Tom Tugendhat MP: speeches

Speeches

• 31 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Simply to say that, although there needs to be a maximum sum to levy as a penalty, £18 million strikes any reasonable person as extremely high. Although we completely agree with compliance, the fines strike me as a little out of proportion. Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Amendments made: 5, in clause 18, page 13, line 10, at end insert— “(za) in the case of a contravention of a requirement imposed by a notice under paragraph 3(1)(b) of Schedule 3 (requirement to attend and answer questions), £5,000; paragraph 3(1)(b)” This amendment sets at £5,000 the maximum monetary penalty that an individual may be given for failure to comply with a requirement imposed under paragraph 3(1)(b) of Schedule 3. Amendment 6, in clause 18, page 13, line 11, after “if” insert “, in a case to which paragraph (za) does not apply,” This amendment is consequential on amendment 5. Amendment 7, in clause 18, page 13, line 13, after “if” insert “, in a case to which paragraph (za) does not apply,” This amendment is consequential on amendment 5. Amendment 8, in clause 18, page 14, line 1, at end insert— “(za) subsection (1)(za),”— (Dan Jarvis.) This amendment is consequential on amendment 5. Clause 18, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 19 to 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 24 Offences of failing to comply with compliance notice or restriction notice Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  This is a simple repetition of the amendments we have made throughout the Bill to alleviate the burden on small businesses and ensure that the balance is appropriate.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am afraid that amendment 18 is on the same point we have made throughout, which is about overburdening.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 33 Interpretation of this Part Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  No, I am not withdrawing it; I am just not moving it.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Given the very obvious numbers on the Committee, there is no point in pushing the amendment to a vote, but I still believe that the burden on small businesses is too great. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 1 Specified uses of premises

• 31 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  This very simple amendment is in line with the others that I have already spoken about. It would limit the Government’s power to exert extra burdens on small businesses.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I tabled the amendments for the simple reason that a burden will fall on businesses and on individuals; we can belittle it and say that complying will take only an hour or two, but for many small businesses that is a significant burden. As was made clear in the evidence session only the other day, the burden on local authorities, including at parish level for parish halls, can change the way in which trustees approach this issue, which is why we looked to make the changes that I recognise the Minister has indeed made. It is important to ensure that the burdens do not grow. That is why I have tabled some of the amendments before us, which change some of the fines and request a change from simply issuing an instruction to introducing a statutory instrument—a very specific moment when the Minister actually has to make a decision and bring the issue back to Parliament. We can belittle the hours, but trustees and volunteers at village halls make their own time available—I speak from personal experience, and others will have seen this as well—so if the burden is too great, plenty of village halls will simply close because we are asking people to take on more than they are willing to give. That is why we have tabled the amendments, but as they all speak to the same point, which is not overburdening people, my remarks can be taken to apply to them as a whole.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 2, page 2, line 11, leave out “200” and insert “300”. This amendment sets the threshold for qualifying premises at 300 individuals.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 6, page 5, line 1, leave out paragraph (a). This amendment prevents the Secretary of State from creating further requirements for enhanced duty premises by regulations.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7 Enhanced duty premises and qualifying events: documenting compliance Question proposed , That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Given that this is the last time I will speak on this Bill Committee, I want to pay tribute to Figen and Brendan for the work they have done. There is always a danger with such Bills that we put the blame not on the perpetrator but on those who are actually victims. I say that because the businesses that must make provision, pay the cost and bear the burden are also victims of the perpetrators. Let us be absolutely clear: for all that this law lays out the responsibilities on businesses, the true responsibility falls on those perpetrating these attacks. Today, as Ken McCallum would tell us, the Iranian state is a prime originator, and the Muslim Brotherhood is a feeder, of the evil we see perpetrated. It is the various jihadi extremist organisations that make this country less safe, and different aspects of other political parties also make it more dangerous. We must be absolutely clear that responsibility for the actions we are talking about actually falls not on the businesses but on those who encourage, tolerate and perpetrate terrorism. Let us be absolutely clear today that one of the principal vectors for this violence comes straight out of Tehran and through various organisations that are still operating in this country despite many attempts to close them down.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It will be.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I have had the great privilege of meeting Figen and Brendan over many months on this, so I have no questions.

• 7 Oct 2024 · British Indian Ocean Territory: Negotiations · Hansard source

  More

  The old principle that we used to apply was the Wilson principle—the principle of self-determination—which the Foreign Secretary may remember is the defence of the Falkland Islands and the defence of Gibraltar. He has now just violated that principle by undermining the rights of the Chagossian people in favour of a claim that was abandoned in 1965—it was never really made because it was only administrative, and the islands were never properly governed from Mauritius anyway—and by being in favour of a Court judgment that was advisory, he has sold out the sovereignty of the British people. Truly, nobody apart from a boy called Jack has ever made a worse deal on the way to market, and he has come back with a handful of beans that he is trying to sell as a prize.

• 7 Oct 2024 · British Indian Ocean Territory: Negotiations · Hansard source

  More

  Not true.

• 7 Oct 2024 · British Indian Ocean Territory: Negotiations · Hansard source

  More

  And I rejected it then.

• 7 Oct 2024 · British Indian Ocean Territory: Negotiations · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

• 29 Jul 2024 · English Channel: Illegal Small Boat Crossings · Hansard source

  More

  May I start by extending my support to the Home Secretary for whatever incident is going on in Southport, and to Merseyside police, given the incidents we are sadly seeing in Merseyside today? Earlier this month, the right hon. Lady refused to rule out the UK accepting migrants from European countries in exchange for a returns deal with Europe. Does she accept that under any deal she does, some of those sent to the United Kingdom from the European Union could harbour extremist ideologies or pose a security threat? Will she commit to ensuring strong safeguards, including a right of refusal on a case-by-case basis, to stop anyone who could put Britain’s security at risk from entering this country?

• 23 Jul 2024 · Immigration and Home Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  May I start by sending my congratulations and those of my party to the hon. and right hon. Members who have been elected today, the hon. Members for Sussex Weald (Ms Ghani) and for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes)? I congratulate them all; I am sure they will fulfil their roles as Deputy Speakers with great integrity and honour. I turn briefly to some of the maiden speeches, of which there have been the most extraordinary number. I am grateful to have sat through many of them, although perhaps not all. My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) brings fantastic previous service to the House, although I hope he is not bitten by another dog. I must also pay tribute to his wife Caroline’s courage and his campaign. I also cite the hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), who is not shy of a cake. Although that may not be the public service or public health message that she wishes to bring, it is one that I share. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) highlighted the Glasshouse, which is indeed at the cultural heart of our nation. The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) gave a moving account of a tragic loss, and his campaign for recognising baby loss is one that will be backed across the whole House. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) surprised us all by actually discussing the subject of the debate. The direct access of the hon. Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) to the Chancellor will no doubt raise huge hopes in her constituency. The addiction of the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) to ice cream suggests that he should team up with the hon. Member for Darlington. I suggest they might one day be friends. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White) does belong here, no matter what she says and no matter what anybody else says. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) taught us the meaning of pier envy, which was a new one on me. The baby girl of the hon. Member for Barking (Nesil Caliskan) will no doubt bring enormous joy, but if my experience is anything to go by, enormous sleepless nights, too. No doubt she too will be voting in the Lobby very soon. I must pay enormous tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) in healthcare. As a child I was a frequent flyer and user of the William Harvey hospital, so I am grateful that he continues to serve in that community. The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) hid a king or found one—I am not sure quite which. The hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) made a passionate defence of the need for domestic energy production, and I share that view enormously. I am sorry he does not share it with the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband), but perhaps he will inform him better. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) had kind words to say about our friend Alex Chalk, who served the House and that constituency with great integrity and decency. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) recalled the last battle on British soil and is now seeking to power our country with nuclear energy. As he will know well, this country only ever builds nuclear power stations under a Conservative Government. The hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) committed to work on disabilities, and that sentiment will be shared by many here. The campaigning technique of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) is undoubtedly original. The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Bellshill (Frank McNally) can only hope to break the track record of getting a second term in that seat, and even those of us on the Opposition Benches might be supportive of that. The history of piracy of the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) will no doubt worry the Whips something rotten. I am sure she will fail to put them at their ease—certainly not so early in the Parliament. The fashion advice of the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) would be welcomed by those of us who missed the 1960s, but he no doubt will be contributing. I thank him for his kind words to our friend Greg Hands, who served the constituency so well. I turn to the King’s Speech, rather than the maiden speeches—the King, after all, has given one himself. Sadly he did not choose his own words, and I am not sure they were the ones he would have chosen. It is, however, as ever a pleasure to be speaking across the Dispatch Box from the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), and I wish her the very best of luck in her new role. Becoming a Labour Immigration Minister must be a strange experience. After all, Barbara Roche, one of her predecessors, wrote that she was “appalled” to be appointed Immigration Minister in the Blair Government. One of Barbara’s contemporaries, David Blunkett, famously said that there was “no obvious limit” to the number of migrants who could settle in the United Kingdom. I suspect we will not get such frank honesty from this Prime Minister or this Home Secretary. However, in their hearts I suspect that neither of them truly believes in controlling legal and illegal migration. The hon. Member for Wallasey has my sympathy. It cannot be easy to defend a Government who have already scrapped the deterrents that worked, lost the commander of the border strategy unit and now all but offered an amnesty. Oh dear, these days are difficult, are they not? No doubt she has already read the advice of her frontline officers, because the National Crime Agency was extremely clear. It has been tasked by that Government to tackle criminal gangs, but it has already said that we need an effective deterrence agreement, and since it has publicly pointed out that no country has ever stopped people trafficking upstream in foreign countries without a deportation scheme, I am certain that it will not have minced its words in private.

• 23 Jul 2024 · Immigration and Home Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady will get plenty of time in just a moment. Despite that, the Home Secretary has promised the British people results and urged us to put faith in her plans. I have long heard and listened to the right hon. Lady, who has been a friend for many years, so let me ask the question put yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse). If, God forbid, the Home Secretary is wrong and the numbers rise—I know; wonders will never happen—what will she do? Will she take responsibility and resign, or will she reach for the old Blair-Brown playbook that is the golden thread running through the King’s Speech and instead farm out the blame, set up a new quango, pretend it is not her problem and hope that it all goes away? I am sorry to tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that having listened to the debates over the last few days, it seems that Labour’s approach to illegal immigration is absolutely typical of how it plans to govern. This is a Government who will be overbearing when they should stand back and absent when they should stand tall. They will be too hesitant in defending our country from her enemies abroad, too controlling—or uncontrolling—of our borders, failing to protect decent people from criminals. But they will be all too willing to creep into every corner of our personal lives. This is a Government who seem determined to prioritise left-wing ideology over the interests of the British people; I am afraid that is what Labour does. That is what is happening in education, where the Government are rolling back the quiet revolution that has made our schools some of the best in the western hemisphere; in energy, where they claim that they will reduce bills by creating an energy company that does not generate energy; and in skills, where the best they can offer a generation that aspires is another bloated regulator. Those are the policies of a Government who value jobs for bureaucrats over results and ideological purity over the wellbeing of the British people. I am afraid that the economy cannot afford such ideology. We need honesty in the challenges that we face. Despite the Chancellor’s attempts to talk down the position that she has found herself in, that is indeed what she has inherited. Despite the selective memories on the Government Benches, we know the facts. We have the lowest inflation and the fastest-growing economy of any G7 country, the deficit is down, unemployment is down and the economy is growing, all despite a global pandemic and a war raging in Europe. That recovery is now at risk. Labour talks about growth, but businesses are already groaning at the proposed increase in regulation that the Government are proposing and are fearful of the tax rises that we are all expecting from the Chancellor and that she is effectively rolling the carpet for this autumn. The changes in workplace regulations will not protect new employees; they will simply put businesses off hiring them. The trouble with Labour’s plans is that we know that however well-meaning they are, they always lead to the same outcome. While Conservatives see industry as the source of our prosperity, Labour just views it as something to be taxed. It thinks that entrepreneurs are not grafters but greedy, and it cannot see that drive and energy bring opportunity to a whole community, not just to an individual or a company. To that, I say this. Just as our security should not be taken for granted, neither should our wealth or prosperity. No one owes us a living or a good life. If we punish those who create jobs and make it harder or more expensive to run a business, this country will get poorer. It will not happen overnight; it will creep up on us, with investments not made, business ideas not taken forward and entrepreneurs moved abroad. Little by little, those good intentions will lead to well-predicted consequences. Where we should be going for growth, Labour is designing a state of stagnation. The direction that the Government have chosen to take is all too clear: a state that is weak on defence, weak on protecting our borders and weak on maintaining order, whether in schools or on the streets. Yet, that state presumes to tell us how to live our lives, offering us less choice about how we educate our children, run our businesses, rent our homes and do our jobs. In only a few weeks, the Government have already shown themselves unable to commit to the steps needed to keep us safe, unable to secure our borders and unwilling to let the British economy thrive. The Labour party talks a good game, but actions speak louder than words, and its actions so far have been those of a party determined to put ideology over this country’s interests.

• 19 Jul 2024 · Planning, the Green Belt and Rural Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is, again, making a very fine speech. She is talking not only about pressure on those families, but about any other families who will then see those children going to the state schools in the area.