-up? The eye-catching headline figure in the supplementary estimates is that the Department has been allocated a total funding increase of £1.8 billion, yet that money is largely earmarked for Post Office compensation. It is absolutely right and proper that the victims be compensated quickly, but there should be no pretence that the money is a shot in the arm for DBT. Although the extra £440 million for the British Business Bank is good news, is it enough? This country lacks not for start-ups but for scale-ups, and we hear time and again that a lack of finance from risk-averse banks is the block. Scale matters. The Business and Trade Committee heard only yesterday that although work by the previous Government had created an ideal environment for the emerging technology of quantum computing, Britain has earmarked a few billion pounds for the sector—impressive, until one hears that the United States is injecting over $50 billion. The US’s R&D spend alone is perhaps seven times our total budget in this field. No Government are ever in full control of events, and the storms of war are howling. Even as this Government’s industrial strategy is being shaped, defence is now the utmost priority. If we as a nation are not secure, we are not a nation. Wars are fought in trenches and on myriad battlefields, but they are won in boardrooms and on the shop floors and shipyards of industry. Economic growth, then, is a key arrow in the British quiver. But do these estimates give us hope for growth? Rather than confidently striking out for new global deals, Britain today looks like a cork in a storm-tossed sea—at the mercy of events, and not their master. On a Business and Trade Committee visit to Brussels, we explored what the Government might expect of their much-vaunted reset of relations. Troublingly, Britain lacks for any clear definition of its ask beyond warm words about defence and security, yet the EU, being made up of good protectionists, already has an invoice drawn up. We have acceded to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership—that is not easy to say, especially with these teeth. It covers a bloc of over 500 million people and includes countries such as Australia, Canada, Japan and Singapore, and economies that are ripe to bloom, such as Vietnam and Malaysia, in contrast to the sunset economies of Europe, which have sclerotic growth. Yet we are told that trade deals take up British GDP only marginally. We lack ambition.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Autumn Budget 2024: Business Confidence · Hansard source

  More

  13. What discussions she has had with businesses on the potential impact of the autumn Budget 2024 on levels of business confidence.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Autumn Budget 2024: Business Confidence · Hansard source

  More

  The Chancellor, with her unimpeachable record in the sector, will know that economics is known as the dismal science. As a member of the Business and Trade Committee, rather than using second-hand statistics, I have spoken directly with businesses one to one and found that the mood is indeed dismal. After her dud Budget, can she think again and go back on this desperate jobs tax? She is in danger of becoming tough on growth and tough on the causes of growth.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  “Scottish soldiers could be in Ukraine by end of the year”, was the headline in The Herald newspaper this morning, based on quotes from First Minister John Swinney in answer to questions from the BBC. Notwithstanding that the British armed forces have many fine and gallant young Scots serving with them, can the Prime Minister confirm that the decision on—indeed, the burden of— deploying British troops anywhere sits with him and with this House, and not with a divisive First Minister and the head of a devolved Administration.

• 27 Feb 2025 · St David’s Day and Welsh Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  It is wonderful to hear that my hon. Friend has a new string to her bow. She makes the point about the many ways in which we are connected and share heritage across the country. We are celebrating St David’s Day, and we all have our own local saints and national saints, but is it not marvellous that ultimately we all come together as one nation—the United Kingdom—and that more unites us than divides us?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Family Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  Britain’s got talent! Right across this great land we have many clever people innovating and working hard. As a member of the Business and Trade Committee, I have been in places as far apart as Exeter and Glasgow, talking with people who make everything from satellites to sausage rolls. The mood, however, is not good. The strivers are still striving, straining every sinew to deliver success, but confidence is not so much on the floor as deep in the cellars below. In my constituency I spoke to a family firm of bakers who had modest expansion plans—two or three extra staff drawn from the ranks of youngsters who might struggle to find that all-important first job. Those plans are parked; those youngsters, for all I know, are on the dole. Similarly, The Usual Place, a charity in Dumfries that provides wonderful opportunities for youngsters in catering, is making cutbacks. Six people will lose their jobs as the reality of the anti-business agenda—designed in No. 11 Downing Street—bites. When we, in government, proposed raising national insurance to fund the NHS, one Labour Back Bencher denounced it as the “worst possible tax rise”. Now that same politician is Chancellor, and the tune has changed. And spare us the claim that Labour’s manifesto pledge on national insurance covered only that paid directly by employees, which is sophistry—sheer sophistry. We lack not for start-ups in Britain, but we struggle for scale-ups—the firms that expand and grow. Family businesses are often among the front rank of successful scale-ups, as their multi-generational nature and the investment, literal and metaphorical, of senior figures imbues stability. The Prime Minister talks a good game, but talk is cheap, and his actions have expensive consequences. He said that he and his Chancellor had made it clear to Cabinet colleagues that in each of their briefs “growth is the number one mission”. Well, the Deputy Prime Minister did not hear—perhaps her rave music was too loud—for how is growth compatible with her Employment Rights Bill, which the Government’s own analysis says will cost businesses up to £5 billion a year. That is £5 billion, when grandparents are in tears as family farms face being split up; £5 billion, when families who have been in business for decades look at their bottom line and despair? The worst aspect of that Bill is the premise that all trade union organisers are saints and all business owners are robber barons intent on exploiting the workers. [ Interruption. ] The unions are restive. The Secretary of State for Scotland would not attend a reception in his own magnificent Dover House because of a picket line—and how ironic that the meeting was with the Scottish CBI. Now those same strikers have forced the cancellation of a Scotland Office event with National Air Traffic Services. I have said it before, and I make no apology for saying it again: “Unions gonna party like it’s 1979.” Labour Members see business as a dripping roast to be devoured, taxed to a standstill, and not much mischief if it fails. They perceive a nobility in the public sector when they see only avarice in the private sector, but they are as wrong about that as they are about profit being a dirty word. The drivers of growth are in the private sector. They deserve our admiration and, more important, our support. What can the Government do for them? How about getting out of the way? How about less legislation, not more? How about less petty regulation, and more can-do attitude? How about lightening the tax load, not adding to it? Labour needs to step away from its anti-business policies so that firms in every part of the country can step up with wealth creation, with the private sector leading the charge.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Defence and Security · Hansard source

  More

  Scotland wants to play its full part in this great national endeavour at this moment of peril, yet, almost incredibly, tomorrow the Scottish Parliament will discuss stripping defence companies of state funding. It is remarkable. The measure may not pass, of course, and I certainly hope it does not. Will the defence industrial strategy take into account what is happening in Scotland, where certain elements seem to be siding with other national interests, so that we can protect our defence industry and this great country?

• 13 Feb 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  It is a truism from ancient Roman times that if we want peace, we must prepare for war, and I am glad the strategic defence review is preparing us for war—sadly—although in slow motion, unfortunately. Will the SDR consider the unlocked back door that is Ireland, which sits outwith NATO? It is clear that alarm bells are ringing in NATO, but Ireland, cash rich, sits outside NATO and has a critical role in defending undersea cables. We learn from the Irish press that its navy is setting sail without sufficient officers to man its main guns—it is sending out gunboats without guns. What can we do to encourage Ireland to play a full role in what will, I think, be a confrontation with Russia?

• 11 Feb 2025 · Clonoe Inquest · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pity that no one from the Defence Front-Bench team is here with us because I am sure that if they were, they could confirm that the DShK machine gun that these men had is a weapon of incredible power. If we were to look around the average city block, there would be nothing that a DShK could not hit and put a bullet right through. We now sit here warm and safe and consider the actions of, as we have heard, brave men who had to take an instantaneous decision to stand up and face that weapon and the people who had already demonstrated that they were prepared to use it. It sticks in the craw that we hear the IRA described here as a “unit”—as though they were some sort of army. They style themselves as an army, but they are not an army—they are a murder gang, simple as that. Is it not the case that the ECHR now skews the balance in their favour, and that we are hide-bound by the idea that there is an equivalence between the IRA and the brave soldiers of the SAS who stood up and did what they had to do to protect innocent lives?

• 10 Feb 2025 · Rosebank and Jackdaw Oilfields · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has talked long and loud about confidence in the industry, but disappearing investment does not engender any confidence. The 200,000 people employed in the oil and gas sector in this country will look askance at GB Energy, which looks less like the second prize and more like the booby prize. The point is that the oil and gas that we are taking from the North sea fulfils existing demand; it does not create new demand. It keeps the lights on in our homes, shops, offices and schools right now.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T5. We pressed the Government to extend continuity of education allowances to 100% for service families. We were told that there would be no exemptions from the depredations of the decision to impose VAT on school fees, but it turns out that the children of American servicemen and women are exempt. Would it not be fair to extend that exemption to the men and women who serve our country?

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I represent Dumfries and Galloway, which is the land of milk and slurry. With due deference to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and his super-valuable land, we have some of the most productive grassland in the whole country. The point that the farmers there make to me all the time—they do not, by the way, have the large estates, but are small and often tenant farmers—is that Treasury Ministers, like accountants, often know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. That is the situation. There is a fundamental misunderstanding about the reliefs. They are not loopholes; they were specifically put in place to allow multigenerational farming to continue. One of my farmers, Robert, who farms near Moniaive, said: “APR and BPR are not, as has been suggested, ‘loopholes’ but targeted and necessary reliefs designed to allow multi-generational farming businesses to contribute towards food production and economic growth.”

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but as he can hear from Opposition Members it has repeatedly been called a loophole. I have been told in the main Chamber that I am scaremongering, which is not right either. That is nonsense—the fear out there is real. Listen to the noise outside. The people outside are not multimillionaires; they are not shroud waving for the sake of it and are not exploiting a loophole. This is a bit like red diesel—again, I suspect, the Minister does not even know what that is. Red diesel is priced cheaply, and that has a direct link with, and effect on, the price of food that we pay in our shops. The whole system is designed, first and foremost, to ensure food security and to deliver quality food at low prices. We have heard about tweaks and so forth, but it is not for me to suggest tweaks. The Government are in power with a huge majority; they must think again and it is not, as I say, for me to sit down to write out specifics for them. They have the ability not to make a great screeching U-turn, but to make the tweaks that can protect this most important and vital industry. Will the Minister please take away the message he has heard today—including the change of tone from those on the Benches behind him—that this is a real and serious problem? Changes can be made. It is not too late.

• 4 Feb 2025 · UK-US Bilateral Relationship · Hansard source

  More

  I agree completely. I was privileged to join my hon. Friend at Tartan Week in America, which is a key showcase for all things Scottish. We are lucky that President Trump is effectively an Ayrshire businessman, since he owns a golf course in Scotland. If the Chagos deal were in effect vetoed by America, would our Foreign Secretary dare continue, in the event of such mortification? What price Downing Street’s hostage-to-fortune claim that the Foreign Secretary will still be in post at the next election? If their 3-amp fuses do not blow too soon, perhaps our underpowered team might get to discuss defence with America. The US wants NATO to pull its budgetary weight. Might we hear today where Labour are with plans to lift defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, given the first casualty of their mishandling of the economy has been growth? Will it happen, and when? If we are moving ever closer to faceless and distant Strasbourg and Brussels, as yesterday’s visit by the PM surely signposts, we ought to consider Ireland, which sums up America’s issue with European freeloading on defence. Ireland is not in NATO, yet is under the aegis of the British-supplied nuclear deterrent. The undersea cables that see US tax dollars converted to euros and piled into the coffers of Dublin are at risk from Putin’s shadow fleet. Those data cables are as critical today as were the convoys from America and Canada during the battle of the Atlantic, and every bit as vulnerable. The country’s only defence, since Ireland has zero underwater capability, is Britain—the same Britain Ireland is happy to traduce in international courts over the troubles. We have a rare window of opportunity with Mr Trump and his White House team, but the puerile insults keep coming. The titanic struggle playing out now is between the oldest superpower, the United States, and the newest, China. Europe, prickling with full outrage at the new US President, is sidelined. It is, at best, indifferent to the UK and wants to make even new defence agreements transactional, all about commercial deals, even as the fires of conflict blaze. China need not be our enemy, but it is not our friend. Its industrial heft means genuine competition in many areas is impossible. Its annual production of batteries is sufficient for global needs—no wonder UK plans for a gigafactory have come to nothing. We must seek every advantage we can, and the US offers the most fertile ground. We speak the same language, George Bernard Shaw’s adage that we are two nations separated by a common language notwithstanding. The late unpleasantness of the American revolution is in the rear-view mirror. We have a shared history of standing for liberty, and our transatlantic co-operation on defence is unmatched. US forces are the big stick; they see ours as a precision scalpel. Labour does not lack for numbers in this Parliament. Is there no one in their serried ranks who can see that an anglophile US President, a man of immense pragmatism, offers us a chance to form a mutually beneficial relationship and perhaps a full trade deal—or are they the new model terracotta army, which looks impressive from a distance, but which sits mute, eyes painted on, as their leaders tread the same old worn and fruitless path to Brussels and show a bit of ankle to China? Enough of Oliver Twist: “Please Mr Xi and Ms von der Leyen, may we have some more?” In 1942, Prime Minister Winston Churchill boarded a flying boat on Loch Ryan in my Dumfries and Galloway constituency, destination the United States. His message then was, “let us go forward together”. —[ Official Report , 13 May 1940; Vol. 360, c. 1502.] We should deliver the same message to Washington today.