Rupert Lowe MP: speeches

Speeches

• 16 Jan 2025 · Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse · Hansard source

  More

  As well as withheld court transcripts, I have been pushing the Ministry of Justice for data on the following: how many Pakistani or other foreign rapists have been deported, are still in prison, did not serve a custodial sentence, are back in the same community as their victims, had previous convictions or have reoffended, with a full nationality breakdown of those involved in the gangs. The response was that the requested information “is not centrally identified in the data systems relevant to these questions.” If this were a state inquiry into the private sector, it would be accused of negligence. My view is that we need a full national inquiry. This is a rotting stain on our country, and it needs to be exorcised in full. It cannot continue to be kicked into the long grass. The British public want transparency, and they want to know why this has taken so long to be dealt with.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  Given the abject failure of devolution in both Scotland and Wales and the fact that the Americans fought a war of independence on the slogan “No taxation without representation”, my constituents of Great Yarmouth would like an answer to two questions. First, why should they continue to pay their council tax beyond May, when they will not be represented by elected people? And secondly, by what name do they call these unelected councillors after May?

• 8 Jan 2025 · Quantitative Easing (Prohibition) · Hansard source

  More

  Richard Tice, Jim Allister, myself and others, Mr Speaker.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Quantitative Easing (Prohibition) · Hansard source

  More

  James McMurdock— [Interruption.] Maybe Rachel Reeves, I don’t know. [Laughter.]

• 8 Jan 2025 · Quantitative Easing (Prohibition) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit quantitative easing; to prohibit the Government from indemnifying any losses that may result from quantitative easing; and for connected purposes. The purpose of this draft legislation is to ensure that the state is as economically accountable to the people as the people are to the state. That means terminating the state’s ability to debase the value of money through practices such as quantitative easing, which is not an option for the individual. Clipping, sweating, plugging and cutting are forms of coin debasement either by Government or individuals. The most famous modern UK example was the great debasement between 1544 and 1551, when Henry VIII reduced the gold and silver content of coinage by the use of base metals such as copper in order to fund his bacchanalian overspending and wars with France. It has been a common feature of Government behaviour over the 5,000 years of gold trading history, and it continues today in the form of quantitative easing. With no gold standard to constrain unproductive investment and direct capital to sound and profitable investment ventures, policymakers today have become obsessed with short-term stimuli centred on the performance of stock and bond markets. Central banks have become uncontrolled, unconstrained and reckless in their pursuit of delivering non-stop, unsustainable global growth driven by credit. QE is what third-world dictators used to indulge in shortly before their currencies descended into chaos, but it has now become a mainstream tool to avoid the Darwinian reality of capitalism. History is littered with examples of Governments, dictators and kings abusing their hard-working citizens. Coinage during Rome’s ascendant years was bolder, larger and widely accepted, but it reduced in size, weight and content as her empire waned. There was John Law’s Mississippi scheme in France in 1716 to 1720, when he and the Duke of Orléans, who was regent for Louis XV, presided over an establishment-backed scheme on the premise that paper money was preferrable to gold or a metal-backed currency, and that shares were a superior form of money as they paid dividends. It was, in essence, the first national central bank. It ended in chaotic collapse, and it badly damaged France and her economy. National debt was supported by printed money in the same way as today through QE via central banks globally. I fear that the ending will be the same in due course. In Weimar Germany, after the first world war, the Reichsbank had become accustomed to printing money to fund the wartime economy, increasing marks in circulation from two billion to 45 billion between 1914 and 1919. State debt rose by 30 times, from 5 billion marks to 153 billion marks. That continued with the value of the mark going into freefall in early 1923 and the issuance of notes of up to 100 trillion marks, before sense returned. It was a time of moral decline, short-termism and prostitution that benefited the opportunists, not the long-term wealth creators. With currency devaluation came a decline in all that had previously been cherished, including loyalty, faith, morals, innocence and honour. Over recent times, capitalism in the UK and globally has been undermined as states have grown in size and central banks have distorted logic. Systemic risk management via the clearing banks in the ’70s was gradually replaced by more overt interventions, including by Alan Greenspan in 1987, and in 1997 when Long-Term Capital Management, an offshore company, was bailed out by the US Government. The year 2008 was a watershed moment, when Gordon Brown bailed out financial institutions at an estimated cost to taxpayers of £137 billion, followed by quantitative easing between March 2009 and August 2016. That was dwarfed by the actions of Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke in the US in 2008. They used $700 billion of intervention to prop up the financial system generally, particularly AIG. During the covid crisis of 2020 and 2021, when many bad decisions were taken by an already bloated state, between £310 billion and £410 billion—equivalent to between £4,600 and £6,100 per person in the UK—was spent in a number of questionable centrally planned interventions. In rather the same way as early Weimar Germany, Britain finds itself heavily indebted and continuing to run multiple deficits, making matters progressively worse. Our moral decline is clearly evident, as true capitalism has been undermined by regular intervention, increasing state regulation and a growing, bloated and inefficient state. It is interesting that Weimar Germany’s revival started with the dismissal of many civil servants, and social welfare spending being massively cut. The French Government’s recent funding crisis makes it look even more like a national Ponzi scheme than in the UK. Both wings of French politics refused to sanction debt reduction despite the budget deficit being expected to rise to over 113% of GDP by this year. Market concerns are pushing the euro lower and France’s borrowing costs higher, with bond yields briefly surpassing Spain’s for the first time since 2008. Javier Milei, Argentina’s President since 2023, has brought significant economic reforms with his radical libertarian agenda, earning both praise and criticism. Milei’s focus has been on cutting public sector spending, reducing inflation and implementing drastic fiscal adjustments, which have led to improvements in Argentina’s economy. Inflation has fallen from nearly 300% to around 119%, public sector jobs have been reduced by 35,000, and the country has achieved a primary fiscal surplus. Argentina’s economy has also exited recession, with a growth rate of 3.9%, and borrowing costs have dropped, signalling reduced debt default risks. Elon Musk has been appointed to lead Donald Trump’s new Department of government efficiency, which he will co-run with Trump ally and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy. Musk said that the Department’s creation would address Government waste and inefficiency. Trump described DOGE as a transformative initiative aimed at slashing bureaucracy, cutting regulations and restructuring federal agencies, and likened it to the Manhattan project. Money is the foundation of all human exchange of enterprise and replaced barter in the earliest communities. It allows for the transfer of skills through a transferable medium such as a coin, a note or indeed a transfer. By a continuous process of inflation, no matter how it is perpetrated, Governments can confiscate—secretly and unobserved—an important part of the wealth of their citizens. As they do so, the size of the state inevitably grows, and it becomes a self-serving, greedy master of the people it should be serving. Common-sense logic and human relationships among working people are inevitably undermined, and there is a general moral decline in society. Taxes should be transparent, justifiable and simple. The cost of government should be covered by taxes alone, limiting the growth of excessive statism. Gold has historically been the standard store of value and protection against currency debasement for over 5,000 years. It is interesting that profligate Governments always denigrate gold-holding, and holding it is often banned by Governments in crisis who have deceived their electorate. The words of President Woodrow Wilson after he signed the Federal Reserve Act should serve as a warning to all of us: “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilised world—no longer a Government by free option, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.” Friedrich von Hayek, an eminent Austrian-school economist, said: “I do not think it is an exaggeration to say history is largely a history of inflation, usually inflations engineered by governments for the gain of governments.” Given the historical track record of states abusing their citizens by various forms of currency debasement, including QE, the default position should be to make it illegal, unless this democratically elected House has an informed vote supporting debasement. This Bill seeks to achieve that position, and I commend it to the House. Question put and agreed to.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Quantitative Easing (Prohibition) · Hansard source

  More

  Richard Tice, Jim Allister, James McMurdock, Lee Anderson and myself, Mr Speaker. Ordered, That Rupert Lowe, Richard Tice, Jim Allister, James McMurdock and Lee Anderson present the Bill. Rupert Lowe accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 January, and to be printed (Bill 155).

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Given that the Opposition amendment has been selected, I will not stand here and outline my disgust at what has happened with regard to the historic grooming gang scandal. The British people want answers, so I will ask questions of the Labour party, and several of them. Will the Government commit to deporting all guilty foreign nationals involved urgently, including family members who were aware of the crimes and therefore complicit? Wives, sisters, mothers and cousins, if they knew and said nothing, are just as guilty as the rapists themselves. Will the Government commit to stripping citizenship from dual nationals implicated and deport them as well? Race or religion must protect nobody. Will the Government commit to pausing all Pakistani visas and foreign aid into the country until the Pakistani Government agree to accept any of their deported citizens who have perpetrated these crimes on British soil, and imprison these rapists and their accomplices in Pakistan however they see fit? Will the Government undertake a full investigation into officials who had knowledge of these crimes yet failed to act? A specified taskforce to root out this evil should be established. We should not just fire these vile individuals but prosecute them. How many girls are estimated to have been raped? Is there a tally for the overall number of rapes? Horrifyingly, it may well be in the millions. We just do not know. How many vulnerable young girls are estimated to still be involved in these gangs? If there is no estimated figure, why not? Will a regular update be published detailing ongoing prosecutions and sentencing? Will the Government publish a full nationality breakdown of those convicted for such offences, along with the location of their crimes? How many known foreign rapists are there per town, per region? Will the Government publish a breakdown of the immigration status of those involved? On what grounds were they in the UK? Do they have previous convictions? How many foreign nationals found guilty have been released but not deported?

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will carry on, if that is all right. How many re-offences have occurred since release? How many of these monsters are walking on the same streets as the girls they raped and abused? One report suggested that a victim came face to face with her rapist in the supermarket. Are the Government comfortable with that? How many of the foreign rapists were in receipt of any form of state benefit?

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have finished.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will carry on, if that is all right. How many who were released receive any state benefits? How many children have been born following a rape by those men? How many have been given access to the child against the mother’s wishes, and how many have used the child as a route to remain in the UK? Will the Government commit to preventing that in future? How many deportations have been blocked due to the rapist’s right to a family life or due to other European Court of Human Rights influences? Will the Government set up a dedicated, confidential and accessible official process for whistleblowers to safely raise their concerns about foreign rape gangs, ensuring that it is safe, secure and easy to find? Will the Government release all court transcripts relating to those cases so that the British people can understand just part of the horror for themselves? How many of those documents have been hidden due to the cost of release? That should not be an obstacle to the transparency of those trials. Will lifelong sentences be considered for British citizens involved in the crimes, and for those in positions of power who acted to cover up the scale of the abuse? Which politicians, local and national, had knowledge of the events but failed to act—again, going as far as actively concealing what was truly happening? Those are the facts that the British people want and deserve to know. All those questions have also been submitted in written form, and I look forward to receiving open and transparent answers. The mass rape of young white working-class girls by gangs of Pakistani rapists is a rotting stain on our nation. This is not about Elon Musk. This is not a bandwagon of the far right. This is about the victims and ensuring that swift and brutal justice is delivered to those demons responsible. It is about distinguishing between right and wrong.

• 19 Dec 2024 · MV Ruby: Safety · Hansard source

  More

  Apart from the terrible outcome, the Government’s account of events conflicts entirely with the local account of events. The locals claim that the Department for Transport-Secretary of State’s representative drove the process and gave instructions for the sitting MP to be excluded from all communications, convinced that it was a Cobra situation. When finally briefed on 28 November by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) at the Department’s offices, he stated that the locals had made a mountain out of a molehill, the operation was never Cobra and the decision to exclude the MP from briefings was a local one. Somebody is clearly lying and the official briefing pack from the DFT suggests that this is the Government. The hon. Gentleman told me in an email that he was too busy to see me to answer follow-up questions and suggested that I pursue usual parliamentary processes, so here we are. I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting this debate, which seeks to inform the House where the truth lies. The crux of the issue is the part played by the Health and Safety Executive and its employee, Dr Nathan Flood. MV Ruby docked in the outer harbour of Great Yarmouth, following input from the Secretary of State’s representative on 28 October 2024, as a ship in distress carrying 20,000 tonnes of ammonium nitrate. Peel Ports is used to handling this material, which is commonly landed at ports, distributed by road, stored on farms and used to grow our food. Peel Ports notified the requisite authorities, including the HSE, which declined to inspect the ship’s cargo. Peel Ports began offloading the bags of ammonium nitrate on to the sister ship, Zimrida. On 11 November, Peel Ports identified seawater in hold one and some staining on the lower bags. Peel Ports notified the HSE, Dr Flood, and again requested its attendance to inspect the bags and the material. HSE refused to attend and inspect. Peel Ports sent them photographs and videos of the cargo in hold one. Peel Ports employed its own explosives experts, Dr Jim Warren and Dr Charles Owen, to attend and inspect the cargo. They reported that they could wipe the staining off the bags, concluding that it was unlikely the bags were contaminated. Peel Ports again requested HSE attendance, which was refused. Peel Ports’ view was that it could safely unload the stained bags—the ship had previously carried a cargo of coal—on to the dock for analysis and disposal. HSE threatened sanctions and enforcement action against Peel Ports if one bag was unloaded on to the dock. I understand that legal responsibility for the material passes from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to HSE once unloaded. It is also interesting that Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service attended MV Ruby at this time, on either 12 or 13 November, and downgraded the situation. Dr Flood’s attitude was reported by many of the stakeholders to be aggressive, inappropriate and unprofessional, with the use of foul language and even banging his fist on the table and telling people, “This is going to flatten Great Yarmouth.” Analogies to the Beirut explosion were wholly inappropriate and misleading, causing panic among both local and national Government, who have no experience of handling ammonium nitrate. It is incredible that he did that without either a site visit or proper physical analysis of the material before the dumping. Was he too lazy to do what common sense suggested was the correct cause of action? Dr Flood only attended the site and inspected a small number of remaining split bags of material on Monday 18 November, after being instructed to attend by a Minister. I understand that he put on a new pair of rubber gloves which he thrust into the ammonium nitrate and then threw the gloves on to the table, claiming they smelt of diesel. Other people report that they understandably smelt of new rubber. This was also after the gross act of environmental terrorism. To carry out no inspection before dumping is quite extraordinary. This kind of behaviour is not uncommon from the HSE, which is a law unto itself, clearly employing a policy of “Do as I say, not as I do”. The question is, who regulates the regulator? When we understand that the HSE is part of the Department for Work and Pensions, no further explanation is necessary or indeed possible. We now find that the Marine Management Organisation, the MCA, the Environment Agency, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the HSE all blame the dumping on the ship's captain. All other possible sensible options were blocked, but does this silence make them complicit in this catastrophe ? I conclude that it does.

• 19 Dec 2024 · MV Ruby: Safety · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more. Good government must be transparent government. I hope that the Minister has his pencil ready, because I have 18 urgent questions for which I believe the House needs answers. No. 1: Why did the Minister tell me on Thursday 28th November that this was a local issue? No. 2: Why did the local officials think that this was a Cobra situation when the Minister said categorically that it was not? No. 3: Why did the Minister suggest that local officials had made a “mountain out of a molehill”? The locals said it was all driven by the Department for Transport and the Secretary of State’s Representative for Maritime Salvage and Intervention. Who is lying? No. 4: Who gave the instruction that the local MP was not to be briefed except by the Department for Transport? Was that because I am a Reform MP, or because I have experience of ammonium nitrate from farming? What were the roles and reports of Andy Gregory, Stephen Benzies and Stephan Hennig? No. 5: Was the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) involved in the decision making? No. 6: Was the resignation of the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley on Friday 29 November in any way linked to the unjustifiable outcome involving the dumping of approximately 300 tonnes of potentially contaminated ammonium nitrate with bags? Was it a coincidence that it happened less than 24 hours after my briefing by the Department for Transport? No. 7: Why was the load described as “potentially contaminated?” Was it physically tested before the dumping? Is there a certificate to prove that? No. 8: Why were the polypropylene double-skinned waterproof bags dumped with the ammonium nitrate? When used in farming, such bags are emptied and recycled. No. 9: Did anyone consider that polypropylene bags float to the surface and damage or destroy a ship’s propeller and propeller shaft, apart from this being an act of environmental vandalism? No. 10: Why was the view of those at Peel Ports—experts at handling ammonium nitrate—not acted upon? They claimed that the double-skinned waterproof bags at the bottom were stained but dry. They suggested unloading the “dumped” material on to the dock for analysis and disposal. Is it true that it becomes the responsibility of the HSE once on land? Pictures that were obtained back up Peel Ports’ opinion. No. 11: Why did the HSE throw its weight around and threaten Peel Ports with prosecution/enforcement if one bag was unloaded on the dock? No. 12: Why were local fishermen, local fish markets and Dutch fishing vessels not informed of the decision to dump offshore in my constituency? No. 13: How close did Great Yarmouth come to evacuation? Why was that information withheld from the elected representative of Great Yarmouth? Who knew what, and when? No. 14: was the balance of the cargo safely unloaded by Peel Ports? No. 15: is it fair to say that the owners and operators of MV Ruby were forced into the decision to dump ammonium nitrate in bags at sea? No. 16: who signed off on this gross act of environmental terrorism without a test certificate? How can this have happened? No. 17: why do both the harbourmaster and Peel Ports agree that this matter was not handled well, and that there was the wrong outcome? No. 18: does this House agree that the Government were right to exclude an elected Member of Parliament by diktat, thereby undermining Parliament and showing disrespect for the good people of Great Yarmouth? As G. K. Chesterton observed, “A society is in decay, final or transitional, when common sense really becomes uncommon”. This sorry episode lacked any common sense and resulted in bad decisions by unelected, unaccountable quangos acting in silos. We now need an official parliamentary inquiry, which I strongly request, having researched the matter in great depth. It must not happen again, and the appropriate heads must roll. On that note, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I wish you, all the parliamentary staff and all my fellows MPs a very happy Christmas?

• 19 Dec 2024 · MV Ruby: Safety · Hansard source

  More

  The MV Ruby is a sorry tale of bad decision making by Government and a selection of unaccountable, unelected quangos operating in silos without any application of common sense. It exemplifies the loss of sovereignty of Parliament, which should be absolute under the 1689 Bill of Rights, which asserted the rights of Parliament and individual rights based on John Locke’s philosophy. The outcome was a shocking and avoidable double act of environmental terrorism, when around 300 tonnes of ammonium nitrate—better known as agricultural fertiliser—was dumped in the sea about 12 miles off the coast of my constituency. When I fill my drill or fertiliser spinner with fertiliser, I discharge the contents of the double-skinned weatherproof plastic bag into the hopper and recycle the bag. In this case, the bags were dumped into the sea with the ammonium nitrate still in them. They will not biodegrade, and will float to the surface after a storm, potentially becoming wrapped around a ship’s propeller and shaft, causing extensive damage—not forgetting the vast ecological damage to young fish, the seabed, and the inevitable algal blooms that will follow. To make matters worse, as the elected representative of the good people of Great Yarmouth, I was excluded from all communication and decision making leading up to the catastrophic dumping operation on 16 November 2024.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. There is a concerted campaign within Government to hide vital statistics from the British people regarding the impact of uncontrolled mass immigration—legal and illegal. Let me be abundantly clear: it is a cover-up. Whether it is crimes committed by illegal migrants or a nationality breakdown of those claiming benefits, the British people deserve to know the ugly truth. If there is nothing to hide, show us the data. Information is being concealed from the public on crime, welfare claims, tax contributions, size of illegal population, public service usage and so much more. Either the Home Office is deliberately hiding the numbers or the data is genuinely not collected. Both options are equally terrifying. It is either pure incompetence or shocking dishonesty. Sadly, I believe it is the latter. My message to the Home Office is clear: show us the data, and we can make up our own minds. The ongoing cover-up is simply not acceptable. When will we get total transparency?

• 11 Dec 2024 · Border Security: Collaboration · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to hear from the Home Secretary that she is making progress with our neighbouring countries in Europe in stopping what I now call a national emergency. As she probably knows, however, that is only a third of the issue. Another is that boat crossings have increased. Will she consider securely detaining the people who arrive here? If we are to solve the problem, we have to remove the incentive to come to Britain. The questions I am asking are uncovering quite how much the cost of those illegal migrants is to the country, and this is now, as I say, a matter of national emergency. The third part of the equation is the illegal migrants who are here. I had a case in my constituency of Great Yarmouth only this week, where one Alius Ambulta was convicted of drug dealing—a 17th offence that received a very light sentence. Will the Home Secretary commit to deporting those illegal migrants here who are damaging the interests of the British electorate?

• 3 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I start by reminding the House of a prescient analogy of Winston Churchill’s: “For a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.” This national insurance increase and threshold cut is simply a tax on jobs in the private sector. It will result in less employment, fewer bonuses, smaller pay rises and higher prices—and for what? To fund a state that is out of control and shows no regard for taxpayers’ money. That is exemplified by the Department for Work and Pensions, which hands out money like confetti, without the requisite disciplines. The answer is to radically cut the size of the state and release the innate creativity of the British people. What we need is less state, less tax, less bureaucracy and more prosperity. Will the Government accept full responsibility for the suffering that this tax increase will inevitably cause to our working people?

• 3 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I cannot help but think that this morning has made for rather depressing listening. We hear this repetition about a £22 billion black hole, but we are dealing with very serious matters such as people’s employment. Ultimately I hear the Chancellor talking about a central planning agenda, but it is public services that are the problem; they are wasting money, and we must seriously consider that. Will the Chancellor accept, if the economy turns down next year, which it surely will, that she has made a mess of it?

• 27 Nov 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q4. I sincerely hope that all of us in this House agree that good government is transparent government. In response to my written question on publishing the number of foreign nationals receiving universal credit, I was informed by the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western), that the feasibility of developing suitable official statistics was being examined. Will the Prime Minister today commit to using his good offices to publish this data transparently?

• 25 Nov 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that the Home Secretary would agree that good government is transparent government. I have been told by her Department, in response to a written parliamentary question, that the number of crimes committed by illegal migrants is not available through published statistics. I am sure that the Home Office does hold the data, so will the Minister commit to publishing it in full?

• 18 Nov 2024 · Financial Services: Mansion House Speech · Hansard source

  More

  In her Mansion House speech, the Chancellor announced that we would change the emphasis of regulation from risk to growth. The FCA and PRA have effectively regulated the London market into terminal decline, embedding Stonewall philosophy and diversity, equity and inclusion into financial regulation, starting with the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. That was followed by the markets in financial instruments directives I and II, which imported EU regulation into the London market, prioritising a European bank lending model over our equity capital market tradition. Given that regulators cannot regulate for growth, the only solution is to disband the FCA and PRA, and return to the light-touch regulation under the Bank of England that secured London’s position as a vibrant capital market until 2000. Could the Minister explain with clarity the Government’s strategy of regulating for growth, which appears to me to be an oxymoron?

• 14 Nov 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  This week, John McTernan, an adviser to Tony Blair, publicly stated that farming should be treated in the same way that Margaret Thatcher treated the miners, and that it was an industry the country could “do without”. As a farmer, I find this incorrect, offensive and deluded. Does the Minister agree?

• 6 Nov 2024 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  This is a Budget of the public sector, by the public sector, for the public sector. Neither the Chancellor nor the Prime Minister was able to define a “working person” with any clarity in various confused and stumbling attempts. Does the definition include the entrepreneurs who take risks, invest money, employ “working” people, work hard themselves, and collect VAT, national insurance and pension contributions—which they gift-wrap and pay to the state—as well as paying corporation tax on any residual profits? If not, why not? However, we can now see that that is irrelevant, as the massive increase in employers’ national insurance contributions and the equally venal cut in the payment threshold from £9,000 to £5,000 is a huge tax on employment in the private sector, which, unlike the state, cannot print money in taxpayers’ collective name to cover any budget shortfall. This will mean that the private sector will employ fewer people by design, and will reduce pay rises, increase prices, invest less, and pay less corporation tax. It is a disaster for a Government to hand out taxpayers’ money like confetti, without proper checks and balances, taking hard-working taxpayers for fools. This Budget is only possible because quantitative easing has allowed the state to grow without justification, nurturing the culture of central planning, misguided net zero obsession, and all the elements of collectivism that took a generation to destroy the Soviet Union. The Chancellor has landed a knockout punch on private sector entrepreneurs. It is not only small businesses that suffer. The farming industry, already in a parlous state, has been further undermined by revised death tax amendments. If a rethink of this lunacy is not forthcoming, the continuity and long-term investment required to provide this over-populated island with a degree of food security will be destroyed by forced sales of land on death. Farming is a tough, vocational career, and the average age of farmers is now over 60. The same is true for family businesses, which are also set to suffer disruptive death taxes. The backbone of Britain’s nation of shopkeepers is being broken by socialist design. As Winston Churchill presciently observed, “I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”

• 6 Nov 2024 · Small Boat Crossings · Hansard source

  More

  In the Home Office annual report, it is confirmed that in 2022-23 £3 billion was spent on hotel costs for illegal migrants, averaging £8 million a day. The cruel inheritance tax assault on British family farms and businesses is estimated eventually to raise £520 million a year. Do the Labour Government need to rethink their spending priorities urgently?

• 5 Nov 2024 · Future of Fishing · Hansard source

  More

  Okay. The other point that I want to make about the debate, which came out quite clearly, is that the British people voted to take back our own sovereignty. That, I am afraid, is an indisputable fact, and it is something we have to respect. The Government’s primary job is to protect the interests of the British people, and it is important that we understand that. My hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) made an incredibly important point about over-regulation, which is now rife in all our markets. It has destroyed our stock market, and if we are not careful it will strangle enterprise and damage our industries. I thank everyone else for their speeches and interventions. I think we can all agree that the way the British fishing industry has been treated by those in these corridors is nothing short of unacceptable. It has been ignored, forgotten and sacrificed. We have let entire coastal communities rot and decay—whole towns decimated, once-thriving economies ruined—because this place did not have the courage to fight for them. It is a shameful legacy that has alienated entire generations up and down our coastline. We are an island nation surrounded by some of the most fertile seas on the planet, yet we are a net importer of fish. Does anything sum up the sheer madness of Britain’s relentless managed decline more than that? The fishermen of Great Yarmouth deserve better, the fishermen of Norfolk deserve better, and the fishermen of every single coastal town and port deserve better. I will finish with a quote from Aneurin Bevan, which I thought hit the mark. He said: “This island is made mainly of coal and surrounded by fish. Only an organising genius could produce a shortage of coal and fish at the same time.” Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the future of fishing after 2026.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Future of Fishing · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to carry on. Of the 35,000 tonnes of fish that arrive in Boulogne each year, two thirds come from British waters. There is an opportunity to rebuild the industry. One job at sea supports eight jobs on the land: processors, merchants, transport operatives, shipbuilders, welders, platers, electricians, carpenters, engineers, painters and other areas of expertise benefit. DEFRA’s inability to respond to the evolving industry is exemplified by the emergence of bluefin tuna in British waters. Quotas exist for only 40 tonnes, but 400 tonnes to 600 tonnes would help start the process of rebuilding. We must ensure that fish are landed in our ports. An education programme must be undertaken to promote British fish. Tax breaks must be given for fishing boat purchases and processing factory construction. If the Government are intent on fulfilling their duty to the British electorate, we need to know their post-2026 plans for a rebuilding blueprint to benefit our economy and food security. Our £100 billion trade deficit was overlooked in our Brexit negotiations, which resulted in a border down the Irish sea and a threat to the sanctity of the Union. We need to know the Government’s intentions now. The Reform party has the blueprint for success, but it cannot be put in place without a committed intent to act in Britain’s best interest. How can we move forward and ensure the fishing industry is properly protected and supported as it should be? We need to introduce a revised version of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 to rebalance quotas and protect against quota hopping and foreign exploitation. We must speed up the return of the fishing quota to UK fishermen. We should introduce a fee or licence for foreign vessels—including EU vessels—seeking to access UK fishing waters, and the money should be invested directly in the UK fishing industry. We should enforce rules stating that all fish caught in UK waters must be landed and processed in, and then exported from, the UK, with the eventual rule that all fish caught by foreign vessels in UK waters will be landed and processed in the UK once the fish processing industry has reached sufficient capacity. We should ban foreign supertrawlers from UK waters.