Richard Tice MP: speeches

Speeches

• 13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source

  More

  I can understand why the right hon. Member did not want to answer the two questions from the Opposition on dynamic alignment, but surely, given a third opportunity, he will commit the Government not to have dynamic alignment in any way, so that we can benefit from trade deals around the world—a great Brexit benefit.

• 13 May 2025 · Mansion House Accord · Hansard source

  More

  Pension funds are, by definition, long-term capital and are therefore particularly well suited to being invested in long-term infrastructure. British pension funds investing in British infrastructure should be welcomed by us all, but I would caution against any specific mandating within sectors, which I fear may lead to lower performance. The thing about private markets is that they have almost no transparency in terms of valuation and liquidity. I urge the Government to encourage the pension funds voluntarily to be more open about how they value these private investments, to ensure greater confidence.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Legal and Illegal Migration: Suspension · Hansard source

  More

  The point is that life expectancy has grown and the pension age is growing because we are healthier. That is a great thing. People enjoy work—work is a great thing. However, the real point is that there are some 5 million-plus people not of retirement age who we need to get back into the workplace. We want a world-leading benefit system that looks after the genuinely vulnerable and sick as well as the genuinely unemployed who are looking for work. I would have thought that we could all agree on that. Let us look at what really did work well: back in the ’80s and early ’90s, net inward migration was about 30,000 to 50,000 a year on average—in some years, there was a little bit of net emigration. It was working well. People came to work and integrated—and guess what? Our economy was growing at 2.5% to 3.5% a year. Everybody was getting better off. We had real per-person wage growth, above the rate of inflation, of some 2.5% per annum in the 1990s. We now have no GDP growth but significant population growth through inward migration, so we are all getting poorer per person. That is one of the challenges that we all face. If we know that the system worked back then, maybe we should be willing to learn the lessons of history. That was a time when there was no immigration debate, interestingly. Until about the early 2000s, immigration was not an issue because it was working well, with numbers that could be sensibly absorbed. People were getting richer—and that is a good thing. My view is that we are not short of people, and the anxiety of those who signed the petition is that population growth is too great. We cannot cope with our existing population, and there is a need for pause—perhaps a policy of net zero immigration: one in, one out. About 400,000 people leave the UK every year; we could welcome a similar number in—that will ebb and flow—as long as they are highly skilled and highly qualified where we have shortages, while we train our own people. Back in the ’80s, the interesting thing was that our healthcare system, the NHS, was working very well—

• 18 Dec 2024 · Immigration and Nationality Statistics · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) on securing this debate. It seems to me that there is a dearth of information, or a sort of conspiracy of silence. It seems quite simple; we have been told for decades that immigration is great for this nation, and therefore it seems quite obvious that we should say, “Fine, prove it.” Why do we not suggest proving it nation by nation, so that we know who is genuinely contributing and adding value, or who is maybe costing us money? We can then work out how we improve growth and ensure that smart immigration works for this country. A Government who believe in transparency and high-quality data, which we have heard to be the case on numerous occasions, should welcome the opportunity and the suggestion that we need to know, nation by nation, who is coming here, how much they are contributing, and how much they are costing. In the unfortunate example where they commit crimes, we need to know—nation by nation—who is costing us by way of criminals and why they are not immediately removed. With that quality of data, we can make judgments and decisions about smart immigration to the benefit of all, and to the confidence of all our constituents.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Future of Farming · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. Many hundreds of family farmers in the constituency of Boston and Skegness are appalled at the family farm tax. Just last week, Richard and his son Jake came to see me. Their farm has been in the family for 120 years. They went through the cost increases recently: the fertiliser tax, the reduction in basic payment scheme payments, the carbon tax, and now the increase in national insurance. They say they will not be able to afford to pay the farm tax even with the 10-year payment timeframe, and will therefore have to sell upon death. This tax will bring the exact opposite of what the Government want—what we all want—which is growth. One farmer told me that he has cancelled a £1 million expansion to his strawberry farm. Another said that he has cancelled an order for a £300,000 piece of equipment. This tax will do the exact opposite of what the Government want. There is a very simple solution: to increase the threshold on which it is payable and increase the qualifying period threshold at which people benefit from the tax relief. With that, the Government can achieve their aims and avoid the abuse, and family farmers can continue to invest.