Mark Ferguson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 21 Oct 2025 · Co-operative Sector: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  I have to make progress—sorry. Additionally, the Government asked the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority to produce, by the end of 2025, a report on the wider mutuals landscape, which is well under way. The Government are continuing to fund the Law Commission’s independent review of the legislation that governs co-operative societies in Great Britain, which is expected to be published later this year. That review will consider ways to update and modernise the legislation for co-operatives and community benefit societies, including on methods of raising capital, to ensure that those societies operate in a supportive regulatory and legislative environment. That is exactly the sort of access to capital that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North referenced. The Government look forward to reviewing the report when it is published, and will consider its recommendations closely. Of course, our commitment to doubling the size of the sector is an ambitious target that requires a cross-Government effort, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton rightly noted. The Treasury works closely with other Departments on achieving that ambition, and will continue to do so, and the Department for Business and Trade has also taken steps to support the sector. It has announced a call for evidence to explore how the Government can better support co-operatives, and has included co-operatives and alternative business models in its business support initiatives, such as the growth hubs and the business growth service. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has provided support for co-operatives in its Pride in Place strategy. Its new co-operative development unit will work closely with local and combined authorities to support the growth of local co-operative and mutual economies. Beyond those examples, Departments across Government, including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, have been considering how the co-operative sector can support their priorities. This is a united, cross-Government effort that reflects our commitment to a diverse and resilient economy with a range of business models. As today’s discussion has shown, the Government remain committed to supporting the growth of the co-operative sector now and in the future, recognising the important role of co-operatives and mutuals in our economy. I thank all Members who spoke in this important debate—because co-operation is an essential part of rebuilding Britain.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Co-operative Sector: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend intervened on my maiden speech, which is slightly irregular, and now he has intervened on my first outing at the Dispatch Box. Co-operatives have a wide variety of uses in the economy and I am sure that the Department and the Government more broadly will consider them. Their importance in community cohesion is certainly not lost on me or, I am sure, on other Members here. On the shadow Minister’s question about cash ISAs, cash savings are important for people looking to put cash away for a rainy day, and the Government will protect that. The Chancellor has been clear that she wants to get Britain investing again so that companies can grow and so British savers who choose to can get more in return. Given that I am here merely on behalf of my hon. and learned Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, I am even less tempted than usual to comment on the future Budget. I want to acknowledge the importance of discussing the mutual sector, of which co-operatives are a huge part. According to research by Co-operatives UK, the 10,000 co-operatives I mentioned not only have £179 billion of income, but employ 1.3 million people in our economy. Britain has a rich history of mutuality, from co-operatives and community benefit societies to credit unions, mutual insurers and friendly societies. For example, this year marks the 250th anniversary of the first ever building society, which was founded in Birmingham with the principles that still guide the sector today. The modern co-operative movement was born in Britain, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton noted. In 1844, a small group of artisans from Rochdale came together to form the first modern co-operative, the Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Co-operative Sector: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  That point is very well made, and my hon. Friend is right to be proud of his forebears, who were doughty working-class politicians and representatives of his area, as he is. The Rochdale principles, established by the Rochdale pioneers, have formed the basis of modern ideals for the operation of co-operatives across the globe. The UN General Assembly declared 2025 to be the International Year of Co-operatives, recognising the positive impact that co-operatives have around the world. The Government have made clear their strong commitment to supporting the co-operative sector, and we have already begun to make our commitment a reality. At her Mansion House speech last November, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced measures to support the growth of co-operatives. That included welcoming the establishment of an industry-led mutual and co-operative sector business council, which is already providing a powerful voice for the sector. The Government have been working closely with the council to understand what the sector needs to grow further, and the council has been developing sector growth plans, which we look forward to receiving.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Co-operative Sector: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. Please do not adjust your sets: I am not the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. But I am very pleased to be here on her behalf for my first stint at the Dispatch Box. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) for securing this important debate. He is a huge asset not only to our party and his constituents but to the Co-operative party, which he proudly serves as chair. I must declare that I am a recently rejoined member of the Co-operative party. I did not know that I would be doing this debate when I joined, but it is a pleasure for it to have come round so soon. As so many others have done, I note the sterling work of the party’s general secretary, Joe Fortune. I also want to recognise the party’s fantastic head of politics, Caitlin Prowle, who I am sure has put a huge amount of work into this debate. The level of interest in this topic reflects the Government’s strong support for the co-operative sector and underlines how important it is to ensure that the sector continues to grow, thereby supporting local people and communities. It also reinforces why, in our manifesto, we committed to doubling the size of the co-operative and mutual sector. I thank colleagues from across the House for their thoughtful contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) talked about the importance of community housing. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) talked about the Metro Moneywise credit union, which is clearly building on the legacy of the Rochdale pioneers. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) spoke about new forms of co-operative support. It would not be a first appearance at the Dispatch Box without the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon); I thank him for his very kind words, and I know how important the co-operative sector is in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) gave great examples of the importance of local leadership, including at Leigh Spinners Mill. That organisation was lucky to have her and, after a brief absence, we are lucky to have her back in this place. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) talked about a purpose-driven economy and inclusive growth. He does himself down a little, though: he is not as much of an old lag as he sometimes pretends to be. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) talked about the breadth of the co-operative sector and the opportunities for her community presented by devolution—on which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton did such sterling work as a Labour Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott)—I hope Ipswich coming straight after Norwich is not a point of contention—spoke about the role of the community in shaping the future of his town. That is something we on the Government side of the House are incredibly keen on. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) talked about one of my favourite topics: social clubs and their important role in the community. They are part of our past but, increasingly, also part of our future. We should all seek to support them, both politically and with the pounds in our pockets. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) talked about how co-operative principles can be applied to modern challenges, while my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) made the second-earliest reference, to 1862—not quite as far back as the Rochdale pioneers, but pretty good. He also mentioned Hengistbury Head Outdoors and called on local people to invest, which sounds very sensible for people in that area. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) said we are “the doers”. Not only that, but she is a doer for her constituents in a world of talkers, and we all thank her for that. I welcome the support of the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), for the co-op sector. While I expect some disagreement with the Government, I think we can agree that this was an agreeable debate on all sides. She made the important point that co-ops are more likely to be led by women than the average for the FTSE 100. That is another mark in favour of the co-operative sector. As for the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), he said before I started that everything that needs to be said has been said—a bit of a challenge, but I can take it on my first outing. We all welcome a new co-operator, don’t we? He joined over the course of the debate. After the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has read Hansard tonight, before bed, which I am sure she will—as we all do every night—she will write back to him on the point about the British Business Bank. The Government look forward to the Law Commission review coming out. I certainly did not expect references to the potential mutualisation of Thames Water or Icelandic trade unionism—I hope that one day both may be discussed more broadly on the Opposition Benches—but the mutualisation of Thames Water is not Government policy. The Government are committed to doubling the size of the mutuals sector, as has been discussed. According to the 2025 co-operative and mutual economy report, there are currently over 10,000 mutual and co-operative businesses in the UK, with an annual income of £179.2 billion. What doubling means will differ for different parts of the sector.

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My long-standing views on reform of our Parliament can be looked up by any Member if they so wish. I very much welcomed, both on Second Reading and from the Front Bench today, the comments on the future reform of the Lords and what that might look like. However, I dare say to the hon. Gentleman that we might agree on some specific aspects more than he imagines. There has not been much discussion of Lords amendment 2, on Ministers’ pay. I welcome the Conservative party’s stout defence of working people and of ensuring that people are paid what they are owed. We have also heard references to equalities law from the Opposition Benches, and I welcome that. I just think it is such as a shame that it is only being applied specifically and uniquely to hereditary peers. As Conservative Members well know, there is a limit on the number of Ministers who can be paid. I think that is right and I do not believe that now is the right time to expand the cost of our politics with more paid Ministers. However, if the Conservative party believes, genuinely and deep down in its soul, that it needed to have more paid Ministers, it had 14 years of Government in which it could have done that, rather than tacking it on as a distraction from the issue at hand here, which is incrementally but crucially reforming our constitution. I support the Government’s position on all the amendments. Let us get on with this. We have had 62 hours of debate—and counting. Let us crack on. It has been 1,100 years; I think it is time to cut it short.

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That is a fascinating argument. The hon. Gentleman has argued in favour of the Lords for their restraint, and now he is arguing in favour of the Lords because they allow radicalism. That does not make any sense.

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I delighted to inform the right hon. Member about the parliamentary Labour party’s Back-Bench committee, which meets the Prime Minister weekly when Parliament is sitting. I see at least one of my hon. Friends from the committee here— [ Interruption. ] In fact, there are two here. Staffordshire is well represented at the moment on the committee, and that is quite right—oatcakes all round for them, and of course for the Prime Minister.

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend, although I do not think that will help me with my diet. However, I am doing the great north run on Sunday so I will probably need the calories. I am happy that we are having the debate, but I am somewhat surprised by its tenor, which runs contrary to the Salisbury convention—its correct name, of course, is the Salisbury-Addison convention; we too often neglect the Labour Member of that important duopoly. It has been surprising—particularly so on Second Reading, when the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), led for the Opposition—that there has not been a more straightforward argument from the Opposition in favour of the hereditary principle, because it seems fairly clear that that is what they are arguing for. I dare say there is a—probably dwindling—proportion of the electorate who wish to see the hereditary principle enshrined within those crucial aspects of our legislature in the scope of our discussions, but no Opposition Members appear willing to make that argument. I am afraid it is an act of constitutional contortion for them to say they merely wish to allow some people to serve out their time. If that is the case, why do we have elections? Many wonderful public servants on both sides of the House lost their seats at the last election; but in this place we believe that, at the will of the people, any of us could be gone—and that is quite right.

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Father of the House give way?

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will happily take a point in a second from my hon. Friend, which I presume will be on the Lords amendment and not on oatcakes, but I wish to respond fully to the point made by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) before I got so distracted. I apologise for that self-distraction, Madam Deputy Speaker. The role of the Lords in our legislature is quite clear, as is the role of the monarch. In fact, I spoke this morning to students from Emmanuel college in my constituency about the three distinct parts of our Parliament: this place, the other place and, of course, the monarch. But the principle under discussion is the ability to introduce, amend or vote on legislation. The King does none of those, so I see no contradiction on that important point of principle. I will now happily accept an intervention.

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This is a fascinating return to the ’90s—like much about the Conservative party—but I think the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has missed the fact that there was an election last year in which the Labour party clearly won a mandate to deliver the removal of hereditary peers. What may or may not have been discussed in the 1990s is for the birds. There was an election. We won that election. We said we were going to do this. Let’s get on with it.

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This has been a suitably fascinating debate. I do not plan to speak for too long, because the points have already been well made. We have had 10 hours here and 52 flippin’ hours in the House of Lords on this concise, four-clause Bill, and now we have a number of amendments. I will address Lords amendments 1 and 2. Lords amendment 1 is fairly straightforward up and down. We know what it is. It is a wrecking amendment, pure and simple. It is nothing more than an amendment designed to preserve the hereditary principle in the House of Lords—a principle that is an outdated anachronism that has no place in 2025 or any modern democracy. The only other comparable democracy is Lesotho. I do not know much about Lesotho, but I would quite like not to share this unenviable record with the good people of Lesotho for any longer. The point has been made that if we do not want the hereditary principle in the House of Lords, perhaps that means that we no longer want the monarchy. Nothing could be further from the truth. As all Members in this place did, I swore an oath of allegiance to the King. I have not always been ardent monarchist, but I support a constitutional monarchy, and one of the many reasons I do is because the monarch has absolutely no role in introducing laws, in amending laws or in voting on laws. The monarch’s role is quite clear and simple: Royal Assent. They do not obstruct the work of this place—rightly so—and yet we have heard so many times today about the guerilla warfare that is being led in the other place against numerous pieces of legislation in retribution against this simple removal of an anachronism. That is not what the King does. Frankly, it is when monarchs have sought to obstruct this House that references to Cromwell are relevant. That is not what the Bill does; it is about removing the hereditary principle from the legislature that develops, scrutinises and delivers legislation. The King may sign it—that is his role.

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Father of the House for giving way. He makes a compelling point about other countries. Would he care to name some other countries that have people sitting in their legislature, able to introduce and vote on legislation, entirely by dint of their parentage? For the life of me, I cannot think of many examples.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Property Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  It is wonderful to be back for another Opposition day debate, as I am sure we can all agree. It is another debate about imagined proposals. It must be a difficult time for Opposition Members, because for so many years, this was the time of year when they were preparing for their conference and for the Budget, but this year, scant attention will be paid to them—and, of course, they are not writing the Budget anymore.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Property Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  Indeed. Thank God the Conservatives are not writing the Budget, because we have seen what their Budgets led to. I understand Opposition Members’ frustration. It is nice to see that they have settled into the most comfortable aspect of being in opposition. As I have said before in these debates, as a Labour party member of many years’ standing, I have a huge amount of experience of the comfort of opposition; you start to create straw men, talk about what the Government might be doing and your fears, rile your supporters, and spark up a bit of concern among them. However, the Opposition are not willing to set out their actual plans for the country. [ Interruption. ] An hon. Friend makes a good point: they do not have any. All the Opposition parties—again, this is the nature of the easy early years of opposition—want the benefits that result from our difficult choices, but they are unwilling to say how they would pay for them. I am sick and tired of listening to the never-never from those on the Opposition Benches. They are confident and comfortable with the imaginarium of the Budget that they believe will happen, but they are unwilling to come up with real, meaningful proposals—incapable of doing so, perhaps. Proposals floated by the Conservatives include cutting maternity pay, means-testing the state pension and attacking the minimum wage. We know the impact of a Conservative Budget: the grotesque chaos caused by Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng. I would call that Budget a bombshell, but bombshells go off only once, and that bombshell is going off in homes and communities across this country every single day. Families on mortgage rates that were fixed for five years or longer would have had lower interest rates now if it had not been for that Budget. Despite the five admirable and welcome interest rate cuts made under this Government, those families will be paying hundreds or thousands of pounds more a year. Opposition Members express concern today for those in valuable homes. Many of those in valuable homes will understandably have significant mortgages, and many of them will have seen their mortgages go up by hundreds or thousands of pounds, thanks to the actions of the previous Government—actions that Opposition Members were cheerleading at the time. We are all still living with the results of those actions. That is not imaginary; that is the real consequences of their Government, and it is what we are trying to put behind us.

• 21 Jul 2025 · Asylum Hotels: Migrant Criminal Activity · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), has spoken passionately about crimes in this country—including, I dare say, some by a number of individuals who entered the country on his Government’s watch when he was a Home Office Minister. As other Members have said, when Opposition parties take that position while voting against tagging asylum seekers who are perceived to be a threat, and against barring from the country those who have been convicted of sexual crimes, it damages not only confidence in our communities but the life chances of asylum seekers who have committed no crimes and have a legitimate claim to be here. Does the Minister agree?

• 15 Jul 2025 · Afghanistan · Hansard source

  More

  As I am sure many Members do, I feel a sense of anger that once again the Afghan people have been betrayed. I thank the Secretary of State for his candour and his response, and for lifting the super-injunction, which will allow proper parliamentary scrutiny, but will he assure me that the following three questions will be answered? First, how was a year allowed to pass between the initial leak and it being uncovered? Secondly, how was an email with a spreadsheet attached considered a serious way to send around what effectively amounted to a kill list of Afghans for the Taliban? Thirdly, the role of James Heappey in overseeing this has been mentioned. What role, if any, was held by the two Secretaries of State for Defence over that time, one who served until August 2023 and one who served from August 2023—to my mind, either side of the information coming to light? If we do not get to the bottom of those questions, we will do an immense disservice to the British people and, worse, to Afghans, who have been let down once again.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions · Hansard source

  More

  As I think Members across the House would agree, Alex Chalk, the former Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, was taken seriously in this place, as were his opinions. He recently said that some cases “could conceivably be dealt with by a judge and two wingers, so reserve the Crown court for the most serious cases… It is helpful to look at which cases should be triable either way and which should be summary only.” Does the Minister agree that it is worth taking note of serious voices like Alex Chalk, rather than the opportunism of the shadow Justice Secretary?

• 8 Jul 2025 · Road and Rail Projects · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State and the Minister for the Future of Roads will be surprised that I am going to break the habit of a lifetime and not talk about the Gateshead flyover for a change. But I am very interested in the structures fund, and I look forward to engaging further with the Department on how we can deliver this vital infrastructure for Gateshead. Instead of the flyover, I want to talk about the delivery of the signalling system for the metro—slightly less exciting for some perhaps, but it is incredibly important. That comes on top of new trains and £1.85 billion of investment, including in a new metro line. Does the Secretary of State agree that investment in the north-east is being delivered because we have a Labour mayor in Kim McGuinness working with Labour MPs and a Labour Government?

• 7 Jul 2025 · Antisocial Behaviour · Hansard source

  More

  25. What recent progress her Department has made on tackling antisocial behaviour.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Antisocial Behaviour · Hansard source

  More

  We have exciting plans for Gateshead town centre, but we have more work to do on antisocial behaviour. Northumbria police’s Operation Shield has brought down antisocial behaviour significantly, but more powers and more officers are needed. What are the Government doing to ensure that the police have both the powers and the resources to tackle persistent antisocial behaviour?