Nick Timothy MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

• 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.

• 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.