Nick Timothy MP: speeches

Speeches

• 24 Oct 2024 · Horseracing · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure all hon. Members would look forward to a trip to Ludlow to experience the racing. If I am honest—I say this as a Conservative—this issue has dragged on for a while. I will turn to some questions for the Minister shortly, but time is of the essence. As so often with Britain, part of the draw, especially for international investors, traders and spectators, is our history and tradition. Racing in this country dates back more than three centuries, and thoroughbred racing was first created here. The association with royalty, which continues with His Majesty the King, only adds to the prestige—I am sitting next to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin), the most ardent monarchist in the House of Commons. That success story, however, is strangely neglected. To those who do not know the industry, it can sometimes appear to be something of a caricature, with horses selling for millions of pounds, breeders paying hundreds of thousands for a particular stallion to cover a mare, and aristocrats and royals being prominent in their patronage. But the reality of racing, unfortunately, is that its future is far more precarious. Many breeders and trainers operate on tight margins and, as many hon. Members present will affirm, any conversation with them turns quickly to prize money. A horse that wins a top-tier British race increases its future breeding value, but the immediate return is limited compared with in Australia, Ireland and France, where racing benefits from Government support, or in Japan and the United States, where there is simply more money around. The prize fund for the Dubai Turf, for example, is £4.5 million, and for the All-Star Mile in Australia it is £2.7 million. The Queen Anne Stakes in Ascot, which is a fair equivalent, offers £600,000, and the same is true for the less famous races. At an average of £16,000 to be divided by all placed horses, prize money across the board is much lower here than in competitor markets. Lower down the pyramid, most races pay less than £5,000 to the winner. Owner expenditure far outstrips the total prize money up for grabs in British racing. That is down to how the industry is funded. In Japan and Hong Kong, where betting is generally banned, there are exceptions for horseracing and some other sports, because they are seen as being run efficiently and by Government Departments. That means proportionately more bets are placed on horseracing than elsewhere, and in both places the industry controls the gambling. In France, prize money is underwritten by the Pari Mutuel Urbain, which enjoys a monopoly on betting. In Australia, where prize money has almost doubled in a decade, it is funded mostly through a betting tax. In Ireland, more than two thirds of prize money comes directly from the Irish Government. Our system is different. Here the funds come from media rights, executive contributions from racecourses, owners’ entry fees, and the betting levy—a 10% tax on bookmakers’ profits from bets placed on races staged in Britain. Around a third of prize money comes from the levy, but income is falling. Over the past two years, the industry estimates that betting turnover on British racing has fallen by over £1.5 billion and could be as low as £7 billion this year. The Horserace Betting Levy Board says “falling turnover is unlikely to prove a positive for the sport’s long-term health”, and I agree. Nobody expects us to adopt a Japanese or French model, but I ask the Minister how things might be changed so that we can put racing on a sustainable footing and make sure that we retain our position as the best place in the world to breed, train and race horses. First, does the Minister agree with all hon. Members present—this is probably the easiest of my questions— that the British horseracing industry is an undoubted international success story, a source of British soft power around the world, and home to many vital community assets in regional towns here, and that we must therefore do everything in our power to make sure it continues to prosper? Secondly, will the Minister confirm today that the Government will not go back to square one and will instead pick up where their predecessors left off? In May, the British Horseracing Authority agreed with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport that the levy should be increased to 11.5% to create a growth fund to market and promote British racing at home and abroad, and to hold an independent review of the racing funding model.

• 24 Oct 2024 · Horseracing · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for the horseracing industry. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank hon. Members for attending the debate—I know it is a Thursday, but people have shuffled their diaries to attend because of the industry’s importance to all our constituencies and to the country. Racing is, after football, the second most watched sport in the country. About 6 million people attend the races every year, among them people of all ages, 40% of whom are women. Contrary to myth, racing is a cross-class sport—not that we want to use this debate to define working people. British racing is without doubt an international success story. Four of the top 10 races in the world are held here, which is more than in any other country. We have the best bloodstock; our races attract the best horses; and Britain has some of the finest trainers and horses, including modern legends such as Frankel and Enable. Racing, like all sports, is a business and it brings huge economic benefits. The industry is estimated to generate £4.1 billion in direct, indirect and associated expenditure every year. About 85,000 people are employed at race- courses, training yards and breeding operations, and in the betting industry. In Newmarket, racing brings in more than 7,000 jobs and generates hundreds of millions of pounds a year for the local economy.

• 24 Oct 2024 · Special Educational Needs and Disabilities · Hansard source

  More

  Parents in my constituency are not interested in what the Minister thinks about the Conservative party. They may recall that EHCPs were introduced under the coalition Government. They want us to work together to make things better. We all know that a problem with EHCPs has led to a tripling of costs for county councils. In the Westminster Hall debate that the Minister took part in with me recently, she was much more constructive than she is being today, and I would like to believe that that is the approach that she wants to take to these issues. Does she have a timescale for the reform of EHCPs?

• 21 Oct 2024 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is exactly right; I agree. The Government could be backing British business, not burdening it with all these new regulations. Instead, we have an Energy Secretary driving up energy prices, a Chancellor planning a jobs tax, increases to capital gains tax and the imposition of inheritance tax on small family businesses, and a Deputy Prime Minister reregulating the labour market at a cost to business of £5 billion, to pay back the unions who fund the Labour party. The Prime Minister promised us that his priority was “growth, growth, growth”, but like everything else he said before the election, he did not mean it, because the only three things that this Bill will bring are more costs, less investment and fewer jobs.

• 21 Oct 2024 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Earlier, I asked the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) whether there are any business leaders who actually support the Bill. Is my hon. Friend aware of any?

• 21 Oct 2024 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman just quoted the CBI approvingly. Can he name the chief executive of a real business who approves of this Bill?

• 21 Oct 2024 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Government could be doing something about the fact that nearly 22% of the workforce is economically inactive and a record number of men is leaving the labour market. They could be backing British business.

• 21 Oct 2024 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp) on his maiden speech. I look forward to the best dog in the world, Monty, taking on Scooby in the Westminster dog of the year competition. Everybody in the House knows that every Labour Government in history have ended with unemployment higher than when they started. Bills like this are part of the reason why, whatever the intention. If the purpose of this Bill really is to improve workers’ rights, and it is not just about paying back £40 million of union donations made over the past few years, why is there no provision addressing one of the worst labour market abuses in our country: substitution clauses, which allow delivery drivers to lend their identities to others? These clauses are in contracts from huge firms such as Amazon and Deliveroo, and they fuel worker exploitation and immigration crime. We know that hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom cannot work here legally, trade identities. By undercutting British workers and exploiting those with no right to be here, these companies are privatising profits and socialising the costs that they cause, so why is that issue missing from the Bill? Why will the Government do nothing about the international trading system? Countries aiming to run trade surpluses, such as China, hold down their labour costs and destroy industry in deficit countries such as ours. Trade wars, as two authors like to say, are class wars, and the Labour party usually likes to fight a class war, yet this Government want to flood Britain with cheap Chinese electric cars because of the Energy Secretary’s obsession with net zero. That is just one way in which our economic model needs to change, because while the Government’s characterisation of their inheritance is, I am afraid, cynical and wrong, there is a case for economic change, if only the Government were prepared to undertake it. I think the Business Secretary might be one of those capable of doing that, but I am not sure that some of his colleagues are. Today, Ministers could be launching a plan for reindustrialisation, for competitive energy prices, for domestic steel manufacturing and for a strategy taking in better infrastructure, skills and training, planning, regulatory reform and more— [ Interruption. ] Would the hon. Lady like to intervene?

• 21 Oct 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Home Secretary told the House that by ending the retrospective element of the duty to remove she was saving £7 billion in 10 years. The impact assessment assumes that all those subject to the duty would have remained in Britain at a cost to the Home Office, but in his letter to me her permanent secretary said that the sum included the cost of sending the same migrants to Rwanda. I wrote to the Home Secretary about that on 1 September and I have raised it with the Minister for Immigration in Westminster Hall, but I have not had an answer. Can she explain that double counting, and if she cannot, will she apologise for using that statistic in the House of Commons?

• 17 Oct 2024 · Gambling: Harmful Effects · Hansard source

  More

  The horseracing industry, which is a British success story, is dependent on income from responsible gambling. I was glad to hear what the Secretary of State said about responsibly enjoying a flutter. This is nothing like some of the problem gambling that we see online, and the proportion of bets on horseracing that are deemed to be problematic is comparable to the proportion of problematic users of the national lottery. What plans does she have to reform the betting levy and the affordability checks that have been in train for some time?

• 17 Oct 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  An NHS foundation trust is advertising for psychologists to work with children with gender dysphoria. It says that applicants must practise in a gender-affirming manner. That runs completely contrary to what the Cass review said. May we have a statement from the Health Secretary on the implementation of the Cass review in the NHS?

• 15 Oct 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Could the hon. Lady tell the House how many life peerages were given out by the California lobbyist Sir Nicholas Clegg?

• 10 Oct 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Many Members, including reportedly the Health Secretary, have grave concerns about the proposal to legalise euthanasia. Changing the law would change our relationship with the elderly, the infirm and the vulnerable, and risk a broadening scope and abuses of power. On such a serious issue, we need proper consultation and real debate, so instead of rushing this measure through in a private Member’s Bill on a Friday, will Ministers commit to a proper, considered consultation, and then make available Government time for us to carefully address this very serious matter?

• 10 Oct 2024 · Universities: Freedom of Speech · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate the Minister’s constructive tone. She says that she does not want this to be a culture war issue. When the pause was announced by the Secretary of State, special advisers in her Department described the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act to the media as a Tory “hate speech charter”. Will the Minister disown those comments?

• 8 Oct 2024 · SEND Provision: East of England · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) on securing this debate. I do not want to repeat everything said so far, but by and large the debate has been held in a constructive spirit; I associate myself with the constructive suggestions made by most Members. We all know of examples from our constituencies where special educational needs provision works. My constituency has small primary schools with specialist provision within a mainstream setting; I am thinking of Exning primary school, and specialist schools such as the excellent Churchill school in Haverhill, from which I welcomed pupils to Parliament just before the conference recess. But we all meet constituents who are suffering agony and anxiety caused by the difficulties of screening, assessing and planning for their children who are in need. I associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), who said that the challenge is much greater in rural and semi-rural settings due to issues such as difficulties with the rural transport network. We all know that provision across the country, including the east of England, has not been good enough for some time. We can talk about the reasons why there is growing demand for special educational needs provision, but the response needs to improve. There was already an improvement plan in place before the Ofsted and Care Quality Commission report on the provision of services in Suffolk was published, but there is now a SEND improvement board, a new strategy and a commitment of £4.4 million for SEND services for the year ahead by Suffolk county council. We need to be better nationally, as well as locally, on screening and assessment, and we must address the problems with EHCPs that hon. Members have set out. If the Government and the education team come forward with constructive proposals to improve those things—in particular, the problems with EHCPs—the Minister will receive a constructive and positive response from me and Conservative colleagues.

• 11 Sept 2024 · Port Talbot Transition Project · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. As a supporter of industrial strategy, I welcome the idea of a steel strategy in the future, but I will ask a couple of specific questions on the detail. First, is it the Government’s policy that the domestic manufacture of primary steel is a strategic industry that must be protected and guaranteed? What do the Government intend to do about the sourcing, either domestically or through the import of coking coal? Earlier, he seemed to suggest that he would not intervene to support British Steel in Scunthorpe. Can he confirm that, if we lose that capacity, we may go five, six or seven years without steel manufacture in this country?

• 10 Sept 2024 · Illegal Immigration · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) on securing this debate and on his excellent speech. I also congratulate the Minister on her appointment to the Home Office. She won the lottery with that job. The starting principle of a functioning immigration system is that it has to work in the interests of the citizens of this country and we must decide who comes here. Illegal immigration destroys this principle for all the reasons set out by my hon. Friend in his speech. That is why we must have no tolerance for the channel crossings, and why we need a policy that breaks the link between entering the country illegally and staying here for good thereafter. Just before the summer recess, the Home Secretary made a statement in which she set out the Government’s policy on illegal immigration, including getting rid of deterrents through deportation to third countries and scrapping the retrospective element of the duty to remove that was set out in the Illegal Migration Act 2023. She said that her policy was instead to consider the asylum claims of all illegal immigrants subject to the retrospective duty and admitted, in the impact assessment if not in her speech, that that meant granting asylum to up to 70% of them. I will come to the cost of that decision, but I want to address the Home Secretary’s claim about the cost of the previous Government’s policy. She claimed that by making the change, she would save the taxpayer £700 million a year for a decade. Labour MPs are repeating that statistic, not knowing that they have been sold a pup, because the claim is clearly ridiculous. After that statement, word soon reached me that Home Office officials were appalled that it had been used. If any Labour MPs want to dispute that, I suggest that their Ministers speak to Home Office civil servants as often as I do. I wrote to the permanent secretary on that news, and went through the impact assessment. The numbers were the result of what might be called the Reeves method, because they were a work of political fiction. We know, for example, that the Home Secretary’s calculation double-counted costs. On the one hand, Sir Matthew Rycroft in his letter to me said it included expenses for implementing the Rwanda policy, while on the other hand, the impact assessment assumed Rwanda would never be implemented. Indeed, the impact assessment assumed not a single migrant would be deported under the Conservative policy and that migrants would have stayed in hotels for 10 years, which is clearly an absurd proposition. However, the Labour policy excluded massive costs from welfare bills and categorised them as housing policy, which it admitted as “significant” and that it “could undermine…this impact assessment”, yet the results of the impact assessment were presented to the House of Commons as unquestionable fact. The impact assessment reveals the real Government policy: to deal with the huge number of claims by accepting them and to deal with the cost by hiding the numbers from the public in the welfare system. The Home Office admits that 63,053 illegal immigrants previously due to be deported will have their asylum claims heard instead, and up to 70% of them—that is 44,137 people—will be successful. But it also admits that, for those refused, “the scale and timing of removals is highly uncertain”, and that “the Home Office may continue to support a number of” them. These figures are just the beginning, because they apply to only one cohort of migrants, with the duty to remove unlikely ever to be implemented by Labour. Unless the Minister corrects me by naming a start date, the Home Office admits its policy “is expected to increase the number of asylum claims”, which “consequently increases…costs”. Instead of facing deportation, hundreds of thousands more migrants will stay here for good. The policy is to shift migrants from the Home Office budget, the costs of which are published clearly, to the welfare and local authority budgets, the costs of which are not published clearly. The impact assessment says: “Any asylum seekers who are granted asylum will have full access to…the welfare system”, and local authorities will also “incur costs”. So lacking in transparency is this approach that the impact assessment says the Home Office has “not been able to establish a generally usable figure.” That is obviously ridiculous. We know from studies in Europe that the average channel migrant will be a net lifetime recipient of public funding, not a contributor. In a Danish Government study, immigrants from the middle east, north Africa, Pakistan and Turkey were shown to cost a net £10,000 per year. A study at the University of Amsterdam calculated that, over a lifetime, the average asylum migrant costs the Dutch public more than £400,000. On that basis, for those granted asylum in just this one cohort, the lifetime cost of Labour’s new policy is £17.8 billion, which is far more than the bogus £7 billion figure cited by the Home Secretary, which she said was the cost of the duty to remove policy. Hundreds of thousands more people will be claiming asylum here in the next four to five years, so the final cost of the new Labour policy will be many multiples more expensive than that. That is the reality of the Government’s illegal immigration policy—more illegal immigration, not less, and vastly higher costs. For that, we will all pay the price.

• 10 Sept 2024 · Illegal Immigration · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Minister explain why, in calculating the figure the Home Secretary presented to the House of Commons—as part of the claim that scrapping the retrospective element of the duty to remove would save £700 million a year for 10 years—the impact assessment assumes absolutely no deportations to Rwanda at all? In a letter to me, the Home Office permanent secretary said that the cost of removing people to Rwanda is included in the number.

• 10 Sept 2024 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  Let us be absolutely clear about what has happened today: every single Labour MP who voted to cut the winter fuel allowance has broken their promise to the country. Pensioners know that before the election Labour denied that it was going to do this, but they might not know that the Chancellor had been planning it for 10 years. In 2014 she said: “we will cut the winter fuel allowance for the richest pensioners and means-test that benefit to save money”. —[ Official Report , 25 March 2014; Vol. 578, c. 174.] Are we supposed to believe that she changed her mind after that and then changed it back again shortly after the general election? I do not think so. There may be a case for means-testing, but the Chancellor is cutting the payment not just for the richest pensioners, but for pensioners on very modest incomes. She is also not making the case for it. She is asking the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to do her dirty work for her. If winter fuel payments are to be means-tested, surely the proceeds should go towards low-income pensioners and the cost of social care, but they are not. They are going on above-inflation pay rises for the likes of Labour donors ASLEF.

• 10 Sept 2024 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like advice from the Chair, please. Reportedly, more than 200 Labour MPs received more than £2 million in donations before the election from the trade unions. Before other Members give speeches about issues such as public sector pay, would it not be in order for them to declare that interest at the beginning of their speeches?

• 9 Sept 2024 · Government Policy on Health · Hansard source

  More

  How many meetings has Alan Milburn had in the Department? Will the Secretary of State place a list of all those meetings in the House of Commons Library? Knowing that the former Secretary of State has extensive financial interests in healthcare, did the Secretary of State ask him to declare those interests and publish them?

• 5 Sept 2024 · UK Steel Manufacturing · Hansard source

  More

  I do not think the Minister answered the question asked by the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), so let me repeat it. Do the Government consider the manufacture of primary steel to be a strategic domestic industry that must be protected, yes or no?

• 5 Sept 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  In his recent letter to local councils, the Minister for Housing and Planning, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) appeared to kill off the previous Government’s plan for Cambridge. Will the Minister come to the House and make a statement on the urgent need for improved infrastructure linking Cambridge to various communities, including Haverhill in my constituency, which desperately needs a rail link to Cambridge?

• 29 Jul 2024 · Public Spending: Inheritance · Hansard source

  More

  Earlier, the Chancellor quoted Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, but she omitted the end of his comments. He said that half of the spending hole she claims is public sector pay “over which govt made a choice”. That is the truth, is it not? The Chancellor does a good shocked face, but she chose to create her own spending hole, did she not?

• 25 Jul 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Around three years ago, two of my constituents, Paul and Joanne Snodden, bought a new home in a residential park. The park turned out to have no licence and now, unable to sell apart from to the park owner, they stand to lose £100,000. Park owners often impose punitive increases in pitch fees, and there are complaints of basic maintenance failures. Could we have a debate on how to toughen laws and enforcement on residential parks?