Richard Tice MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 4 Mar 2025 · Trade Diversion and Windsor Framework · Hansard source

  More

  We were told by the previous Administration that with the new green lane and the Windsor framework, all would be glorious—it could be the best of both worlds. Did the previous Administration mislead the House?

• 3 Mar 2025 · Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Relief · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that it is quite possible that this ludicrous policy raises the square root of net zero once we knock off possibly 100,000 children not going to independent schools, the recovery of input costs from schools, the closure of schools and the reduction in bursaries because the schools cannot afford to give them?

• 3 Mar 2025 · Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Relief · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) on securing this debate on the back of the petitioners. [Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck in the Chair ] How many of us were elected to this great place to damage the prospects of our children? I would hope that the answer is none, but that is the direct consequence of this ludicrous policy to tax education. I think we are the only country in the developed world to do so. The unintended consequences are truly shocking. Within a fortnight of the policy coming into force at the beginning of this year, some four schools announced they were closing this summer—over 1,000 children were immediately plunged into uncertainty about where they were going to school and who were going to be their friends. The anxiety that that put on them as children, let alone their parents, should shame everybody in the Government. Tens of thousands of pupils will end up leaving the independent sector—and it is independent, not private, because most independent schools are charities that reinvest their surpluses.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Relief · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he has reminded me to declare a historical interest. Not only did I have children in independent schools, but I was the chairman of the finance and general purposes committee for a significant independent school over the past six or seven years; I finished just before the election. Even when this policy was announced as a prospect, I saw an immediate drop-off in applications for places at that school, so I can confirm with absolute experience that tens and tens of thousands, if not 100,000, will leave the sector. Surely, of all children, those whose prospects we want least of all to damage are those with special educational needs, yet that is where the independent sector excels. Let me give a small example from the county of Lincolnshire. I got a letter from a constituent who can no longer afford to send two children, both with special educational needs, to the independent school. They are going to have to go into the state sector, where there is a capacity crisis that we keep hearing about in the Commons. Because of the distance, she cannot provide the travel, so the county council has to provide it. For those two children alone, the annual cost of taxis is £20,000 per child. This is absolute insanity, I would respectfully suggest, Mrs Lewell-Buck—it is lovely to see you. So we have damage to children and the worst of all worlds. Then we look at the prospects of children in the state sector, and we hear that the policy is going to pay for 6,500 teachers. That is about one teacher in every four or five schools—three, it is thought, in the secondary sector. Seriously? When we look at the extra children who will go into the state sector—the tens and tens of thousands—we see that actually there will be more pressure on existing class sizes and the existing teachers, who will therefore be able to dedicate less time per child in their existing school. The prospects of children are damaged not just across the independent sector, but across the whole of the state sector, under this deeply misguided policy. I touched earlier on the cost. When the policy was announced, it was to raise £1.5 billion, and suddenly it is £1.8 billion. I suggest it will raise the square root of net zero. The reality is that schools will be recovering input costs, including on capital schemes. The reality is that schools will be losing children to the state sector. The reality is that bursaries will have to be slashed. We have heard about some schools giving hundreds of free places. All these things will put extra costs on to the state sector—the state schools—as well as the pressures on county councils’ taxi budgets, which is ludicrous. From an educational-quality point of view the policy makes no sense, and from a cost point of view it makes no sense. There was an opportunity for the Government to say, “You in the independent sector are doing some things really well, particularly with regard to special educational needs, so we would like the independent sector to help us a bit more—share some of your expertise. Can you give some more places for special educational needs?” That was the opportunity, and I can tell Members that the independent sector would have welcomed with open arms a request to share expertise with local schools. That would have been the right thing to do to improve the prospects for everybody. The other right thing to do to improve the prospects for everybody was to adopt the Reform UK policy during the general election, which was to say, “If you can afford to pay a bit more, we encourage you to take your children out of the state sector and into the independent sector,” and to relieve the pressure on class sizes by granting tax relief at the basic rate for those who sent their children to independent schools. That would have improved the prospects for everybody. Those were the opportunities, but instead we have seen deep ideological socialism, with no evidence whatsoever that the policy will make any difference. It is discriminatory, because if it was logical, the Government would be applying VAT on university fees, because of course universities are elitist. Three or four in 10 youngsters go to university, so surely the same policy should be applied to universities. Will the Minister confirm that if, when the legal cases go all the way up to the European Court of Human Rights—which some people love and some of us do not—the ruling from that court is that the policy is unlawful, the Government will agree with that ruling and apply it? This policy has no logic whatsoever. It is a tragedy for us all, but most importantly it is an absolute tragedy for children.

• 27 Feb 2025 · War in Ukraine: Third Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  Can the right hon. Member explain why there seems to be a certain reluctance among western leaders to use this capital—the $300 billion or so of Russian state assets in western banks? It could be powerful as part of potential peace negotiations.

• 27 Feb 2025 · War in Ukraine: Third Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  Putin is a vile dictator. We all know that. My leader has also confirmed that Putin is the aggressor in this war. I was just moving on, in the time allotted, to the issue of how we get to a durable peace.

• 27 Feb 2025 · War in Ukraine: Third Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I have not even warmed up! I will make a little more progress. Just over 13 months ago, I made a donation to acquire a 4x4 pick-up truck and to fill it with first aid supplies, and I drove it with other volunteers to Ukraine to give it to those brave soldiers on the frontline. I remember meeting the extraordinary technicians who were making the drones, including brilliant, bright children who were helping to develop new drone technology. Tragically, I stood in a cemetery and watched mums weep over the graves of their sons. That cemetery has almost doubled in size in just 12 months. The maxim of peace through strength has stood the test of time—in history, today and in future. That is why in our contract at the election we had 2.5% of GDP on defence spending within three years, and 3% within six years. That is why we supported the Prime Minister earlier this week when he made those same commitments. I hope that that 3% will be a firm commitment within five or six years. Peace through strength is vital. As others have said, we all want peace, not least the brave Ukrainians. It must be right to try for a peace deal, however difficult. Most wars and conflicts end up in some form of negotiation —however difficult, tough or tense.

• 27 Feb 2025 · War in Ukraine: Third Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  We in Reform stand united with the whole House in support of Ukraine and all brave Ukrainians against the monstrous tyranny of that most evil villain, Putin.

• 27 Feb 2025 · War in Ukraine: Third Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  The point about elections is a good one, because any peace deal can only work if it has the support and involvement of all Ukrainians. In the second world war, we had elections in the summer of 1945, before the war had ended, which was completely appropriate then. At some point the Ukrainians will need to be involved in supporting a peace deal, if we get there. A peace deal, however, is only durable—it only works—if it endures. That means we need the security guarantees to ensure that the aggressor will never, ever attack again. It is those security guarantees that we must focus on, all be involved in and ensure that they are a strong, robust deterrent. If we get those security guarantees right, hopefully Putin and Russia will never try such a monstrous activity and invasion ever again.

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

  More

  Once again, the BBC has got it badly wrong, since 7 October, with its treatment and description of Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Once again, we are told that lessons will be learned. Does the Secretary of State think that the BBC is incompetent, negligent or just riddled with antisemitism?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Family Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government’s policies have created a hostile environment for family businesses to continue to invest in hiring people and equipment? The damage is that that reduces growth in our economy.

• 26 Feb 2025 · Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 2 Report · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome everything that the Deputy Prime Minister and other right hon. and hon. Members have said, but there is a fatal flaw that has still not been raised. Speaking as someone with 30 years’ experience in the real estate sector, I urge the Deputy Prime Minister and her officials to focus on the single staircase. The 2009 Lakanal House report recommended that fire suppression systems—sprinkler systems—be installed retrospectively in buildings above six storeys. That is the best way to save lives, and I think we need to look at that recommendation again for existing buildings. Future buildings above six storeys can still be designed with a single staircase until 2028; I urge the Deputy Prime Minister to say that that is too long.

• 24 Feb 2025 · Plant Oxford Site · Hansard source

  More

  The British car industry was thriving until the Conservative party introduced net stupid zero, and now we have another car plant at risk; another business struggling and losing hundreds of millions of pounds; and hundreds more British jobs at risk. Does the Minister agree that the automotive industry in the UK will continue to decline until we scrap net zero?

• 24 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Home Secretary agree that it would be a better use of Greater Manchester police officers’ time if they actually policed the streets and prevented crime, rather than visiting grandmothers’ homes to discuss a Facebook post?

• 11 Feb 2025 · Clonoe Inquest · Hansard source

  More

  Based on the Secretary of State’s earlier comments, is it not now clear that the Secretary of State believes the Government cannot stand behind our brave soldiers in this instance because of our membership of the European convention on human rights? Therefore, surely that is a perfect reason why we must leave the ECHR.

• 11 Feb 2025 · US Steel Import Tariffs · Hansard source

  More

  The threat to the UK steel industry is not tariffs from the US, but the cost of our electricity. The Business Secretary has previously agreed with me that that is what makes our steel industry uncompetitive, and it is why imports have grown from 55% to some 70% in the last couple of years. So will the new steel strategy, due in the next few weeks, confirm how we will get down the electricity price in this country to make our industry competitive?

• 10 Feb 2025 · Rosebank and Jackdaw Oilfields · Hansard source

  More

  The Government profess to want growth and jobs, yet they are giving no incentive or indication whatsoever to the developers of Rosebank and Jackdaw that if they spend millions of pounds on a new application, the Government will or will not grant consent. As a result, those developers are much more likely to say, “I won’t bother; I’ll invest my money elsewhere.” Will the Minister give an indication—yes or no to a compliant application?

• 5 Feb 2025 · English Devolution and Local Government · Hansard source

  More

  Dictators, not democracies, cancel elections, and 5.5 million voters in southern England are being denied the right to pass judgment on the performance of their councillors over the past four years—interestingly, in areas where Reform UK is expected to do rather well. In cancelling these elections, the Secretary of State has admitted that she does not know what will replace them, and it seems there is a serious risk, as previously mentioned, of areas not being ready in 12 months’ time. Can the Secretary of State be crystal clear about what will happen in that case: will those elections be delayed by a further year, or will they go ahead in May 2026?

• 5 Feb 2025 · Southport Attack · Hansard source

  More

  The Prevent learning review of the Southport horror is shocking. It reveals a series of massive failures, to the point of gross negligence by people in Prevent. However, it also uses some crucial words: it refers to factors that “make him susceptible to being drawn into terrorism.” That appears to indicate that the review has found that the killer was a terrorist. I therefore think that the Government and the Crown Prosecution Service need to be crystal clear with the British people. Are they now accepting that the action of this monster was a terror incident?

• 5 Feb 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q2. After she was kidnapped and shot, Emily Damari was held in captivity by Hamas in United Nations Relief and Works Agency facilities, confirming the fears of many of us that UNRWA is riddled with Hamas sympathisers. The British people do not want our aid stolen by Hamas. Does the Prime Minister agree that we should stop funding Hamas, follow the example of other nations and divert our aid to other, more trustworthy agencies?

• 4 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Energy suppliers are now forecasting that the energy price cap will go up in April by another 5%, making for some 16% since last summer. Will the Secretary of State tell the House when bills will come down—or will net stupid zero mean that they will only ever go up?

• 30 Jan 2025 · Local Post Offices · Hansard source

  More

  Wherever we grew up in the United Kingdom, we all remember the post office and our parents imbuing us with the sense that it was one of the things that we could rely on and trust in a changing world. There are many reasons for that, one of which is the long-serving and always interested staff. In rural areas—Boston and Skegness has many rural areas—post office staff are important in helping people in villages, small towns and communities, particularly the elderly, the disabled and the vulnerable, to use certain services. When we were growing up, we did not have the digital devices we have now. In the many brilliant contributions today, we have heard that post office staff know their customers. They know who is healthy and who might be struggling. If someone does not appear on their regular day, at their usual time, they might say, “Where is Mrs Smith?”. That is massively important in our communities. This is not just about money; it is about the asset value of post offices in our communities. We and all the post offices on the frontline have been let down by decades of mismanagement. In Boston, WHSmith has a post office franchise, and yes, it is closing, which has caused great consternation. Sadly, WHSmith has not been well managed as a retailer. People are concerned that the replacement will be much smaller, and they cannot understand why services are being withdrawn. If we are trying to make post offices more viable, surely they should have more services, not fewer. The operators and owners of the post office in Swineshead cannot understand why services such as the sale of premium bonds and fishing licences, or the payment of tax and national insurance to HMRC, have all been withdrawn. That makes the post office less viable. All our communities, towns and tiny villages are different, so surely we need to be massively flexible, whether we have a stand-alone post office, or one in a franchise, a library or a village hall. I was delighted when there was a pub in the village hall; maybe we could have a post office in a pub. I digress, but Members can see my point. Post offices are the most important part of communities, and it is the elderly and the vulnerable who need them most. That is why I hope that the Government, given all their challenges, remember that this is not about the money. It is about the asset—the community hub of the post office.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Proportional Representation: General Elections · Hansard source

  More

  As we have heard in this Chamber, trust in politics is very important for a functioning democracy, but sadly the data shows that trust is collapsing. At the last general election, we faced the second lowest turnout in the last 100 years, with just six in 10 people voting. That tells us that far too many people do not think voting matters, whereas I hope we can all agree that every vote matters. That is why I pay tribute to the excellent lobbying group Make Votes Matter for proposing and promoting this issue. It is so important. How can we have a situation where only six in 10 people vote? We have the most unrepresentative Parliament in living memory. The governing party has about 34% of the votes cast, but 63% of the seats in this great House. What sort of system is that? It is completely unrepresentative. My good party had 14% of votes cast, yet we do not have even a mere 1% of seats in the Chamber. As for the other smaller parties, the Green party had just under 7% of votes cast, but has about 0.5% of the seats in the Chamber. That is so damaging to trust in democracy. We have 823,000 votes cast for every Reform seat; for the Labour party, it is a mere 23,000 votes for each seat. Voters still come up to me and say, “How does this work?”. People get confused, because as hon. Members have said, we have one system for the general election and another in the devolved nations. Why can we not have a single simple system that we know works, and that is used in so many democracies around the world—a variant of proportional representation? Not only does our system lead to misrepresentation when it comes to seats in the House, but its quirks mean that we have no representation on any Select Committee, despite having 4 million votes—14% of the votes cast. Trust in democracy collapses when something is as patently unfair as that. This issue is so important, and we know we can do better. It is marvellous that Members from the Labour party recognise that. Indeed, at the Labour conference a couple of years back, its members passed a motion to that effect. Fairness is vital. If we do not have it, we have complete misrepresentation of the views of the people on critical issues, such as immigration and net zero, because we end up with a uni-party approach. It cannot be good for democracy if people feel that all their views cannot be represented. They think, “What is the point of bothering? I will carry on with my life.” We all know that more engagement from many people of all ages—young, medium and old—is vital for a functioning and true democracy.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Proportional Representation: General Elections · Hansard source

  More

  I will make another intervention.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Proportional Representation: General Elections · Hansard source

  More

  That is most generous of him. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that almost all other major democratic nations across the world use PR? Does that not prove that far from being outdated, it is contemporary?