Sarah Bool MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Dec 2025 · Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts · Hansard source

  More

  If the Chancellor really takes the integrity of the Budget as seriously as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury says, she would not have leaked so much of it to the media beforehand. There is speculation and then there is being spoon-fed. The only principle guiding the Chancellor was keeping her Back Benchers happy and the only cuts were to confidence. Will the Chief Secretary set out exactly what steps the Chancellor will take to clear up this mess? Will she come back before this House, and will she refer herself to the Financial Conduct Authority?

• 25 Nov 2025 · Immigration Reforms: Humanitarian Visa Routes · Hansard source

  More

  I thank you for chairing the debate, Sir Edward, and the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for allowing Members the opportunity to discuss the impact of the reforms on humanitarian visa routes. I also congratulate him on his recent appointment as patron of Hong Kong Watch, an organisation that has done a great deal to scrutinise successive Governments and to help to communicate essential information to those from Hong Kong who have sought refuge. He joins an illustrious collection of individuals, including current and former elected officials from across the House. The humanitarian visa route set up under the previous Government sought to recognise the scale of the crisis we experienced at the onset of this decade, whether that be the reprehensible invasion of Ukraine or the complete mistreatment of the existing rights of Hongkongers, which breached commitments enshrined in international agreements and law. I think Members from all parties would almost unanimously agree that it was right that such schemes were set up, and that it was necessary to put forward an offer to ensure that those in great danger, and to whom we have a historic responsibility, received protection. When we reflect on the context of such schemes, it is right that the immigration reforms appreciate the context. As such, I reiterate that the Conservative proposals on the change to settlement, which were made months before the Government’s own, always stated that they would have no impact on BNO visas and those from Ukraine, given the unique nature of those routes. Many constituents have reached out to me in fear that this Government would not continue that position. As mentioned, the Government announced last week that those on BNO routes would not be impacted by the changes to settlement. That finally gives them and many others the clarity they have been asking for. It also raises the question of why the Government could not have offered sufficient clarity earlier. Despite the unnecessary delay, I welcome the Government’s decision, and I echo the sentiment expressed by those in the community who are very pleased to see it. As we consider settlement, it is worth acknowledging the work done on the BNO visa. The previous Government not only instituted a scheme that has seen thousands of people come to this country—with over 166,000 people having arrived in the UK as of June 2025—but brought forward support for those who came. That included funding for 12 welcome hubs across the UK and demand-led funding for local authorities to provide English language and destitution support in England. That work underscores the seriousness with which the Conservative party viewed the integration of this community.

• 25 Nov 2025 · Immigration Reforms: Humanitarian Visa Routes · Hansard source

  More

  I think we would like to hear from the Minister, so I will push on. Although it is unsurprising, given the continuing restrictions on freedom, the fact that the Government assume that those who arrive on the BNO route will settle after five years, and that those who switch on to the route will also settle after five years, demonstrates that the route has been broadly successful. A qualitative study of the visa route for MHCLG showed that participant responses overall suggested they felt supported by the UK Government, and people with BNO visas were grateful for the existence of the route. I appreciate that specific challenges and difficulties remain, such as the need for greater engagement with programmes to improve integration. Nevertheless, we can already see some of the immense contributions that those who came through the pathway are making both to this country and to the Hong Kong diaspora. For example, only recently Chloe Cheung won the 2025 Magnitsky award for outstanding young human rights activist. She is one of the numerous people, including young individuals, who have had bounties placed on their heads by the Chinese Government for exercising their democratic rights. The complete undermining of the safety of those individuals and of the UK’s sovereignty is wholly unacceptable, but it is welcome that those individuals are resolutely fighting for the values that underpin the necessity of the visa. However, as has been expressed in the debate, questions still remain about what the Government’s broader changes will mean for this community. What will BNO visa holders and their dependants need to demonstrate in respect of new income or economic contribution requirements? Will the current English language standard for settlement on the BNO route be maintained at B1, or will it be B2? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that those born after 1997 have protection? I appreciate that those questions do not necessarily have simple answers but, given the concerns about the lack of clarity expressed recently by the community, it would be helpful if the Minister could outline answers to those matters. Ultimately, we believe there is a great deal more to do to reduce levels of legal migration, so changes to settlement are appropriate. However, as is the case with many such changes, there will be an impact, and transparency about the precise impact will always be welcome. I hope the Minister will agree that the Government should do as much as possible to express clearly the impact of the changes on people who have come to the UK through humanitarian routes.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T8. A more dynamic and active market unblocking pathways to home ownership and boosting local businesses by up to £1.2 billion—I am sure if someone offered that to the Secretary of State, he would bite their hand off, so why, when those are the benefits of scrapping stamp duty on homes, is he not lobbying the Chancellor to do just that on Wednesday?

• 24 Nov 2025 · Ministerial Code · Hansard source

  More

  How can the Minister justify the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) receiving severance pay after she had to resign in disgrace?

• 4 Nov 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  Every one of us in this Chamber, and generations of MPs before us, want to help and improve the lives of our constituents. That is why this debate is so important, and we really have to tackle it. The issues with welfare go back generations. We talk about the welfare state as we know it now, coming in after the second world war with Clement Attlee and the establishment of the NHS, but the history of welfare goes back so much further. The National Insurance Act 1911 introduced insurance against sickness, invalidity and—unusually at that time—unemployment. We can even go back even further than that, to Henry VIII and the abolition of the monasteries; it was the monasteries that used to provide charity and care for the infirm and the needy. Since then, we have seen the development of welfare in various forms, and it is something that we have all struggled with. We saw it with the development of the Poor Law and the friendly societies. It has been an area of great change and it has been going on for generations. I appreciate that anyone coming to this topic comes with the best of intentions. I think there is consensus that welfare reform is needed, but the way in which the provision of welfare is developed at the moment is entirely damaging both to the public purse and to those who are caught in the welfare net. Today’s welfare state has become like the modern-day helicopter parent. For those who do not know, a helicopter parent is one who hovers over their child like a helicopter in every aspect of their life, managing their experiences and feeling that they always need to be involved in order to solve problems. But we know that is not healthy for the child. They can feel smothered, are unable to develop and become trapped. That is what is happening with our current welfare system; it is trapping people and not giving them opportunities.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  I am very sorry that that was the experience faced by the hon. Lady’s constituent, but it is good that she has managed to get the opportunity to work. That is the thing; that is the difference. Changes need to be made. We have come to the Chamber today to try to find a route through this issue for all of us. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) has offered help. I have a big issue with the language being used in this Chamber all the time. This is a very difficult and sometimes uncomfortable conversation, but it is absolutely essential that we take the action needed. Sentiments like “living within your means”, which I think all our constituents have to do from day to day, should not be replaced by words like “austerity” and then the idea slammed down. That is not helpful to any debate or any of our constituents. We always ask our constituents to look after their money—money in, money out—and the Government have to do the same. This depends on what our own views of the Government are. There are those who want the Government to be involved in absolutely every element of everyone’s lives—and so be it, but do expect cost rises, inefficiencies and abuse of the system. The most compassionate thing is to put people on the path to take their own opportunities, to have their own jobs and to grow. That is the place we are trying to get to. Sometimes we are too involved, and we are not creating the system of fairness that we all seek. Given the sums of money that we are talking about, it is even more imperative that we grasp this nettle. It cannot be right or fair that sickness benefit pays £2,500 more a year than the amount received by someone living on the national living wage. A responsible Government have to take proper action to tackle this issue. That is why the Conservative party has come forward with proposals that would reduce spending by £23 billion, through our plan to deliver £47 billion of savings. The pen sits with the Government. It is entirely with them to take these actions—the actions that constituents are asking for. Rather than dismissing our solutions, as Government Members have constantly done today, perhaps the Government should take some of them on, take up our offer for help and improve the welfare system.

• 3 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  EKA Ltd in my constituency is a supplier to Ministry of Defence service recovery vehicles that have to be deployed with our tanks, but an issue that it and other service personnel have highlighted is the absence of the provision of robust spare parts in the event of a breakdown or damage. The Government are spending millions on these assets but leaving them completely unprotected. Is the MOD reviewing the provision of spares as part of its procurement, and would the Minister meet me and EKA Ltd to discuss the matter further?

• 29 Oct 2025 · Farmers: Inheritance Tax · Hansard source

  More

  1. What discussions she has had with farmers in Wales on the potential impact of planned changes to inheritance tax relief on the agricultural sector.

• 29 Oct 2025 · Farmers: Inheritance Tax · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister to her place. The impact of the changes to IHT goes far beyond just farmers. Last month, a Pembrokeshire farm gathered 57 businesses from vets, machinery dealerships, and milk processors, to electricians and fencing companies, employing almost 11,000 people. Almost half of those were totally reliant on incomes from local farms. Have the Government fully considered the ripple effect of that policy on farms in Wales and across the UK, including in my constituency?

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  I will make some progress. Labour Members sneer when we talk about living within their means. That is something that every single constituent of ours has to do. They have to make those tough decisions not to spend at certain points, or to save, or to work harder, but this Government do not even follow the principles that they ask their own constituents to adhere to.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  They say an Englishman’s home is his castle—the place he feels safe and has control of, a place with a sense of permanence. In today’s world, though, we have younger people stuck at the gatehouse, renting, unable to break through into property ownership; and we have older generations locked inside the castle towers, unable to downsize easily and get out, and last winter being cold with the sudden changes in the winter fuel allowance. They are also facing a Government armed with a trebuchet, flinging economic misery at the castle walls, destroying prospects and the foundations. There is a reason why people like programmes such as “Escape to the Country” and “Homes Under the Hammer”—other daytime programmes are available. They are really popular because they embody the aspiration of the British public to earn, and to purchase and make a true home. The policy in the motion does so much to unlock the potential that we have. Abolishing stamp duty on a primary residence could save young families, especially in London, up to £18,000 on their first home. I am really disappointed to hear Labour Members, particularly the hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder), say they do not believe it is fair to do that. It feels like the politics of envy: given that house prices are so much higher in London and the south-east, this policy is only fair. If that is combined with our announcement of the first jobs bonus, where the first £5,000 of national insurance paid by any British citizen starting their first job will be placed in a personal savings account earmarked for a first home deposit or future savings, it would be transformational. Stamp duty is, as has been echoed across the Chamber, a terrible tax. I am sure certain Labour Members will tend to agree. It is an additional tax that distorts the market and often stops people moving. We all agree it is complicated—its calculation, the exemptions. I was a commercial property lawyer, and I actually had to complete stamp duty forms. They are an absolute nightmare; they slow down and stifle the market. Particularly for young couples and families who find that dream home that they want to move into, the stamp duty alone is enough to stop them. That should not be happening in this day and age. We need to unlock true aspiration and opportunity, and I fail to see why Labour Members would reject such a policy, which has been welcomed by so many, including their own constituents.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point and I really wish that the Government would be able to find that, but unfortunately, given the current Chancellor, I do not think that will be a possibility. The Government should be creating an environment for people to thrive; they should not be fixing people in an environment. Stamp duty is one of those taxes that literally locks people in place. We must learn that we need to be able to trust individuals, give them those opportunities and see true growth. So I fully support, as I hope everyone would, this motion on stamp duty land tax.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  On rare moments, Members on both sides of the House come to the Chamber with the same question on their minds: how did it get to this? The Prime Minister is proud of his record as Director of Public Prosecutions and of his skill to prosecute, interrogate and investigate—skills that are absent here. He will also be more than familiar with the basic legal principle of caveat emptor—buyer beware. That can be translated across the board to many scenarios and, in essence, means that we have to do our research and ask pointed questions. On that point, the Prime Minister exposed himself in interviews yesterday. He claimed that he did not know the content of the Bloomberg emails, yet he knew that they existed—where was the inquiry? He knew that an investigation had been launched by the Foreign Office, but not the content—where was the inquiry? He was waiting for answers from the disgraced ambassador, even though we understand that his chief of staff was in contact with him for much of the previous day—where was the inquiry? Given the knowledge that such outstanding questions remained unanswered, anyone—not just a lawyer—would have drawn breath and paused before giving such a vote of confidence in the ambassador during PMQs. It was wilful ignorance at best, or political belligerence at worst. The Prime Minister now says: “Had I known then what I know now, I’d have never appointed him”. The former Foreign Secretary said: “The truth is all the issues were weighed and in that time it was known that Peter Mandelson had a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, but the scale and extent of that was only known last Wednesday evening when the prime minister surveyed those emails.” We understand, however, that the Foreign Office contacted No. 10 on Tuesday and that an investigation was opened. Something does not add up. There is such a lack of clarity on this matter, and where there is a lack of clarity, we need transparency. A proper due diligence exercise relies on the disclosure given, as the Prime Minister will be well aware from his practice. It is time to disclose. I am therefore sure that the Government will oblige the request of the Leader of the Opposition to provide the House with all correspondence and documents in the Mandelson files. The matter, however, goes beyond judgment calls made by the Prime Minister and the previous Foreign Secretary, given that both are involved in the appointment of ambassadors; it is also a matter of ethics. What is deemed acceptable behaviour for those in positions of power? The Nolan principles are integral to all of us who serve the public: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. Those principles apply as much to the former ambassador as to the Prime Minister. Under “Leadership”, the principles state: “Holders of public office should…actively promote and robustly support the principles and challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.” Given the known record of Peter Mandelson, even before the details of the Bloomberg emails came to light, does the Prime Minister believe that that principle has been met? On that basis, will the Prime Minister be referring himself and others involved in the appointment process to the independent ethics adviser? The role of ambassador in Washington is a crucial one, entrusted with the most sensitive information and shaping our reputation on the world stage. It is not too much to ask that its appointee embodies the highest standards.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Grooming Gangs: National Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  The Conservatives raised the issue of a national statutory inquiry in January. The Government attempted to block our calls for an inquiry until they were forced into a U-turn in June. On 2 September, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), said, “this Government will not lose any more time in pursuing truth and justice for victims and survivors,” —[ Official Report , 2 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 160.] yet here we stand today—no start date, no chair announced, and no terms of reference agreed. The victims need actions, not words, so will the Minister please tell the victims of these abhorrent crimes when the national inquiry will begin—or will this Secretary of State have to be forced into action, just like the last?

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  When the Minister consults on those powers, will he include the agricultural sector? With seasonal work, there is a big concern that employers will not necessarily have time to provide a notice period as the weather changes. On behalf of all our farmers, I ask him to consider that.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Today is the 10th annual Back British Farming Day. Given that the Prime Minister has been so keen on resets in recent weeks, will he reset his relationship with our farmers and reverse the family farm tax?

• 10 Sept 2025 · Russian Drones: Violation of Polish Airspace · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) that industrial collaboration between the UK and Poland is an important part of our relationship. A key part of that is primarily focused on ground-based air defence, and these events surely underline why that is critical to us and our allies. Will he tell us what progress there has been on the joint UK-Poland future common missile programme to create longer-range ground-based air defence for both nations?

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We talk about the cost. The TaxPayers’ Alliance has concerns about the amounts we are calculating, because they will be dependent on inflation. The calculations do not take into account market values, so the £35 billion stated by the Government Actuary’s Department will actually be more like £47 billion.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Veterans: Support · Hansard source

  More

  22. What steps he is taking to help support veterans into employment.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Veterans: Support · Hansard source

  More

  From my proud support of the National Transition Event held annually at Silverstone in my constituency, I am aware of the work of Mission Community, a service charity tasked with the delivery of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs’ veterans industry engagement programme, which is designed to advocate for our veterans by working with industry trade bodies. What sectors will the Government focus on in their work so that veterans and their families feel the benefit, as well as that having a positive impact on our economy?

• 3 Sept 2025 · Diabetes in Sport · Hansard source

  More

  As a type 1 diabetic myself, I completely agree with what the hon. Member says. Exercise is an excellent way of moderating blood sugar levels, but it can also bring stresses and strains, as diabetics do worry about hypoglycaemia, which I am sure he will come to. I am a big fan of anything we can do to support people to take up sport, so I congratulate him on securing this debate.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T5. On 23 July, my constituent Dr Lindsey Fitzharris, a naturalised British citizen who is undergoing cancer treatment, was denied boarding her flight home to the UK from the US, a journey she has made numerous times without trouble. She was told to contact the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office for an emergency travel document, but it took three weeks —including interventions by me—to get her home for treatment. How can it have taken three weeks in an emergency to do so? Will the Department apologise to Dr Fitzharris and investigate the matter fully?

• 1 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T3. One of the main benefits of saving into a private pension is the tax relief that people get from the Government, which is one of the smartest ways to save for later life. Any move by this Government to cut pension tax relief will devastate savings rates and the adequacy of pension provisions. I would hope that the Secretary of State knows that, so can she assure me that she has made it clear that when the Chancellor is looking to fill the fiscal black hole of her own making, she must not target pensions?

• 1 Sept 2025 · Universal Credit: 16 to 24-year-olds · Hansard source

  More

  According to the Library, in my constituency, the claimant count among those aged 16 to 24 has risen by 46%; that is one of the largest percentage increases in the country. Conservative Members know that the Government have a moral duty not to let our young people learn that a life of benefits is the life for them, so how does the Minister explain that increase? What will she do?