Nick Timothy MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 29 Apr 2025 · Kashmir: Increasing Tension · Hansard source

  More

  One of the consequences of mass immigration and radical diversity at home is that we see foreign conflicts play out among diaspora communities in Britain. We should all do everything possible to stop this domestic disintegration, including drastically curtailing immigration, but will the Minister take this opportunity to tell Members of this House who have played the politics of communalism to stop playing with fire?

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I will happily give way to the hon. Member. Perhaps he can name one club of the 60 who are no longer live, and no longer participating in competitive sport.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Of course, I agree that Bury was a very sad incident. The right hon. Lady mentioned 60 clubs, I think, that had gone into administration. My point is that I am not aware that any of them collapsed to the extent that they are not going concerns or not participating in league or non-league football. We know from the examples of Bury, Macclesfield and AFC Wimbledon that it is possible for clubs to come back. Supporter activism is not the only solution.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I declare my interest as an Aston Villa season ticket holder and therefore speak as somebody experienced in the highs and lows of football. I refer not to the FA cup semi-final on Saturday but to the moment in 2018 when Villa almost went bust under Dr Tony Xia. To own a football club is to respect one’s responsibility as a custodian of an important community institution. That is something, despite some of the speeches we have heard, that most owners respect. We cannot debate the Bill without acknowledging the extraordinary success of English football, because the premier league is the greatest show on earth. It is broadcast to 189 different countries, and nearly 2 billion people follow the league weekly. The revenues that football accrues are invested not only in top talent but through the divisions and in grassroots facilities overseen by the excellent Football Foundation. The New Croft in my constituency, for example, is home to Haverhill Rovers, who just became champions of the Thurlow Nunn league first division north, and incredible all-weather pitches that host more than 50 teams of different ages and abilities. What is the problem that the Bill seeks to fix? The Government say that the new regulator will protect and promote the sustainability of English football. The examples given to justify regulation are Bury and Macclesfield Town among others, but the experience of those clubs shows the power of community and supporter activism. Bury was rescued by a supporters’ group, and Macclesfield by a local businessman. Both are going concerns today.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  What the hon. Gentleman just said about Bury football club is rather insulting to the fans who have kept it going. Of course it is a football club. Supporter activism is not the only solution when finances go wrong. When Villa were in trouble, we were quickly bought out by new owners. Such is the draw of English football that new owners are almost always ready to step in and invest. Even Birmingham City managed to find new owners two years ago. We are told that we need a regulator to stop travesties such as the European super league, but again that is wrong. Those English clubs that were tempted by the super league backed off as soon as supporters made their views plain. The real motivation for the super league was European envy of the premier league, but we risk the strength of that league with this proposal. We are also told that we need a regulator because football finances are unsustainable. Everyone knows of the issues caused by the leveraged buy-out of Manchester United by the Glazer family. There is action that the sport can take to prevent such cases, but debt itself is not necessarily a problem. Spurs have borrowed to invest in their new stadium, for example, and many owners are willing to invest more in their teams but have been blocked by financial fair play rules. Those rules demonstrate why regulating football in this way is such a risk. They have protected the most established clubs from challenge, prevented teams from building on their success through investment, and caused all sorts of perverse decision making. Premier league teams are selling promising young players because they represent pure profit in the financial fair play system. Players are signed on long-term contracts to amortise the cost. Some clubs have sold their grounds to comply with the regulations. Chelsea sold their women’s team to a company belonging to their owners for an inflated sum of £200 million, just to get around the rules. It is not difficult to see how a football regulator would lead to similar perverse outcomes and a loss in the competitiveness of English teams. Just today, we have heard calls from parliamentarians to extend the role of the regulator. We can imagine interventions on ticket prices, kit sales and carbon footprints, and perhaps quotas for English players, wage equality between men’s and women’s teams, the distribution of revenues, restrictions on heading the ball, and diversity mandates for youth schemes and the appointment of coaches. I heard something said about human rights checks. Football does not need this regulator. The vast revenues of the premier league and their distribution, and the extraordinary continuity of almost every professional club in the country, show that the sport is balancing commerce and community well. Our clubs are performing in a tough international market and the most competitive of leagues and cups, and they are surviving and thriving as vital community institutions. When it is not even clear what the problem is that we are trying to fix, why would we risk something that is so cherished by so many?

• 8 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Chancellor talked earlier about the Government’s response to the new US trade policy, but what are the Government doing about China’s abuse of the world trade system? In particular, what will they do to challenge China’s status as a developing country at the World Trade Organisation? That is the means by which China dodges so many of the rules imposed on countries such as Britain and others in the west.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Tackling Child Sexual Abuse · Hansard source

  More

  I share the anger and frustration expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) about the lack of progress on inquiring into the rape gangs, and I was incredibly disappointed by the Minister’s failure to answer a single question put to her by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), including the refusal to acknowledge that these crimes were racially and religiously aggravated. I will repeat just one of those questions: in many of the rape gang cases, councillors, council workers and police officers were complicit and often corrupt, so why are the Government refusing to set up a specialist unit in the National Crime Agency to investigate those who should have protected those innocent girls, but instead participated in and facilitated their abuse?

• 7 Apr 2025 · Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate · Hansard source

  More

  It is not just the absurdity of fining firms for making the wrong cars, and insisting that is good for growth; it is that the national grid and local distribution networks do not have the capacity to cope with growing demand now, let alone if and when cars and central heating are electrified, as the Government promise, and all those data centres are built. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the connections queue stands at 756 GW and that only 0.54 GW was delivered in the past month, while the queue grew by 21.8 GW?

• 7 Apr 2025 · Scunthorpe Steelworks · Hansard source

  More

  I wish the Minister would stop saying that some of these issues are complicated, and therefore that we should not debate them. We are sent here to debate complicated issues, and she is supposed to be here to answer our questions. We are witnessing the absurd spectacle of the Government begging a Chinese company to take taxpayers’ money to keep British Steel alive, while China suppresses its own costs and dumps its steel on other countries. We may soon be the only G7 country incapable of producing primary steel. The Minister brushes off the reality of crippling British energy costs, which will only get worse in the years ahead as a matter of deliberate Government policy. Why will she not guarantee the supply of the raw materials needed to keep the blast furnaces open, and why will she not admit that steel has no future in this country so long as this Government’s trade and climate policies continue?

• 7 Apr 2025 · Scunthorpe Steelworks · Hansard source

  More

  You are.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Gambling Harms · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a world of difference between betting on sport, which employs many thousands and brings joy to millions, and gaming, which is all about pure chance and requires no skill or knowledge at all? Will she commit to treating the two very differently in regulation and increasing the difference between them in the tax system?

• 3 Apr 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  On the same day as the closure of the sustainable farming incentive, without the notice that the Government had promised, Ministers announced the end of the fruit and vegetables aid scheme, which provided match funding for capital investments and was vital for the competitiveness of English growers. Similar schemes exist in Scotland and Wales and continue in Europe, so can we have an urgent debate on that incredibly foolish decision?

• 31 Mar 2025 · Draft Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your charismatic and generous chairship this evening, Dr Huq, and to respond to these regulations on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. We agree that, by ensuring that products meet minimum requirements for energy efficiency, regulation can reduce their negative environmental impact, make them longer lasting and encourage greater recycling. Energy labelling also gives more information to consumers, helping them to make better-informed decisions about their energy usage. In principle, energy efficiency clearly helps to reduce bills and emissions. We understand that these particular regulations need to be implemented as part of the Windsor framework. However, we offer a word of caution to Ministers. These regulations put a modest compliance cost on manufacturers that sell their goods in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but the Government are now considering aligning the whole of the UK with net zero laws written and decided in Brussels. We would be signing up not only to the European Union emissions trading scheme, with its significantly higher carbon price—increasing our carbon price has not been ruled out by Ministers in a succession of answers to our questions—but to a whole slew of regulations that will be enforced by the European Court of Justice. There certainly needs to be co-operation with our European neighbours, but we must also maintain our sovereignty and flexibility in an increasingly volatile world. Brussels will, understandably, always act in the interests of the European project and its member states. That is why we must protect the interests of our citizens by putting British industry and consumers first.

• 31 Mar 2025 · Defending Democracy Taskforce · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution recently spoke at an iftar hosted by the European Islamic Centre, which is connected to Jamaat-e-Islami and Abul A’la al-Maududi, the Minister for Social Security and Disability attended the Muslim Council of Britain’s annual dinner, and the Prime Minister hosted Adam Kelwick, an imam who celebrated the 7 October attacks and told followers to “pray for victory” for Hamas. Why are the Government so keen to spend time with and lend legitimacy to organisations and people they say they oppose? What will the Minister say to the Prime Minister?

• 31 Mar 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I asked the Security Minister why the Government were spending so much time with, and lending legitimacy to, organisations and people whom they say they oppose. The Security Minister replied, “We are not.” I gave three examples, and for each of them there is photographic evidence. In one case, a picture shows the Prime Minister in No. 10, laughing with the man I mentioned. I have much admiration for the Security Minister, and I am sure that he did not say what he did deliberately, but can you advise us on how he might correct the record?

• 26 Mar 2025 · Spring Statement · Hansard source

  More

  The Chancellor’s trouble is that although her manifesto promised to limit spending increases to £9.5 billion a year, her Budget increased spending by £76 billion a year—eight times as much. She has previously said that she will not come back asking for more tax rises or more borrowing. Will she rule out both in the Budget later this year?

• 24 Mar 2025 · Defence of Undersea Infrastructure · Hansard source

  More

  4. What steps he is taking to strengthen the UK’s defences against threats to undersea infrastructure.

• 24 Mar 2025 · Defence of Undersea Infrastructure · Hansard source

  More

  In January, I asked the Defence Secretary which single Minister is responsible for the security of offshore infrastructure. We know that Russia and China target interconnectors and undersea cables, we know that Russia places listening devices on our wind turbines to monitor submarines, and we know that China controls the tech in the turbines that the Energy Secretary wants to buy. The Defence Secretary could not answer me in January, and neither did the Prime Minister when I asked him earlier this month. When are we going to find out who is actually in charge?

• 19 Mar 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Today, the House of Lords considers the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2025, which diverge from the proposals of the inquiry report and the Government response. The regulations introduce new exclusions, treat victims inconsistently and downgrade some previously agreed awards, such as that for my constituent Owen Savill. Will the Prime Minister remember the promise made to victims such as Owen and think again?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Electricity Grid Decarbonisation · Hansard source

  More

  The Government’s rush to decarbonise the grid means more hidden costs, more curtailment payments, more balancing payments, more subsidies and a higher carbon price. Will the Minister guarantee that our carbon price will remain lower than the European price for the remainder of this Parliament?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Electricity Grid Decarbonisation · Hansard source

  More

  That was a long-winded answer, but the Minister did not actually address the question, and I think he just gave away that it is Labour’s secret plan to increase the price of carbon—a massive rise in the carbon price—adding hundreds of pounds to families’ bills and decimating British industry. Given Labour’s election promise to cut bills, will he take this moment—he can look up into the camera if he likes—to promise the country that by the next election bills will be lower, as Labour promised? Yes or no?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I must confess I am worried about the Education Secretary and her future employment prospects. She may share the confusion of the public and wonder whether the Prime Minister is a socialist or a pragmatist, a tax-and-spend lefty or a quango cutter, a human rights lawyer or a war leader, but Education Ministers seem to have missed the latest McSweeney memo. While the reformer in the Department for Work and Pensions says she wants to get people off welfare and into work, and the reformer in the Department of Health and Social Care holds up school reform and academies as the model for his changes to the NHS, the luddites in the Education Department are taking a hammer to the machinery that has made English schools the best in the west. This Bill—along with the curriculum review, a weakened Ofsted, the threat to SATs in primary schools, the end of free schools and weaker discipline policies—undoes decades of hard-won reform and higher standards. It should be obvious that the objective for our school system is higher standards. Of course, Ministers pay lip service to that idea, but their actions belie their words, not just with this Bill but with the appointment of an academic to run the curriculum review who has criticised past Governments’ “obsession with academic achievement.” Standards improved through the years of school reform because Governments put their trust in heads and teachers, parents, and the philanthropists and public servants who sponsored free schools and academies. We followed what we understood from neurological science and research about how children learn, from work on cultural literacy to the knowledge that higher-level skills are dependent on the automatic mastery of lower-level activity. We turned to synthetic phonics, maths mastery, a knowledge-rich curriculum, teacher-led instruction and traditional academic subjects, and watched pupils fly. When I compare my own education with what my children are taught today, the difference is truly staggering, and yet this Government want to go back to the failed policies of the past and the failed policies that continue to this day in Scotland and Wales, where standards are sadly far lower than in England. We know why: this disastrous journey back is what the unions demand, and it is what those on the left, in their hearts, really want. We heard Labour MPs on Second Reading explicitly rejecting the very concept of academies and demand state-run schools. Some 80% of secondary schools are now academies. Ofsted says that 87% of them are good or outstanding, even though many were previously failing schools that were made academies to turn them around under new leadership. This intervention has been proved to work. Academy freedoms have given heads the space to make bad schools good. According to the fairer schools index, which takes both academic achievement and socioeconomic background into account, the top five state schools in England are all academies: Steiner academy Hereford, Michaela community school, Mercia school, Eden boys’ school, and Eden girls’ leadership academy. Multi-academy trusts have achieved Progress 8 scores far above the national average, with trusts such as the Harris Federation, United Learning, Star Academies, Delta Academies Trust and Ark all performing strongly. The Government’s disregard for evidence with the Bill has provoked massive anger among school leaders. The Children’s Commissioner has said that the Government are “legislating against the things we know work in schools”. Katharine Birbalsingh, the headteacher at Michaela, has called the Bill “catastrophic”. Sir Dan Moynihan, CEO of the Harris Federation, simply asked: “Why are we doing this?” ––[Official Report, Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 75, Q160.] [Interruption] If the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) would like to intervene, he may. I want to say something about the Bill’s most damaging measures, starting with clause 42, which makes the national curriculum compulsory for all academies. Today, the interim report of the curriculum and assessment review has been published. Just as predicted, the review endorses the Education Secretary’s demand for a curriculum that prioritises non-academic subjects over traditional subjects such as the sciences and geography. Indeed the review throws into doubt the future of the EBacc, which ensures a proper focus on core academic subjects. While there is value to non-academic disciplines, of course, there is only so much time in the school day. Teachers will lose the ability to prioritise what they teach, as well as how, and children risk getting less time in which to learn reading, writing and numeracy skills to an advanced level. Evidence shows that academies, such as the Laurus Trust, have already found a good balance between academic rigour and extracurricular activities. The Education Policy Institute found that the Laurus Trust’s extracurricular programme led to an attainment 8 score being 6.2 points higher among current pupils than for pupils who attended before the programme began. The point is the trust has the freedom to decide the focus of its extracurricular work. Centralised control over the curriculum will also undermine school ethos and character. For example, Marine Academy Plymouth has tailored its curriculum around the city’s maritime history and relationship with the sea, and we should be encouraging innovation, not conformity—or “consistency” as I hear Ministers euphemistically call it. Clauses 41, 46 and 47 remove flexibility over teacher qualifications, pay, and conditions, but giving academies freedom over how they recruit, train, and develop staff has led to impressive results. Michaela hires teachers with little or no experience but then gives them training based on its own ethos. Dixons Trinity Academy and King’s Leadership Academy have done similar. And the Government are not extending the requirement in clause 41 to recruit QTS—qualified teacher status—teachers to further education, university technical colleges, studio schools, non-maintained schools, and early years provision, so why impose it on academies? I share the concerns expressed earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) regarding clause 50. This new amendment will give local authorities the power to overrule headteachers and block school expansion and even mandate the number of pupils attending an academy. This would give local politicians the power to starve academies of pupils and promote their preferred locally controlled schools. This would cut some school budgets and could even lead to closures. Instead of letting parents decide which schools thrive, this is a return to failed command-and-control statism. As roll numbers fall, clause 50 will put huge power into the hands of often very ideological politicians, and for those who doubt this danger, those of us who worked with free school founders know the games councils have played with land hurriedly sold and planning applications refused to stop new schools opening. A couple of months ago in this House the Prime Minister called academies a Labour achievement. He said: “Academies are here to stay, and will continue to drive up standards. That is what the Bill is about.” —[ Official Report , 22 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 998.] But if he really meant that, I honestly wonder whether he has read, or understood, the Bill at all. I am afraid the Education Secretary and her team, however, know exactly what they are doing. Their ideology blinds them to evidence and leaves them deaf to advice from those who know what they are talking about. This is why Ministers cannot admit the success of English schools in the PISA and TIMSS international rankings.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister gave me a frown but she can intervene and admit the success of English schools in those rankings if she wishes. It is why, when Michaela was once again selected— [Interruption.] Would the Minister like to intervene? No, apparently not. It is why, when Michaela was once again the best-ranked school in the country for progress, the Secretary of State could not bring herself even to congratulate Katherine Birbalsingh when I invited her to do so from these Benches. It is why the Education Secretary’s special adviser briefed the newspapers that Ms Birbalsingh is a liar, and why he briefed the newspapers against Amanda Spielman, former head of Ofsted, attacking her very personally as a “failure” and a Conservative. As Margaret Thatcher, not just a former Prime Minister but a former Education Secretary, once said: “If they attack you personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.” And this is the truth: the Education Secretary does not have a single political argument for this disgraceful act of policy vandalism, but she is determined to ignore those who know better than her and push on. And the people who lose out, I am afraid, will be the children, from ordinary working families the length and breadth of the country, denied the best we can give them, unaware that a better and brighter future has been stolen from them thanks to nothing more than vindictive left-wing dogma.

• 17 Mar 2025 · Sentencing Council Guidelines · Hansard source

  More

  It is obviously ridiculous that the Justice Secretary is on her knees before a quango, asking it to respect the principle of equality before the law, but this is not the only example. The Judicial College’s equal treatment handbook says: “to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently.” Will the Minister condemn that logic and say, “No, we must not treat defendants differently because of their race or religion”?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak in favour of my new clause 105. The labour abuse that it seeks to address is the wrongful use of substitution clauses by gig economy workers. To guarantee fairness and justice in the labour market, it is crucial that there be transparency, which can be delivered through the introduction of a comprehensive register of all dependent contractors. That will help to ensure that employment rights are upheld and pay is not suppressed through illegitimate competition, but it will also support the enforcement of right-to-work checks. The unlawful employment of migrants with no right to work here is not good for taxpayers, British workers or migrants who follow the rules, yet substitution clauses allow what have become known as “Deliveroo visas”—the industrial scale abuse of our immigration and labour laws. Before addressing the substance of my new clause, I also commend new clause 30 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), which I have sponsored. It would give special constables the right to take time off to carry out their police duties. Other public service volunteers, such as magistrates and councillors, receive that right. I turn to my new clause 105. Ministers have said that they will consult on employment status and moving towards a two-part legal framework that identifies people who are genuinely self-employed. I support that ambition, and I am grateful to the Minister for his warm words in Committee, but my new clause provides a way to resolve a particular abuse and hold big employers in the gig economy to account. There are 4.7 million gig economy workers in the UK, including 120,000 official riders at Uber Eats and Deliveroo, two of the largest delivery companies in the country. For years we have heard stories of the rampant labour market fraud and visa abuse committed by contractors related to those companies. From late 2018 to early 2019, there were 14,000 fraudulent Uber journeys, according to Transport for London. In addition to Uber and Deliveroo, Amazon and Just Eat have been linked to labour market abuses. Much of that abuse has come through the legal loophole created by substitution clauses. Amazon tells its couriers that it is their “responsibility to pay your substitute…at any rate you agree with them” and “you must ensure that any substitute…has the right to work in the UK”. It is a dereliction of duty to pass responsibility for compliance with criminal and right-to-work checks on to workers, but those companies clearly have an interest in maintaining a status quo in which undocumented migrants take the lowest fees in delivery apps. Data from the Rodeo app shows the effect of that abuse on riders’ order fees. Just Eat riders saw their fees drop by 14.4%, from £6.53 in 2021 to £5.59 in 2023. There was a 3.4% drop for Uber Eats order fees—from £4.36 to £4.21—during the same period. Deliveroo has blocked its order fee data from being published. Those figures are not adjusted for inflation, but it is clear to see how pay and conditions have worsened for riders. By undercutting domestic workers—British workers—and exploiting those with no legal right to be here, companies are privatising profits and socialising costs. Promises from such companies to introduce tougher security checks have not made the problem go away. We should all be appalled by this state of affairs, because nobody should be above the law. During random checks two years ago, the Home Office found that two in five delivery riders who were stopped were working illegally. In the same month, 60 riders from Uber Eats, Deliveroo and Just Eat were arrested in London for immigration offences, including working illegally and holding false documentation. Last month, Deliveroo sacked more than 100 riders who shared their accounts with illegal migrants. But that is only the tip of the iceberg: insurance companies report unauthorised riders involved in motor and personal injury cases. That is happening because undocumented migrants are renting rider accounts for between £70 and £100 a week. Profiles have been bought for as much as £5,000. The i Paper found more than 100,000 people on Facebook groups where identities have been traded for years, including one group that gained around 28,000 members in less than 18 months. Illegal migrants are using social media apps to rent accounts and share information on a significant scale. Today, we only have figures from press investigations, but we can find copious examples across the internet with ease. Legal workers have reported problems to the police and the Home Office, but that has fuelled tensions as they compete for orders and has even led to violent clashes between legal and illegal riders in Brighton and London, including physical beatings and damage to bikes. People working illegally for these big companies are working longer hours round the clock for lower fees, never knowing when their last payday might be. They use group chats to share information and evade Home Office immigration raids. We do not even know how many substitute riders there are for these companies at any given time. A spokesman for the App Drivers and Couriers Union says: “Unfortunately there is this loophole that allows some bad people to come through. They are not vetted so they could do anything.”