Nick Timothy MP: speeches

277 published records · newest first.

Speeches

20 Nov 2024 · Police Reform · Hansard source
More
You’re in charge now.
14 Nov 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source
More
In July, the Home Secretary made claims to the House about her asylum policies that appear to be untrue. The impact assessment that she published at the time was contradicted in a letter sent to me by her permanent secretary, which appeared to reveal double counting of migrants, enabling the Home Secretary to inflate the statistics that she was citing. I have raised this in Westminster Hall with the Minister with responsibility for migration, and with the Home Secretary here in the House. I have written to the Home Secretary, but have received no reply. I have submitted a written parliamentary question asking when she will reply, and I have been fobbed off. Will the Leader of the House tell the Home Secretary to come to the House and make a statement? This is really, really important.
14 Nov 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source
More
Hear, hear!
14 Nov 2024 · National Insurance Contributions: Healthcare · Hansard source
More
In Suffolk, the national insurance increase creates £11 million of additional pressures on adult social care alone. I do not think the Minister understands that she is not just engaged in some party political knockabout with Conservative Members; GPs, hospices, care homes and pharmacies are watching this debate and are looking to the Minister for answers. They know that this problem was caused by the Government’s tax rise, which is being implemented without a plan for them, so can she tell them when a solution is going to be brought forward by the Government? When are they going to get reassurance about their future?
12 Nov 2024 · National Grid: Energy Mix · Hansard source
More
China’s largest offshore floating wind turbine company, Ming Yang Smart Energy, plans to build its first manufacturing plant outside China in Scotland. Ming Yang benefits from huge subsidies in China, but there are serious questions about energy security and national security. The Secretary of State says he wants to end reliance on foreign autocrats, but when he was asked about this on the radio this morning, he had no answer. Will the Minister rule out allowing any turbines that might be controlled by hostile states?
12 Nov 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source
More
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and to my right hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman has presented an argument that is based on the principle that hereditary peerages are wrong. Will he give us a clear, principled argument in favour of life peerages? Why does he believe that that is acceptable when those peers can legislate for a lifetime—for decades—with no accountability at all?
12 Nov 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source
More
Neither do life peers.
12 Nov 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source
More
rose —
12 Nov 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source
More
Instead of saying that we need a debate in future on whether such a reform might risk disestablishment, will the hon. Gentleman explain what he considers to be the legal and constitutional consequences that would risk disestablishing the Church?
11 Nov 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source
More
According to the census, 72% of Somalis here live in social housing, compared with 16% of the population overall. In answer to my written question, the Department says it is “exploring the feasibility” of publishing benefits claimed by nationality, which is important for a proper debate on benefits policy and immigration policy. Can the Minister confirm that that work is going ahead and tell us when the data will be published?
4 Nov 2024 · Curriculum and Assessment Review · Hansard source
More
I think parents will be quite alarmed by the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer), as it had very little focus on academic attainment. The Education Secretary appointed Becky Francis, who attacked the Blair Government for their obsession with academic achievement. The National Education Union denies that school accountability should be at the heart of our assessment system, which is wrong, so will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to rule out scrapping SATs in year 6?
4 Nov 2024 · Curriculum and Assessment Review · Hansard source
More
19. What progress the independent curriculum and assessment review has made.
4 Nov 2024 · Budget: Implications for Farming Communities · Hansard source
More
Farming families in West Suffolk feel deep anxiety, in common with those in other constituencies, as hon. Members from across the House have explained. When those families hear the Minister say that they do not understand the detail, or that they should listen to commentators who agree with the Minister but not them—commentators who probably have nothing to do with farming in the first place—they will be furious with him. Will the Minister apologise to those people? If it is not such a big deal, will he explain why more than 130,000 people have already signed the NFU petition telling him to change the policy?
4 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source
More
What a relief, Madam Deputy Speaker—thank you. Before the election, Labour promised to increase taxes by £8.5 billion, spending by £9.5 billion and borrowing by £3.5 billion, but last week it raised taxes by £40 billion, spending by £76 billion and borrowing by £36 billion. There is no mandate whatever for this Budget. I agree with one claim made by the Chancellor: our economy does need investment to grow. The pity is that her Budget will fail to do it. The Red Book says that the capital budget for the Department for Transport will be cut by 3.1% by 2025-26. The Chancellor says that she wants to crowd in private investment, but the OBR says that her Budget crowds it out. We know that much of the public investment will be wasted on the Energy Secretary’s schemes. The Chancellor is giving him borrowed billions to guarantee returns to investors for technologies that the market does not back. Because the Chancellor has changed the accounting rules—something that in opposition she said she would not do—we know that the cost of failed investments will be hidden and they will be presented as assets with fictional value. This is where the Chancellor is leading us into dangerous territory. She has already made Government borrowing more expensive, and the bond markets are trickier than they were. British pension funds now own only about a quarter of outstanding gilts. Demand is falling as defined-benefit schemes have closed and existing schemes mature. The value of gilts needing to be sold each year is about £140 billion, which is 5% of GDP, and gilt yields have risen since the Budget. Even if interest rates are cut this week, they will stay higher for longer because of her decisions. And for what? The Chancellor admits that growth in GDP per capita will average only 1.2% a year for the rest of the decade. She is taxing family farms. She is taxing businesses and GPs. She is taxing jobs, and businesses are already planning to reduce headcount. We know she will be back for more, because she will not cut departmental budgets as she forecasts from 2026-27. We know that the priority is not growth. If it were, the Chancellor would not have announced such a relentlessly anti-business Budget. Instead, the priority is Labour’s own vested interests, because if public sector productivity is the goal, why hose money at the unions without linking pay to reform and why make it easier to strike? Where is the supply-side plan to reduce the cost of building infrastructure? There is no sign that the Government want to strip back the layers of regulation, when its beneficiaries are Labour-supporting vested interests such as environmental and administrative lawyers. This Budget does not fail because of its dishonesty and absence of mandate, but because it fails in its own terms. It taxes and borrows and spends, and its own small print says that it will fail to improve growth, wages, public services and the public finances.
4 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source
More
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
29 Oct 2024 · Sustainable Public Finances · Hansard source
More
Under the last Government, the Chancellor said that interest rates and gilt yields were driven by Government policy. Will the Chancellor guarantee that neither will rise higher than they did under the Conservatives?
29 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source
More
I shall speak briefly about amendment 6 tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho). In this debate, we have heard much from Government Members about cleaner and cheaper energy, not much of which has been connected to reality. This has been exposed by Labour’s campaigning before the election, promising £300 off bills, only to drop that commitment as soon as the party entered government. That disconnect, as I have said, has been present throughout the debate. Blind faith in renewable technology without the acceptance of the intermittency challenges and costs of wind and solar will lead to less security of supply and higher costs for industry and households. We cannot allow policy to run faster than technology without risking a crisis in the grid and, therefore, in our economy. We need baseload power, which means nuclear—where the Secretary of State is going slow—and oil and gas, where the Secretary of State is refusing new licences. To pursue the ideological objectives of the Secretary of State, we see giant solar farms forced on communities like mine, against expert advice by examining authorities, contrary to the quasi-judicial responsibilities of the Secretary of State and dependent on solar panels made by slaves in Xinjiang. I say enough of the nonsense about fossil fuels and the dependence on dictators. Tomorrow the Chancellor of the Exchequer will announce her intention to borrow to invest. We know that the borrowing will not just be for investment, but what investment there is will be dominated by energy schemes that will cost more to do less. We do have an underinvested economy, but net zero zealotry will make the problem worse, not better.
29 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source
More
If the hon. Gentleman is so confident in the policies of his Front Bench, will he take this moment to use the words that were used before the election by the Energy Secretary? He can repeat after me if it makes it easier: “We will cut bills by £300.”
28 Oct 2024 · Middle East · Hansard source
More
Today, as on other recent occasions, we have heard Labour Members suggest that Israel is somehow conducting a war of annihilation, extermination and genocide. Although we all accept that there is obviously much suffering in Gaza, this terminology is completely inappropriate and inaccurate, and it is repeated by the protesters and lawbreakers who are intimidating British Jews, as we saw again this weekend. Will the Foreign Secretary take this opportunity to say that there is not a genocide occurring in the middle east?
28 Oct 2024 · Planning Reform · Hansard source
More
Ministers dropped the last Government’s plan for the development of Cambridge and connections to nearby towns including Haverhill in my constituency. When will the Government come forward with an integrated plan to develop Cambridge and improve road and rail links to towns like Haverhill?
28 Oct 2024 · Fiscal Rules · Hansard source
More
If the Minister is so confident in his fiscal rules, will he take this opportunity to commit to the House that the 10-year gilt yield in this Parliament will not exceed the maximum it was over the past 10 years?
28 Oct 2024 · China: Human Rights and Sanctions · Hansard source
More
Ambiguity can sometimes be helpful in diplomacy, but it is less helpful when answering a direct question about the actions of the Government here at home. The Foreign Secretary has been somewhat evasive in answering some of the questions today, so let me ask just one of them again. Did any of his officials play any part in the decision to stop the visit by President Tsai, the former President of Taiwan—yes or no?
24 Oct 2024 · Horseracing · Hansard source
More
I agree emphatically with my hon. Friend. I do not think this is a party political matter at all. We are all in this room regardless of our party badges because we know the importance of horseracing to our constituents and to our local economies and the country. A lot of the beneficiaries of the British horseracing industry reside in rural and semi-rural areas and regional towns. We spend a lot of time talking in this House about how we are going to improve the regional economy and racing is a really important part of that economy. To return to my point, we do not have time to go backwards. As part of the work that I referred to, my third question is: will the Minister commit in this debate to the principle of a higher levy? In 2022-23, the levy raised £105 million, but the British Horseracing Authority estimates that an indexed yield of at least £133.5 million is needed for a sustainable future for racing. Fourthly, will the Government reform the way in which the levy works? It is anomalous and nonsensical that the levy should apply to bets placed here on the races in this country, but not on bets placed here on races held overseas. That does not happen in Ireland or France, which derive significant income from the best British meetings, and we are penalising our own industry. I note that the Gambling Minister, Baroness Twycross, has committed to “making sure that the levy is administered efficiently to best support racing.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 29 July 2024; Vol. 839, c. 801.] Indeed, I think the way in which the levy works is a vital part of that commitment. Fifthly, following the Secretary of State’s encouragement that “we cannot believe everything we read in the papers”— [ Official Report , 17 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 969.] as somebody who sometimes writes in The Daily Telegraph , I demur—can the Minister rule out today the reported Treasury plan to increase taxes on bookmakers? If the idea is to crack down on problem gambling, such a blanket policy would be like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and would obviously damage the racing industry. Sixthly, and finally—you might be grateful to hear that, Sir Edward—the Secretary of State rightly wants to “strike the right balance” to prevent problem gambling while also protecting the racing industry and responsible gambling, which she says “brings joy to many people.” —[ Official Report , 17 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 968.] Will the Government commit today to ensuring proportionality in their efforts to stop problem gambling? Even though Parliament has not legislated for affordability checks, as the gambling review has dragged on, bookmakers are operating pilot checks at the behest of the Gambling Commission. The idea was that those checks would be frictionless, and we were told that eight in 10 people placing bets would never undergo checks, but we know that punters are being asked to provide bank statements and payslips to prove they can afford their bets. Nobody wants to see problem gambling go untackled, but the rate of problem gambling on horseracing is comparable with that of many national lottery products, and affordability checks are already driving people away from legal betting on horseracing and on to the ever-growing offshore black market through online accounts, where of course there are no safeguards at all. While the numbers for viewing and attendance at races is at least the same as it was before affordability checks, we know that betting turnover, and therefore racing income, is down by 20% in two years. Independent analysis for the Racecourse Association has forecast a £250-million hit to racing over the next five years, and the BHA says that one in seven jobs in the sport could be lost because of that issue alone. We need to appreciate the difference between gambling on racing or other sports, and the fixed-margin gambling online and in casinos that drives so much addiction and suffering. If we do not, it will be to the detriment of the racing industry and the enjoyment, employment and prosperity that it brings to so many. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
24 Oct 2024 · Horseracing · Hansard source
More
Unfortunately for you, Sir Edward, I would like that very much. I thank everybody who participated in this really constructive debate. We have learned a lot—and not just about the dubious music tastes of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp). I took the hint from the hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden), and I will extend an invitation to all hon. Members who participated in the debate to come and see the delights that Newmarket has to offer. There was strong agreement from Members from all parties on the six issues I raised. I will not repeat them, but I want to say something in response to the Minister’s answer, for which I am grateful. I note and appreciate the warmth of her words and those of the Secretary of State in the main Chamber last Thursday. I appreciate that it is early days for the Government, and that Ministers often need time to familiarise themselves with the challenges, but I gently say that Labour Members are in government now; they are not shadow Ministers. Being in government means that they have power, and it may not be enough to convene conversations between interested parties and hope that we might reach voluntary agreements. In the end, Ministers often need to decide. On each of the points made by the Minister, I encourage her and the Secretary of State to go a little further. It is easy for us all to agree on the ends, but when we agree on the ends, we have to determine the means. Sometimes that will involve making decisions that some of the interested parties might not like to hear. Sometimes people assume that the racing and gambling industries’ interests are coterminous, but they are not. Therefore, I invite Ministers to intervene on such issues. Specifically on including overseas races in the levy, as on other issues, there was a high degree of consensus among all those who contributed to the debate. Obviously, an opportunity is coming up—I do not know whether the Budget has been put to bed, but a Finance Bill will follow, and that is the easiest change in the world to make. From a Government perspective, it is cost-free, and it would make sense for British racing. The Minister noted the difference in structures and financing of racing in countries such as Ireland and France, but the debate has exposed the extent to which the industries in those countries stand in an advantageous position compared with ours. I press the Minister once more on that. I thank everyone for participating in the debate and you, Sir Edward, for your excellent skills in the Chair.
24 Oct 2024 · Horseracing · Hansard source
More
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The racing industry is connected to many associated industries and many different kinds of jobs. As I said, when people see the large sums that are invested in bloodstock and so on, they do not always see that the industry rests on thousands of people, many of whom are on low incomes.

Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →