Nick Timothy MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I do not see why the Government should not support this new clause. This seems to be an obvious example of labour market abuse, but the difference with many of the provisions in the Bill is that my new clause does not directly benefit trade unions who pay for the Labour party. Sadly, we know that there have been many sexual assaults and attacks committed by substitute workers. New clause 105 proposes the robust regulation of substitution clauses. Amazon, Uber, Deliveroo and the rest would have to do their due diligence and, just like everyone else, ensure that all their riders are who they say they are and have the right to work in this country. Introducing such a change would reduce labour abuse, protect our communities and deliver a fairer labour market.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Indeed. I find it baffling that we are debating the future of the criminal justice system and not talking about the erosion of the principle of equality before the law. Disparities in policing and criminal justice do exist—

• 10 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was going to turn to some specific measures in relation to police reform and the Bill. According to the Government’s impact assessment, the Bill will “provide an additional 13 to 55 prison places”, yet the Government expect to see 5,000 additional crimes recorded by the police annually, resulting in 400 prosecutions and 300 convictions per year. Those numbers do not add up, unless the Government intend to continue their policy of releasing prisoners early. Passing legislation is not a substitute for genuine and sophisticated police and criminal justice reform, and I will make some suggestions to the Government. First, we should abolish the National Police Chiefs’ Council, which represents centralised unaccountable power, and transfer its functions to more accountable entities. The College of Policing should be directed by the Home Secretary to ensure that forces focus more clearly on crime fighting. We need to reduce the size of the Met in London, with its national responsibilities transferred to the National Crime Agency. The Government need to give police chiefs the ability to clear out failing officers and recruit talent from all walks of life. In the Met, there should be fewer deputy assistant commissioners and fewer commanders. Training needs to be professionalised and better recorded, and workforce planning needs to be improved. There should be better use of productivity-improving technology and streamlined processes from arrest to prosecution. We need to reform the police grant to make sure that forces focus on strategic threats. New technologies mean that fraud, identity theft and cyber-crimes will present a huge challenge. We can no longer expect police forces to recruit generalist officers, hoping that they can all offer the perfect blend of leadership, empathy, strength and investigatory skill. Instead, we need greater specialisation. As I said, it seems crazy that we are debating this Bill without debating whether we remain equal before the law. There is much to be welcomed in the Bill, but I hope we will see far greater energy in the undeniably tough job of police reform.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  There is much in the Bill with which my party agrees. In fact, many of its provisions were written by my party in government, so it was strange to hear the more partisan remarks from the Home Secretary earlier in the debate. After decades in which crime was falling, that happy trend has sadly begun to reverse. The Home Secretary noted that overall crime increased by 12% in the last year, but she did not admit that it is still far lower than when Labour was last in office. However, there is obviously much to be done. The sentencing guidelines published last week explicitly instruct judges that a pre-sentence report will normally be considered necessary if the perpetrator of a crime is from an ethnic minority, cultural minority, faith minority community or is female, transgender, a drug addict or a victim of modern slavery, trafficking, or exploitation. The guidelines are clear that minorities should receive lesser punishments than white people, especially white men. The provisions about slavery, trafficking and exploitation are an invitation for lawyers to help illegal immigrants to escape the reach of the law. That is not the first official direction to tell judges to put identity politics before the once sacred principle of equality before the law. Last July, the Judicial College’s “Equal Treatment Bench Book” said that “in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently.” Putting that principle into practice, the bench book warns, for example, that the “family impact of custodial sentences was particularly acute for black mothers, as far more black…families…are headed by a lone parent”. Similar attitudes exist in policing. The “Police Race Action Plan”, published by the College of Policing, promised to stop the over-policing of black communities and complained that such communities are over-policed, but under-protected. The action plan noted that black people are more likely than white people to be murdered and to be victims of knife crime, but it failed to add that black people are more likely to commit these crimes, too.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Curriculum and Assessment Review · Hansard source

  More

  5. When she expects the interim report on the curriculum and assessment review to be published.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Curriculum and Assessment Review · Hansard source

  More

  Parents and pupils will think that Ministers are on another planet when they hear such answers. SATs in years 2 and 6 mean that primary schools can be held accountable, and that we can measure progress data through secondary education, but the National Education Union says that SATs “do not benefit learning” and wants the Government to abolish them. Will the Minister rule out abolishing SATs in primary schools—yes or no?

• 6 Mar 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  This week, I received a copy of the national priority infrastructure Bill from the “Looking for Growth” campaign. The campaign’s proposals rightly highlight the complexity in our energy and planning systems. We urgently need more nuclear power and data centres to drive forward the artificial intelligence and robotics revolution here in Britain, but with the highest industrial energy prices in Europe, we risk falling behind. Can we have a debate about how planning can best be reformed to provide reliable, affordable and abundant energy?

• 6 Mar 2025 · Ambulance Response Times · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Ms Jardine, for calling me to speak and also for giving me my full name, Nicholas—I think the last time that was done was when I was six years old and in trouble with my mother. I applaud the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) for securing this very important debate. I think we can all agree that this is an important issue not only for our constituents, but for every community across the country. As we have just heard, the time it takes for an ambulance to reach people in need of urgent medical care can make all the difference in saving lives. We have a responsibility to engage constructively across party lines to find solutions that work. Since the pandemic hit, we have all seen the challenges faced by our local health services, and ambulances are no exception. In January, average response times for the two highest priority incidents missed NHS targets. Official data shows average response times for category 1 incidents of eight minutes and 16 seconds, instead of the seven-minute target, and average response times for category 2 incidents of 35 minutes and 40 seconds, instead of the 18-minute target. Even those statistics obscure dramatic variation across the country. This is particularly concerning in my constituency of West Suffolk. Haverhill, our biggest town, has a population of 30,000 people, but the response times for the highest priority incidents in Haverhill are twice as long as they are in Cambridge. Figures from the NHS England weekly ambulance scorecard show that in the 12-month period to the end of September, Cambridge’s average response time for category 1 incidents was 7.3 minutes, just missing the national target, but Haverhill’s was 14.7 minutes. Ambulances starting their shifts in Haverhill are often dispatched towards Cambridge, which is 15 miles away at its nearest point. This is an inequality that needs to be addressed as soon as possible. The problem arises in part from the fact that Haverhill ambulance station is located right on the county boundary, at the edge of south Cambridgeshire. The ambulance station is used for maintenance, but it does not have its own ambulances on standby. This appears to have a negative effect on how ambulances are assigned for the local area, with resources sucked into Cambridgeshire and staying there. Addenbrooke’s hospital has become a hotspot for this problem: ambulances with patients waiting to be treated wait outside for long periods, instead of responding to more incidents in and around Haverhill. I have spoken to the East of England Ambulance Service several times over the past few months to learn more about the situation. It believes that the system status plan, which decides where to send ambulances, should be changed so that Haverhill becomes a priority and more ambulances can be sent there. Since my election, I have also been making the case for a co-located and purpose-built blue light facility in the town. This would allow the local police, fire and rescue service, and ambulance service to better serve local residents and save taxpayers’ money. The plan has the support of local councillors and several interested parties, and the Government have also made positive comments about adopting this approach nationally. I look forward to the publication of the Government’s urgent and emergency care improvement plan, as well as the 10-year health plan. I remind the Minister of the Health Secretary’s commitment, which he made on the Floor of the House, to follow up with me regarding this proposal. Since the Health Secretary made that commitment, I have not received a response to my letter. I hope that a Minister or appropriate official from the Department will come to visit us in West Suffolk. It would be an excellent opportunity for them to meet representatives of the East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust, officers from Suffolk police, the Suffolk police and crime commissioner, and the fire and rescue service to discuss the next steps. I hope that today’s debate will provide us all with an opportunity to work together to improve ambulance services. I know that the problems that I have described in West Suffolk exist in other parts of the country, and we have much to learn from one another. There are solutions that can be implemented to deliver faster response times and improve outcomes for our constituents. I look forward to supporting any practical measures to help achieve exactly that.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Renewables Obligation Certificate Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  Of course we talk to business all the time. I talk to businesses in my constituency and we have been talking to businesses and organisations representing the more energy-intensive manufacturing businesses in this country. They are clear that energy costs have been too high, partly because of issues such as high carbon prices. They are very concerned about the prospect of the carbon price rising under this Government. The hon. Lady talked about global fossil fuel markets—I have heard the Energy Secretary say that a lot when he has referred to global gas markets. There is no single global gas market in the way he describes. Prices for fossil fuels are so much higher in Europe than America, which is much more dependent on fossil fuels than we are, because of policy choices. Therefore, can she guarantee that we will have a lower carbon price than the rest of Europe by the end of this Parliament?

• 5 Mar 2025 · Renewables Obligation Certificate Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  It is absolutely our position that the Energy Secretary is trying to move too quickly. The plan to decarbonise the grid by 2030 is deemed by many experts to be unrealistic. It is predicated on a report produced by NESO, which itself says that the plan will lead to higher bills, and on calculations based on the carbon price increasing to £147 per tonne. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister whether the Government’s policy is to ensure that Britain’s carbon price should remain lower than the European carbon price for the duration of this Parliament, because the Secretary of State has so far refused to say that. On the question of security, the Government are in such a rush with offshore wind farms that they are sourcing the turbines from China, and there are big questions about whether the technology in the turbines will continue to be controlled by the Chinese. We are having a debate right now about security and the threats presented by Russia; we could equally be talking about the same kinds of threats from China, and how our dependence on technologies produced by China and energy that is generated using those technologies leaves us exposed to Chinese influence. By NESO’s own admission, “Unprecedented volumes of clean energy infrastructure projects are needed to meet the Government’s energy ambitions.” As long as policy races ahead of technology, costs will inevitably increase for taxpayers and consumers, and that is before we even consider the consequences of the Climate Change Committee’s seventh carbon budget. The committee has recommended a limit on the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions of 535 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, which represents an 87% reduction by 2040 compared with 1990 levels. That is an ambitious goal, but it is one that the committee’s own data shows will come at a net cost of £319 billion over the next 15 years. If we are to debate this, the Government should be honest and open about that fact. No Government have ever rejected a carbon budget, and the Energy Secretary has so far refused to come to the House to make a statement on the publication of that budget, so perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the Government intend to accept the carbon budget in full. The Climate Change Committee believes that we will need a sixfold increase in offshore wind power, a doubling of onshore wind power and a fivefold increase in solar panels by 2040. To accelerate the growth of renewables at such a pace would require a huge increase in public subsidy. How do the Government intend to address these climate and energy goals? Can the Government rule out increasing public subsidy under contracts for difference of any kind to reach these goals? By how much will public spending have to rise as a result? By how much will bills have to rise? Will the Minister guarantee that Britain will continue to have a lower carbon price than Europe, and can she still guarantee that energy bills will be £300 lower by the end of this Parliament, as her party promised in opposition? There are so many questions left unanswered, and so far only silence from the Energy Secretary. That is not because the Government do not understand the scale of the challenge they have set themselves. The Energy Secretary understands it all too well, but he will not admit publicly what his ideological attachment to net zero and his net zero policies mean for us all: nothing less than a revolution in how we live our lives, and the massive expansion of public spending for a system of energy that is less reliable and more expensive in generating power. We need complete clarity, so that the mistakes of the renewables obligation are not repeated. Failure to do so will leave us poorer and exposed to risk and instability in the world.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Renewables Obligation Certificate Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I would never suggest that the hon. Lady has tracked everything that I have written through my career, but I have been making these arguments for a number of years. The Leader of the Opposition has made the point that one of the things our party did not get right in government was setting ambitious goals on things such as energy policy without having a clear enough plan to deliver them. My concern, and the concern of the Conservative Front Benchers, is that this Government are making not only a similar mistake but a graver mistake because of the speed and unilateralism of their energy policies. [ Interruption. ] I can see the hon. Lady smiling, and I hope that is in approval of what I said.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Renewables Obligation Certificate Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Dr Murrison—I shan’t promote you any further than that just yet. I am pleased to respond to this important debate on the renewables obligation certificate scheme. Although the scheme was closed in 2017, its costs remain with us and are a reminder of how difficult it can be to unwind long Government contracts. I congratulate my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), on securing this debate, which I believe is his first in Westminster Hall. I am sure he will get to debate more glamorous issues than chicken litter in the future. Like South West Norfolk, my constituency of West Suffolk has chicken farmers grappling with many of the issues raised by Members, including avian flu, which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned. I echo what the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) said about the cost of energy in rural areas, which is very often overlooked. I will not join the commentary from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) about the predecessor of the hon. Member for South West Norfolk. I did plenty of that in The Daily Telegraph before I was a Member of Parliament. It is pleasing that Suffolk and East Anglia are so well represented today. We must always be very careful when considering how public money is spent, especially when it comes to subsidies. There are lots of reasons why the Government might sometimes provide public support towards outcomes that are not necessarily the most narrowly efficient, but promote a wider social or local economic good, but they must always guarantee value for money for the families who ultimately foot the bill. Renewals obligation subsidies have fallen short of that standard. Originally introduced in 2002 by the last Labour Government, and closed to new entrants in 2017 by the last Conservative Government, the renewals obligation remains a significant drain on the public finances, providing a fixed rate of financial support through 20-year-long contracts.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Renewables Obligation Certificate Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I will turn to contracts for difference in a moment. We may discuss them in this debate, or perhaps in other fora, but it is important that we are honest with ourselves about the full costs of some of the renewable technologies upon which we have come to depend. With the hidden costs that apply to wind farms, I do not think that we have been quite so honest. That is not a party political point but something that has been true across the party divide. In 2023-24 the scheme cost £7.6 billion, and it will remain high, at £6.9 billion in 2028-29, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility. That proves how dangerous it can be to lock in subsidy schemes under lengthy contracts, with the cost passed on to people’s energy bills. That is not the only zombie renewables subsidy scheme. Introduced in April 2010, feed-in tariffs were made available for schemes with capacity for 5 MW or less as an alternative for smaller projects, such as rooftop solar panels. Closed to new entrants in 2019, the scheme still sustains 20-year-long contracts, and £1.84 billion of feed-in tariff payments were made last year. Far from saving money, renewables subsidies have come with significant long-term costs. The phasing out of the renewables obligation and feed-in tariffs is being used by the Government in their efforts to hoodwink the public on the true costs of their net zero policies. The National Energy System Operator’s 2030 report made several highly questionable assumptions about how the Government’s goal of decarbonising the grid will cut energy bills. One of the points made by NESO was that energy bills would fall due to the expiration of the renewables obligation and feed-in tariff contracts, but those contracts will expire regardless of the speed of decarbonisation, so it is misleading to include that as a benefit of the Government’s deeply flawed clean energy plan. We will see costs increase significantly elsewhere, thanks to Government policies. The renewables obligation and feed-in tariff schemes should be a warning. The Government are consulting on substantial changes to the next round of contracts for difference, which replace the previous subsidy schemes. They include easing eligibility criteria for fixed-bottom offshore wind, as well as extending the lifetime of contracts subsidising renewables from 15 years to 20 years. We are at risk of wasting billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money in a race to meet the unrealistic clean power target.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Gaza · Hansard source

  More

  On Monday, the London School of Economics’ middle east centre will host the launch of a book called “Understanding Hamas”. One contributor to the book, Azzam Tamimi, has previously called for the destruction of the state of Israel. Speakers at the event deny that Hamas is a terrorist organisation and wrongly dismiss Israel as a “white, settler colonialist nation”. Will the Minister join me in saying very clearly that this is not an accurate description of Israel? There is no genocide, as I heard an hon. Member claim earlier, and Hamas is a terrorist organisation that seeks to murder Jews and has brought nothing but destruction and disaster to the people of Gaza.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  Earlier, the Prime Minister said that Russia is a menace in our waters and in our skies. That is obviously correct, so can he tell us which individual Minister has overall responsibility for the security of our offshore infrastructure, such as wind farms in the North sea? Given the vital importance of military tech and hardware, will he join me in condemning the idiotic divestment campaigns that seek to undermine our domestic defence manufacturing industries?

• 27 Feb 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  In Suffolk, we are moving towards a unitary council as part of local government reforms. I put on record my discomfort that our local elections, which were due this year, have been postponed. The danger of the reforms, however, is that power will be taken further away from local residents. I want parish and town councils to be empowered to take responsibility for problems such as speeding and road safety. Can we have a debate on how we empower towns and villages to get things done directly for local residents?

• 27 Feb 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker. That was a pleasant surprise after my brief admonishment.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Gaza: BBC Coverage · Hansard source

  More

  It is quite clear that the BBC has not shown the standards of journalistic integrity that we expect of it in the case of this documentary or through its coverage of the 7 October attacks and the war that followed. Danny Cohen, the former BBC director of television, says that the BBC is “institutionally hostile to Israel”. Can we have an inquiry into not only this incident, but the BBC’s relationship with Hamas, the independence of its reporters in Gaza from Hamas and its wider coverage of Israel? If there is evidence of BBC funds reaching a proscribed terrorist organisation, will the Secretary of State join me in saying that there should be a full criminal investigation?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Family Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  The Labour party manifesto said that by the year 2028-29, it would increase spending by £9.5 billion a year. Why, then, did the Budget increase it by £76 billion—eight times more than the Labour manifesto said?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Family Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister might have noticed that there is a bigger gap between £9.5 billion and £76 billion than £22 billion. His answer is clearly ridiculous. We are talking about such tax rises not because of the £22 billion fictional black hole, but because of the decision to increase spending by eight times more than the Labour party promised at the election. Will he accept that or not?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Family Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Family Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Family Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  This debate has been held against the absurd backdrop of a Chancellor of the Exchequer writing to Government colleagues and begging regulators, desperately seeking advice on how to find economic growth, while the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is deindustrialising the economy, the Home Office is welcoming fiscally negative immigration and the Department for Business and Trade is adding more than £5 billion a year in new costs to business in a single Act of Parliament. And the Government are whacking up taxes, including through the change to business property relief, because they broke their election promises as soon as they got into office. In its manifesto, Labour promised the country that by 2028-29, it would increase spending by only £9.5 billion a year. It knew all the facts at that point, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the Financial Times , but just a few months later, Labour increased spending in the Budget by £76 billion a year, eight times more than promised in the manifesto. That is the reason for Labour’s broken tax promises, the higher taxes and the extra borrowing, not the poor excuses offered by the Minister earlier.

• 26 Feb 2025 · Family Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. I was baffled by the speeches of Labour Members; they were lining up to say that they had been meeting local businesses that were desperate to congratulate them on the tax rises that their Government are imposing on them. That is clearly ridiculous. In my constituency of West Suffolk, I am proud to represent so many family businesses that contribute to the economy. The Hadley shipping group, owned by James Warwick, is one of the last remaining family-run shipping companies in Britain. The Claydon family has manufactured and exported world-class agricultural machinery since the 1980s. Wedge Group Galvanising in Haverhill is a leading business in hot-dip galvanising in Europe and beyond. We need those vibrant and successful family businesses to help us build again and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) has just said, they are telling us the same thing: that because of the policies of this Government, they are confronted with a choice between selling their business altogether, selling parts of their business or cutting much-needed investment. I will conclude by saying that repeating the word “growth” in press releases, ministerial speeches and tweets does not make growth magically appear. Pummelling business, as this Government are doing, is the fastest route to killing growth and our prosperity.

• 26 Feb 2025 · Family Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is a little confused. Public spending is not increasing faster than I expected; it is increasing faster than his party told the country. That is the point. The Treasury might not be what it once was, but even if we believed what the Minister said about the fictional black hole, which the Office for Budget Responsibility has disowned, £9.5 billion plus £22 billion does not reach even half of the £76 billion in extra Labour spending. I am not sure whether the Minister is listening, but he can intervene if he wants to explain himself at this point—he clearly is not. What do we get for these extra taxes? The Home Office budget is being cut by 2.7% in real terms compared with last year. The Department for Transport budget is being cut by 2.5%, and its capital budget is being cut by 3.1%. That is economic illiteracy. This amounts to taxsterity —tax rises and spending cuts—to go with stagflation, or stagnation and inflation. That is Labour economics.