Wendy Chamberlain MP: speeches

Speeches

• 5 Mar 2025 · Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  The Scotch whisky industry is central to the economic growth of Scotland, and I was very pleased to hear from the Dispatch Box yesterday that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is not moving forward with its consultation on single malts. However, can the Secretary of State explain why we were in that position in the first place? What discussions were had between DEFRA and the Scotland Office before that consultation was opened?

• 27 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T4. Four years ago, the StAnza poetry festival experienced difficulties bringing EU creatives over to perform in St Andrews, and those issues still exist. I note the Secretary of State’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), but more than warm words are needed. When will we see a timescale on improving the situation?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Family Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is highlighting the value that family businesses have in the community and beyond. I have a constituent who has been investing 80%-plus of all their profits back into their business for many years, but with the changes to business property relief, they are going to have to divest equity in the business. Does he agree that that is not the right way to guarantee growth?

• 24 Feb 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  In response to the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), the Foreign Secretary said that Russia does not respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine. On his comments on the Ukraine defence contact group, the US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth says that the US wants to see “a sovereign and prosperous Ukraine”, but given the news that we have just heard about the UN resolution, how confident is the Foreign Secretary that the US will respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine?

• 24 Feb 2025 · Bank Closures: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way a second time?

• 24 Feb 2025 · Bank Closures: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member mentioned Nationwide. My understanding is that 142 towns in the UK do not have a bank, and many are left only with a building society. It seems that the banks have exited while the building societies have stayed behind. I would appreciate his thoughts on what that says about the lack of community cohesion as a result of losing those banks. Often we are losing post offices at the same time.

• 24 Feb 2025 · Bank Closures: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to him for giving way a second time. He is making an important point. One of the things that I have always found interesting is that when a bank has closed in North East Fife, it offers to deliver not an access-to-cash service but some kind of pop-up banking advice service in the constituency. That suggests to me that banks know very well that giving banking service advice is important. Instead of doing it as a sop for a number of months before giving up, they need to do it on a more regular and permanent basis.

• 13 Feb 2025 · Infected Blood Compensation Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Paymaster General for the update; indeed, I am grateful that he has given several updates to the House. My North East Fife constituent was infected a number of years ago and involved in the campaign for a long time. He has shared concerns about the evidential standard expected of claimants, particularly in relation to medical records. Indeed, his lawyers have told me that they have concerns that case managers are not correctly interpreting the initial date of infection because medical records are not available to substantiate that. They also have concerns that the Australia antigen has not been properly understood as an indicator of HBV. Is the Paymaster General aware of those concerns? Can he comment on them?

• 13 Feb 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  It is quite clear from events of the past few hours that the Atlantic and the high north are of increasingly critical concern. Indeed, I was a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee that considered that in the previous Parliament. I know that the Government have had conversations with Denmark, but what conversations are they having with our other Joint Expeditionary Force partners to ensure that those forces are given the support and the resources that they need?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for the Scotch Whisky Industry · Hansard source

  More

  It is right to give credit to the UK Government for some of the work happening on exports. However, does the hon. Member agree that the changes that the previous Government made to spirits duty, which this Government have refused to change, mean that the Treasury is losing out on money by not treating alcohol as alcohol across the different categories?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for the Scotch Whisky Industry · Hansard source

  More

  It is important that we recognise, particularly when we look at the US, that exporting Scotch is not the only challenge. The Scotch whisky industry needs ex-bourbon casks to produce the whisky we all know and love. Does the Minister agree that the Government need to ensure that conversations with the US Administration take place? Otherwise, our supply will be impacted.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. Today, farmers are descending on Whitehall for the third time in as many months. All Members present here, I suspect, know that the Government’s proposals to change APR—and BPR, which we must not forget—have been an exercise in failure: a failure in political judgment and in communication. Based on the latest OBR analysis, they will not even achieve their policy outcomes. A number of Members have suggested different ways of mitigating this impact, but I point out that there was a report about the half a billion in additional costs to HMRC spent on recouping tax. Funnily enough, that is the same as the £500 million that it is estimated this policy will bring into the Treasury, so perhaps we need fewer loopholes, simpler tax and a way to help working people in this country. I want to raise an issue mentioned by a number of Members, including the Chair of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), about agricultural tenancies and their impact particularly in Scotland. Agricultural tenancies have an inheritable value; there are circumstances in which a tenancy can be passed on via a will, the rules of intestacy or, in some conditions, as a lifetime gift. It is not purely a Scottish occurrence, but it is many times more common in Scotland, because of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991. Any tenancy to which that law applies can be passed on by the tenant as part of their estate. The tenancy is valued per acre according to the difference between market rates and the actual rent, because these tenancies have much lower, preferential rates. According to the CAAV— I know it has written to the Chancellor about this, and I am grateful for its explanation—that means the average value of lowland arable land, for example, would be £3,000 to £4,000 per acre. Therefore, a tenancy of 300 acres breaches the APR threshold and starts paying APR—and that is before taking into account the value of machinery. Although we have heard broad concerns about the future of farms if they are forced to sell land piecemeal, that just is not an option available to tenant farmers. This is complicated and technical, but I think the Government just have not thought about the impact on Scottish tenant farmers. I have raised this four times in the last three months, both at Scotland Office questions and in the urgent question that the Minister replied to a couple of weeks ago, and I got platitudes. I do not think they have looked at this at all. I am conscious of the perception that farmers are wealthy. We have made it clear today that this debate is about people who have cash held in their land, but cannot release that without selling it. A constituent I spoke to last week is a farmer, previously a tenant farmer; she bought her farm eight years ago with her family, under a mortgage, and is now transitioning from working tax credits to universal credit. We need to deal with that myth, and I urge the Government to pause this policy.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will the Minister give way?

• 10 Feb 2025 · Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is outlining the impact of this policy. The example that she gave about her constituent reminds us that there is a multigenerational element to farming, and families often live together. The Government have said that farmers should consider tax planning, but one challenge with tax planning is that a donor cannot keep any benefit from a gift. Do we think the Government intend to suggest that older parent farmers who tax plan need to move off the farm?

• 10 Feb 2025 · US Commitment to NATO · Hansard source

  More

  6. Whether he has had discussions with officials in the US Administration on its commitment to NATO.

• 10 Feb 2025 · US Commitment to NATO · Hansard source

  More

  Members of this House have raised concerns about the impact on Ukraine of both the new US Administration and continuing Russian aggression. Can the Secretary of State assure me that he will use the upcoming Munich security conference to determine with allies the best way of ensuring Ukraine’s victory?

• 6 Feb 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I should first declare an interest, as chair of the Scotch whisky all-party parliamentary group. The Scotch whisky industry is obviously a heavy user of UK-produced glass, and is trying hard to increase its recycling. There is cross- party support for the extended producer responsibility measures—I was a member of the Delegated Legislation Committee that considered them—but concern has been expressed to the APPG about the practicalities of extended producer responsibility, and the risk of its becoming a tax, rather than bringing about the circular economy that we all want. Speaking as a Scottish MP who saw the collapse of the deposit return scheme in Scotland and has heard the concerns expressed by businesses, may I ask for a debate in Government time on ensuring that we secure the right outcomes from extended producer responsibility?

• 6 Feb 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for her response to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) on USAID, and grateful to know that the impact assessment of the US Government’s decision about USAID is ongoing, particularly in relation to the humanitarian situation in Gaza. As part of that assessment, should the Government consider a return to 0.7% of gross national income for overseas development assistance? If the US is no longer a reliable global partner, then surely the UK should be.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Fuel Poverty · Hansard source

  More

  18. What steps his Department is taking to tackle fuel poverty in winter 2024-25.

• 3 Feb 2025 · Career Breaks: Parents of Seriously Ill Children · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Member for allowing me to intervene a second time. It is right that we acknowledge employers who are doing this well. I declare my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a vice-president of Carers UK. That organisation runs an important network that shares good practice among employers, and I urge any constituents who have signed the petition to get their employers linked in with it.

• 3 Feb 2025 · Career Breaks: Parents of Seriously Ill Children · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member pointed out some of the increased employment rights that we should see under the Employment Rights Bill. In the previous Parliament, there was no employment rights Bill, but private Members’ Bills did improve the situation in part: the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 on flexible, working promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), and my Carer’s Leave Act 2023. That suggests we need more support for parents—paid carer’s leave—so that people like Christina do not suffer in the way that the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) has outlined.

• 24 Jan 2025 · Gambling Act 2005 (Monetary Limits for Lotteries) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

• 24 Jan 2025 · Gambling Act 2005 (Monetary Limits for Lotteries) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This is a small and, on the surface, technical looking Bill, but one that would revolutionise charity fundraising in constituencies up and down the country. The key clause is 1(2), which would omit subsection (3) from section 99 of the Gambling Act 2005. The law that would be changed is a requirement placed on charity lotteries alone that caps the proceeds of their sales in any given year. Put another way, if someone is running a purely profit-driven lottery with no societal benefit, there are no caps on the number of tickets they can sell, but for charity lotteries—the most well-known being the People’s Postcode Lottery—there is a cap of £5 million per draw and £50 million over the course of a calendar year. What clause 1(2) would do—indeed, this is the purpose of the whole Bill—is remove that cap and allow unlimited charitable fundraising from licensed lottery sales, because, of course, it is important that the proceeds of the lottery go to charities, rather than just creating bigger and bigger prize pots. As things stand, there is a limit on prizes of £25,000 or, if it is more, 10% of the proceeds of the lottery. The limit is therefore £500,000 with the current cap. All the stakeholders agree that we ought to amend section 99(4) of the 2005 Act so that it reads £500,000, to maintain the current prize levels. My Bill seeks the Government’s agreement to that and asks them to exercise their powers under clause 3 to make the relevant consequential provisions. That is the extent of the Bill—two small legislative changes with a huge consequence for charities across the UK. There are approximately 500 charity lottery operators generating more than £450 million for good causes every year. As I have mentioned, the largest of these is the People’s Postcode Lottery; indeed, it is the one with the largest reach in every constituency. To date, the People’s Postcode Lottery has coped with the fact that demand exceeds the cap by establishing different postcode trusts that each operate on a thematic or geographical basis, but I would argue that there are three fundamental problems with that. First, it is incredibly bureaucratic, with each trust having to have its own licences, monthly returns, registrations under Scottish, English and Welsh law, trustees, audit and risk committees, monthly and annual accounts, financial audits, websites and so on. That bureaucracy increases costs that could otherwise be used for good causes. Secondly, it is deeply inflexible, with the funds raised under each trust being required to be directed to the trust theme or geographical designation. Right now, we see Storm Éowyn causing destruction over Northern Ireland and Scotland. If there is damage or some sort of major accident causing loss of life, charities, as they always do, will step in to urgently provide support. However, the People’s Postcode Lottery, for example, would not be able to divert funds to assist with such efforts because of the current rules on trusts, as a result of the cap. Thirdly, even if we accept the additional bureaucracy and the restrictions on where funds are deployed, at the end of the day, all the evidence still shows that fundraising is being limited by the caps, and in any case, their value is eroded by inflation. It is estimated that if we do nothing and keep the caps today, the charities supported by the People’s Postcode Lottery will lose out on £175 million over the next five years. I challenge anyone in the House to argue that the charities in their constituency would not benefit from that funding. We already benefit from funding in North East Fife, and I would love to see more support for fantastic local initiatives. I will list some of the individual projects that have been supported in the last two years alone. St Agatha’s and St Andrews nurseries received funds for the cost of outdoor education equipment and training. There has been support for Scotland’s international poetry festival, StAnza, which takes place in St Andrews every year—I am looking forward to March’s programme. The Newburgh wellbeing choir, which provides support for people living with dementia, was able to hire professional singers trained in dementia inclusion to lead the group. Nurture Steps had a project funded to run support sessions for parents of young children with disabilities, and Veterans Tribe Scotland was supported on a significant project to reduce isolation, loneliness and anxiety among those who have served our country. There were funds allocated to maintain a community playing field at Dunbog community hall. In the late summer, I hope to go to the Cupar big weekend, which has also been supported by charity lotteries. I could go on; there are countless projects. For example, the Cupar food bank and local brownie units receive funding from their central bodies, the Trussell Trust and Girlguiding, that also comes from charity lotteries.

• 24 Jan 2025 · Gambling Act 2005 (Monetary Limits for Lotteries) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I absolutely agree. Indeed, in a Westminster Hall debate just last week, where the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), also spoke, I highlighted that very thing: the national insurance increase will hurt charities, and there is an opportunity for the Government, through my Bill, to ameliorate some of that. Children First also said that it understands that technical barriers place limits on the way that charity lotteries provide funds and that it supports calls to remove the cap. There are about 170,000 charities across the UK. Of course, not all of them want or need charity funding, but many thousands do. There are many reasons why the House should support the Bill. I understand some of the Government’s concerns. I have been told that they are worried about the impact on the national lottery, considering the Secretary of State’s statutory obligation to maximise its success. However, I would argue that there is no evidence to suggest there is a detrimental impact on the national lottery from charity lotteries. The Gambling Commission has investigated this three times in the last 15 years, most recently in October 2017, and found no statistically significant effect of charity lotteries on national lottery sales. That was confirmed again in 2022 in an impact assessment by Regulus Partners. My goal with the Bill is to keep the distinct nature of the national lottery by protecting its much larger prize pots. This weekend, the lotto’s prize is £4 million, while the Euromillions’ is £83 million. In changing the law on sales, we want to change the current price cap to keep the prize maximum at £500,000. It is a very different ball game, and the Bill supports the evidence that players of one lottery often play the other as well. I know that the Government are awaiting updated research. I suggest that the Government choose to progress my Bill today and consider the research at Committee stage or later. From my conversations with the Minister, I understand that the Government are determined to hold their current position that they want to see the evidence first. I hope that the Minister will confirm the commitment to make the research public when it is received and to update the House on the Government’s review of the research before the summer recess. I hope she will then set out any legislative action the Government are prepared to take. I know that the Minister supported these reforms in opposition and is therefore sympathetic to the purpose of the Bill. I am sure she is aware of the money charities in her constituency have benefited from and will continue to benefit from. The Station House Community Association in her constituency notes the following in a project description: “this grant has supported our running costs—just like everyone else all our bills have increased and we need to cover these costs.” As my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon) highlighted, this is an issue we hear everywhere, particularly now that charities are faced with the additional cost of national insurance contributions. Increased fundraising to counterbalance these additional costs will be increasingly vital over the years ahead if charitable projects that we all champion are to survive. The Bill offers a way for the Government to support such charities, and at no cost to the taxpayer. It is a win-win in my view. Before I finish, I would like to touch on gambling harms. I am a strong believer in reforms to the sector to protect people from problem gambling. Public Health England has said that there are more than 400 gambling-related suicides a year and that it costs the UK £1.4 billion. Extrapolation of this data by Gambling with Lives suggests that up to 650 gambling-related suicides take place across the UK each year. My party wants to see a compulsory levy on gambling companies to fund research, education, treatment, restrictions on advertising and the establishment of a gambling ombudsman. The seriousness of addictive, problem gambling cannot be underestimated. I want to outline the steps that the People’s Postcode Lottery takes to tackle it. Players sign up to a monthly subscription to be entered into the draws. The number of monthly subscriptions for a single player is limited, and draws take place throughout the month with results published accordingly. One of the most influential factors in the development of gambling problems is the ability to gamble in real time over and over again. Charity lotteries do not allow real-time gambling, so it takes away the ability to chase a perceived high. Lotteries are widely recognised as being low-risk games compared to other forms of gambling. To conclude, I feel confident that there are only benefits to the Bill. There are benefits to the charity sector, which is facing unprecedented pressures, to local charities and community projects, and ultimately to all of our constituents.

• 24 Jan 2025 · Gambling Act 2005 (Monetary Limits for Lotteries) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has just exemplified what I said earlier. Every single one of us has probably attended drop-ins in Parliament and seen the benefit of charity lotteries in our local communities. Fundraising is not a one-off thing. There will be other projects that were not successful in getting funding, or all the funding they needed, because it has not been available under the current system. I would like to bring in some of those charities’ voices directly. I hope the Minister is aware that before Christmas, over 100 charity leaders wrote to the Prime Minister asking him to support my Bill. They pointed to the absurdity of charity fundraising being restricted. They noted, and I have to agree, that “supporting this vital reform would send a strong message on the Labour Government’s backing for, and belief in the third sector and a vibrant, well-funded society.” I spoke with one the signatories of the letter, Children First, earlier this week. It said: “In a financial climate that is more challenging than ever, we rely on charitable fundraising to deliver the essential services we provide to children and families across the country. Importantly,”— and I think this is a very important point— “the unrestricted nature of the funding means we are more able to use the money in the most effective way for children and families, bridging gaps in the ever-complex funding environment. Many of our services rely on a jigsaw of income, sometimes stretching to 20 different sources all with conditions, data gathering and reporting requirements. This, in turn, has an impact on how much we can do for the children and families we support as time and energy is locked into sustaining funding as opposed to supporting families.”