debates/debates2025-10-28c conversation_19
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-10-28)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-10-28c conversation_19

Vikki Slade:On Saturday, I joined CAFOD and my constituents Karl, Harry and Jo on a deadlift challenge. We—and yes, Mr Speaker, that includes me—collectively lifted more than 100 tonnes, the equivalent of five aid planes to Gaza. CAFOD also works in the west bank, where Palestinians are being treated as second-class citizens living under military, not civil, law. What diplomatic actions is the Department taking to ensure an end to violence against Palestinians and to improve their rights while a two-state solution is negotiated? \p Hamish Falconer: The initiatives that the hon. Member took with CAFOD rightly highlight the importance of rubble movement in Gaza, which is an enormous logistical challenge. That was one of the reasons I convened the Gaza reconstruction conference in Wilton Park. She rightly raises the very important question of rights in the west bank. We have contributed and will continue to contribute to efforts locally to ensure that those resident in the west bank can exercise their rights, and we will continue to raise the wider issues around annexation. \p Diane Abbott: The Foreign Secretary will be aware that Hurricane Melissa is of huge concern internationally, to those who have friends and family on holiday in Jamaica and to those of us of Jamaican heritage here in Britain. Will she give an assurance that in the horrific aftermath of Melissa, we will give every possible help and support to the people of Jamaica? \p Yvette Cooper: I agree with my right hon. Friend the Mother of the House. There are 50,000 dual nationals who live in Jamaica and up to 8,000 British citizens who may be travelling or on holiday there. We have very strong links between our communities—between the people of Jamaica and the people of Britain. That is why I spoke to the Jamaican Foreign Minister yesterday to offer our solidarity and support. I can tell my right hon. Friend that we have not just the rapid deployment of consular staff, but humanitarian staff being pre-positioned in the Caribbean. We discussed this matter in the crisis centre this morning, including what we might be able to deploy on request from the Jamaican Government. We stand ready to help and respond. \p Gregory Campbell: Can the Foreign Secretary help with the context of the middle east conflict? I have been endeavouring to establish an independent verifiable number for the rocket attacks into Israel that were carried out in the 12 months before 7 October and the 12 months after 7 October to give some context to what has happened since. Is she able to assist? \p Hamish Falconer: It is an important question. We have condemned rocket attacks into Israel throughout—both before and after 7 October. The nature of the rockets from Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad makes it harder to have a clear and indisputable number, but I will try to assist the hon. Gentleman on some of the other rockets. I believe that Iranian attacks since 7 October have included 600 rockets, killing 29 Israelis, and that Houthi attacks, which have targeted Israeli civilians, have included 100 ballistic missiles and drones. \p Lauren Edwards: I recently met the family of Davinder Singh Thandi, who died in suspicious circumstances in India. This has obviously been a distressing time for my constituents, and unfortunately they have struggled to get timely advice and support from the Foreign Office. I thank the Minister for her recent letter, but will she meet me to discuss their case and how the Department can develop a victims code to better support families like Mr Thandi’s? \p Seema Malhotra: I thank my hon. Friend for her letter, and I am very happy to meet her to discuss this matter. \p Seamus Logan: Last week the Chancellor accepted that Brexit has caused huge damage to the economy. This week sources suggest that the Prime Minister is being advised to go further in his realignment with the European Union, as the Office for Budget Responsibility is reportedly forecasting a new black hole of around £20 billion—again showing the impact of Brexit on growth. Is the Foreign Secretary ready to admit that no matter how people try to spin it, Brexit has been an all-out disaster for Scotland and these islands? \p Stephen Doughty: We have had no hesitation in exposing the impacts of the botched Brexit deal that the previous Government made. That is exactly why we have reset our relationship with the EU and achieved important agreements at the May summit. It is also why the Minister for the Cabinet Office, myself and others are working to deliver on that deal to ensure benefits for our businesses, consumers and people across this country. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the International Development Committee. \p Sarah Champion: Members might not be aware that the FCDO has given notice to the Insolvency Service that 1,885 jobs are at risk due to the 25% reduction in the workforce that follows the ODA cuts. This is a massive drop in staff numbers and it is bound to have a real impact, particularly on smaller departments such as conflict prevention. Will the Foreign Secretary please comment, being new in post, on how this will impact on her ability to shape the Department as she wants? The forward plan for the Department is still not finalised. How can she operate without the staff to do so? \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee will know that the Government have taken the difficult decision to reduce the aid budget in order to fund the defence resources that we need at a  time when there are significant security pressures. She will also know that we are working to find different ways, including private finance and new investment, to maintain not just the multilateral investment that is so important but crucial aid programmes in areas such as Sudan and Gaza. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss these details further and— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I need the Foreign Secretary to help me here. Members are desperate to get their questions in, and the only way I can get them in is by speeding up. We have to get on with the Opposition day at some point. \p Rachel Gilmour: I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. When I was in Ukraine last month I met senior Ukrainian figures, all of whom told me the same thing: they need more support from Europe to win this war. With that in mind, will the Foreign Secretary finally commit to seizing the £25 billion-worth of frozen Russian assets held in the UK and deploying them to Ukraine in its hour of need? \p Stephen Doughty: I absolutely agree that we need to get Ukraine every support that it needs. Our support is iron-clad, which is why we hosted the coalition of the willing on Thursday. Members will have heard the Foreign Secretary say that we are working closely with partners to ensure that Russia pays for the damage it has caused, and we will find the lawful and most effective ways to do that. \p Meg Hillier: Karim Ennarah is an internationally recognised human rights activist who has been subjected to a travel ban by Egypt and has been stuck there since 2020. What is the Foreign Office doing—or what can it do—to ensure that he is able to come to the UK to join his wife in my constituency? \p Hamish Falconer: I am familiar with the case and have met the man in question and my hon. Friend’s constituent. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss it further. I am travelling to Egypt this weekend and will continue to be in these sorts of discussions. \p Wendy Chamberlain: Cuts to spending in Afghanistan inevitably impact women and children disproportionately. They are more likely to be employed by NGOs forced to make cuts and more likely to need assistance. Does the Minister agree that we need to ringfence and protect funding to Afghanistan? \p Hamish Falconer: We have to be clear about who is driving the oppression of Afghan women and girls. The Taliban have put further restrictions on women and girls. They have taken further steps, including restricting the internet, that undermine the viability of Afghanistan’s economy at a fundamental level. But I assure the House that we continue to allocate significant funding to Afghanistan, with £151 million this year. That is a small decrease from last year, but I assure the hon. Member, who I know remains committed to these issues, that we remain very much focused on them. \p Emily Darlington: The British public are under no illusions about the level of resources needed for humanitarian aid in Gaza and the rebuild of Gaza, and they want to play their part. Have the Government considered aid-matching each £1 of public contribution with £1 of Government money to increase the proportion of British aid and rebuilding that can happen in Gaza? \p Yvette Cooper: We are looking at different ways to ensure that we can get sufficient resources into Gaza—that will require not just immediate humanitarian assistance but long-term reconstruction aid—and we are continuing to work with our allies and here in the UK on doing so. \p Layla Moran: Last week I met Nada, an Oxford plastic surgeon who told me horrific stories of the children she has been treating in Gaza. I believe that the Secretary of State has met her, too. The most concerning thing is that if these wounds do not have care, they will lead to life-changing disabilities. Medics are calling for a humanitarian corridor between Gaza and the west bank so that those Palestinian children can stay in Palestine. What discussions has she had on the matter? \p Yvette Cooper: I have met the doctor to whom the hon. Member referred. Her work is inspiring, and she deals with the most terrible stories of suffering. We agree that we need to be able to get humanitarian corridors in place and to treat children, especially in the region, but, as the hon. Member will know, we are also medevacing children to the UK for treatment. \p Johanna Baxter: Last month, ahead of the UN General Assembly, I had the honour of welcoming Vlad, Valeriia and Roman: three young children who were injured and abducted by Russia during Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and my hon. Friend the Minister for taking time out of your busy days to meet those children and to hear at first hand the horrors they have been through, as well as their inspiring stories. Will the Minister update the House on what discussions were held at the UN General Assembly on the unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children? What further support is being provided to Ukraine to aid their recovery? \p Stephen Doughty: It genuinely was an honour to meet the three young people my hon. Friend mentioned. As she said, not only were their stories shocking, but they were inspiring in their courage. I assure her that we continue to use every forum, including the United Nations, and all our discussions with partners and allies. I particularly commend the First Lady’s initiatives on this issue. We want to see those young people returned—it is one of the most heinous aspects of Russia’s illegal and barbarous war in Ukraine. \p Marie Goldman: The British Council is in dire financial straits. If it disappears, so will the invaluable soft power that it wields. Will the Foreign Secretary commit to meeting the chief executive of the British Council to discuss that as soon as possible? \p Chris Elmore: The British Council plays a crucial role in supporting UK interests around the world, including helping people to learn English and promote the arts and culture. The Foreign Office is providing £160 million  in grant aid to the council this year, which underlines our support. I have already met the vice-chair and the deputy chief executive, and I will meet the chief executive and the chair in due course. \p Peter Prinsley: Mr Yaxley-Lennon, aka T. Robinson, has been fêted in Israel at the invitation of a Government Minister, while the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, aka Dr Peter Prinsley—a British Jew, a member of the Board of Deputies and a vocal supporter of the Israeli people in Parliament—has been banned. What does the Minister think can be usefully done to rectify that? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend is an incredibly thoughtful, long-standing commentator on these issues. Both he and his family have made a great contribution to UK-Israeli relations. It was an act of great foolishness to prevent him from entering Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We called on the Israeli Government at the time, as we did in previous such instances. We cannot prevent the Israeli Government from making decisions that are not in their interests, but that was clearly one of them. \p Julian Lewis: The Government’s position seems to be that communist China can and does pose a wide range of serious threats to the United Kingdom but is not a threat itself. How can that possibly make sense? \p Yvette Cooper: The right hon. Gentleman will have heard me set out very clearly the threats that China poses to our national security, including those of transnational repression, support for Russia and espionage. He will know that range of threats and that is why it is deeply frustrating that the prosecution has not taken place. He will also know that China is a trading partner and that we continue to have strong economic relations. It is possible for both those things to be true. \p Louise Haigh: Despite a ceasefire being in place for almost a year, Israeli forces struck UN peacekeepers in southern Lebanon just this weekend. What work are the Government doing with the Lebanese Government and in particular the Lebanese armed forces to shore up our crucial ally in the region? \p Hamish Falconer: Lebanon is a crucial ally. I will travel there shortly and intend to go to the area affected. It is vital that Lebanon’s borders, in both the east and the south, are secure. That is vital for their security, as well as for ours. \p Mark Pritchard: British national Jimmy Lai is currently in solitary confinement in a prison in Hong Kong. He has been there for five years. He is 78 years of age, he is in ill health and his trial will come to an end very soon. Ahead of the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation summit, what representations has the Foreign Secretary made to the White House to ensure that when President Trump meets President Xi, the case of Jimmy Lai will be raised, as it has been in the last 36 hours by a cross-party group of 38 US Senators? \p Yvette Cooper: We continue to be deeply distressed by this case and continue to make representations, discuss the case with the US and stay in contact with Jimmy Lai’s family. \p Dawn Butler: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to apologise for not taking the direction of the Chair yesterday. \p Lindsay Hoyle: First, I thank the hon. Member for her point of order and for her apology. I would add that should any Member need any advice on the rules and conventions of the House, the Clerks are always available to assist. \p Stephen Flynn: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. And not to apologise on this occasion—yet. \p Lindsay Hoyle: There is still time. \p Stephen Flynn: I will give it a minute!

At business questions last week, I put it to the Leader of the House that he should afford time for my early-day motion in respect of Prince Andrew to be heard. He intimated that options are always available to Members to pursue that, so in due course I wrote to the Prime Minister, seeking clarity that we would get that opportunity. Since then, there have been further revelations with regard to Prince Andrew hosting not just Harvey Weinstein but the notorious paedophile Jeffrey Epstein at the Royal Lodge in Windsor. There have been suggestions that this House and this Parliament can take action on his succession and his place in line to the throne, and that we may well end up compensating Prince Andrew, should he move out of the Royal Lodge. May I have guidance from you, Mr Speaker, as to how I solicit an early response from the Prime Minister to my correspondence? \p Lindsay Hoyle: We nearly did have an apology. May I first say thank you to the right hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order? As I know he is aware, I made a statement on Thursday last week at the start of business that provided some clarification on ways in which this House can properly consider the matter. In raising this point of order, the right hon. Member has placed on record his letter to the Prime Minister and the early-day motion tabled in his name. The scheduling of time for debates is not a matter for the Chair. I know that the right hon. Member will continue to seek ways in which to pursue the issue and he has already reminded the Treasury Bench of what he wishes. I will leave it there. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I inform the House that I have not selected the amendment. I call the shadow Chancellor to move the motion. \p Mel Stride: I beg to move,

That this House calls on the Government to reduce public expenditure to fund the abolition of stamp duty land tax on primary residences purchased by UK residents, in order to get Britain working, to grow the economy and to give people a stronger stake in their communities through the security of home ownership.

There comes a time in the careers of some in this House when they stand too close to the edge, when they play with fire and when they fly too close to the sun. To continue that astronomical metaphor, we have a Chancellor who has truly thrown herself headlong into a colossal black hole entirely of her making. The Chancellor has trashed our economy and she will blame anybody but herself: the Office for Budget Responsibility, the legacy, the Conservative party, Donald Trump, Brexit—whatever it is, as long as it is not herself.

However, we on the Conservative Benches know the clear truth. We know exactly what has happened to our economy. We know that we have a Government who, when they were in opposition, said that there was no way they would be putting up taxes left, right and centre, yet within 18 short months had done precisely that, layering up taxes on businesses and destroying growth at the same time as talking down our economy. Then there was the fictitious £22 billion black hole which, ironically, was debunked as not legitimised by the OBR at the behest of the Labour party itself. We know that Labour has borrowed colossal amounts of money and is due to spend around half a trillion pounds more than the plans it inherited.

What has been the consequence of that? It has been elevated inflation. We now have the highest inflation in the G7, and the International Monetary Fund tells us that next year we will once again have the highest inflation in the G7. The consequences of that, through monetary policy, are that interest rates will be higher for longer, bearing down on those who have mortgages and on businesses who wish to borrow. Critically, when it comes to our burgeoning national debt, which is soaring under this Government, the costs of servicing that debt are now running at £100 billion a year, rising to £130 billion across this Parliament. That is twice what we spend on defence. Indeed, if the servicing of our debt were a Department of Government, it would be the third largest in Whitehall. None of that money is going on public services. It is simply going to pay off the creditors who are owed money as a consequence of the profligacy of the Labour party. \p Rachel Taylor: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that Liz Truss’s disastrous mini-Budget impacted on working families up and down this country, resulting in the astronomical mortgage interest rates that they are still struggling to fund? \p Mel Stride: We will take no lessons from the Labour party when it comes to the mismanagement of our economy. What I have just set out has led to a Chancellor who had a Budget in October last year in which she blew all the headroom and more, rebuilt it in the spring and is now, as we all know, heading into the Budget on 26 November with a gaping black hole that she will have to fill. That is due to economic incompetence and it is causing huge uncertainty.

I speak to businesses up and down the country. None of them know what to expect. They are all fearful about the tax rises that are yet to come, and that is down to this Chancellor. The consequence is that we have the highest level of unemployment in four years. We know that every other Labour Government in history have left office with unemployment higher than that it was when they came into office. In the retail, hospitality and leisure sector alone, 90,000 jobs have been destroyed under this Government. Young people are bearing the brunt of these policies. Under the Conservatives, youth unemployment fell by around 45%. Under the last Labour Government, it rose by around the same amount, and this Government are on course to do that too. Young people are particularly affected, because the national insurance changes involve not just an increase in the rate but a reduction in the threshold. That affects young people who are desperate to get their first job and their foot on the career ladder the most. \p Wendy Morton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, even in such a short period of time, this Government are showing that it is they who cannot be trusted with the economy and the future of this country? Is it not time they woke up to the reality? \p Mel Stride: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We see that in inflation, which is running at about twice the Bank of England’s target and about twice the rate that this Government inherited from us on the day of the general election. Within that, we see food inflation rocketing up at over 4%, damaging and impoverishing the very people that Labour claims to want to stand up for. \p Andrew Murrison: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we also see hypocrisy? An example would be Cabinet Ministers who say “Build, baby, build” while at the same time writing letters to the Mayor of London trying to block homes in their constituency. \p Mel Stride: As usual, my right hon. Friend makes a characteristically poignant point.

There is another act of damage that this Government have created: some of the most successful high net worth wealth creators in our country have simply gone; they have left. It is estimated that 16,000 have gone over the time that this Government have been in office. Socialists will say, “Who cares? Good riddance!”, but they should dwell on the fact that the tax paid by those 16,000 people is probably equivalent to between a third of a million and half a million people on average earnings. Hard-working people up and down our country are paying the price of Labour’s policies.

There are choices; it does not have to be like this. We can reduce taxes if we get on top of and control Government spending. At my party’s conference, we set out £47 billion-worth of savings across Government, including £23 billion in savings across the welfare budget. What did the Government do when they tried to tackle the welfare budget? They showed us that this is a Dad’s Army of a Government with a Captain Mainwaring of a Chancellor. They are no match even for the rabble behind them.

We know that we need to have responsible tax cuts. That means that they need to be funded and they need to lean into growth. That is why we have announced that, were we in government, we would be abolishing stamp duty on primary residences. It is one of the worst taxes in our tax system. The OBR states that a 1% increase in stamp duty would lead to a decrease of between 5% and 7% in the number of transactions, yet on this Government’s watch, the stamp duty due on a home valued at £300,000 will have doubled during their time in office. \p Harriett Baldwin: The shadow Chancellor is making a powerful speech. Is he aware that recently in the Treasury Committee we were given evidence by a range of tax specialists, all of whom endorsed abolishing stamp duty? \p Mel Stride: Yes, and I thank my hon. Friend for the excellent work that she has been doing on the Committee, particularly when she chaired it in the last Parliament. \p Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this Government are not only taxing young people’s jobs but taxing their chances of owning a home through the increase in stamp duty and the rumoured increase on the capital gains on principal private residences? \p Mel Stride: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The reasons that we need to abolish this tax include the fact that it stands in the way of younger people getting on to the housing ladder. To use the words of Paul Johnson, it “gums up” the entire system of house purchasing in our country. He said:

“It may look like a tax on wealthy people who move house but it also acts to reduce effective supply for everyone.”

That includes first-time buyers. \p Dr Caroline Johnson: My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that stamp duty also gums up mobility, so that people are unable to move, and if they lose their job under this Labour Government it will be more expensive for them to move to another house? \p Mel Stride: My hon. Friend is exactly right. The tax does precisely that. It stops people moving to where the work is, to get better jobs and further themselves. Who wants to move to one place and pay stamp duty, and then move to another to pay more stamp duty? It does not add up. \p Luke Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the study by Jackson-Stops, which looked at people aged 55 and over to see how much abolishing stamp duty would help to move the market along? The study estimated that in the first year,  abolishing the tax would allow 500,000 people to downsize to free up homes for families, and in the second year, 1.4 million. Stamp duty is a real blocker. Does he agree that that study shows the power of this policy? \p Mel Stride: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The tax is a blocker on the aspirations of those who are growing their families and simply want to find a home with more bedrooms. Often, they cannot find those homes because empty nesters—those whose children have left home—are not prepared to face the huge, eyewatering stamp duty involved. \p Scott Arthur: Is not the reality that people cannot find homes in England because his Government failed to build them while in power? \p Mel Stride: We built 2.8 million homes since 2010, and a million in the last Parliament. It remains to be seen how many homes this Government will build.

Another huge advantage of abolishing stamp duty is that it will generate more transactions, which will benefit more plumbers, electricians, builders, designers, estate agents, surveyors and conveyancers, and allow local economies to thrive. Above all, it will increase the effective supply of housing, and that means a fairer society and a stronger economy. \p Andrew Lewin: The shadow Chancellor talks about the huge advantages of his proposal. Is he aware that someone who owns a home worth £2 million would benefit to the tune of £150,000? This is a tax cut for millionaires. Is that what he wants? \p Mel Stride: I have already apprised the hon. Gentleman of the fact that on his party’s watch, 16,000 high-net-worth people have left the country, to the huge detriment of our economy. We cannot tax our way to growth. We have to abolish this tax across the piece, and that is recognised by think-tanks across the political spectrum. Indeed, the Institute of Economic Affairs says:

“Abolishing stamp duty is the single best reform any government could make to Britain’s tax system.”

The Resolution Foundation, which may be more to Labour Members’ taste, says of stamp duty that it is

“one of the most economically harmful ways of raising revenue”.

That is a simple fact. \p Bob Blackman: Does my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor accept that the housing market is virtually stagnant? It is moribund. The houses and flats that we want in this country are not being built, and one of the barriers is that the cost of stamp duty is so high that individuals do not want to pay it. \p Mel Stride: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have already set out the estimate from the OBR that a 1% increase in stamp duty means a 5% to 7% reduction in transactions. It is a horrendous and terrible tax, and it remains to be seen whether Labour Members choose to defend it. \p Saqib Bhatti: The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) talked about millionaires getting a tax cut, but we are talking about young families getting on the ladder. Does my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor agree that while Labour Members engage in the politics of envy, we will always engage in the politics of hope? \p Mel Stride: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As Paul Johnson, formerly of the Institute for Fiscal Studies—I quoted him earlier—says, this tax

“also acts to reduce effective supply for everyone”

right across every age and every section of the income scale.

If only the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell)—I see he is not in his place—who is a former director of the Resolution Foundation, could show some backbone and at least agree with his former self and the quote that I read out from the Resolution Foundation. The facts are clear: the Government should support this motion today if they believe in growth, a fairer society and a stronger economy.

As we approach the Budget, through a period of great uncertainty, the Chancellor faces a clear choice—a choice between still higher taxes, and controlling spending and getting taxes down; between continued anaemic growth and getting the size of the Government under control; between destroying jobs, and getting people off benefits and into work; and between doing the right thing for our country and simply ducking the challenge. The Opposition know what must be done, even at this late stage, to save our economy. Perhaps even the Chancellor herself knows, deep in her heart, that we are right. Yet is it not the truth that faced with the serried ranks of obstinate delusion arrayed behind her, she is just too weak to act? No plan, no backbone—no wonder that under this Government we are staring into the abyss. \p James Murray: I thank the shadow Chancellor for opening today’s debate with characteristic theatricality. I know that Opposition Members are desperate to forget their time in office. They are desperate for us all to forget the damage that they caused to the economy and to public services on their watch. Surely, however, they cannot have forgotten how the Budget process works, so they will know that no Treasury Minister, particularly in the weeks immediately before a Budget, will speculate on tax changes. Any decisions on tax will be taken at the Budget by the Chancellor in the usual way—[Interruption.] I see surprised faces among Opposition Members, but I remind them that that is how the Budget process works. They will know that the OBR produces a forecast, and the Chancellor will take decisions in the round based on that forecast when she presents the Budget to this House on 26 November.

Notwithstanding those limitations on what I, and indeed any Minister, can say, I will seek to address some of the ideas that the Opposition have tried to raise with this motion. First, let us be honest: stamp duty is hardly a popular tax. Moving house and buying a home is a complex and often stressful process, and stamp duty must be paid at a point when most people probably feel  they have enough to worry about already. If there was a cost-free way to get rid of stamp duty, I would not expect long queues of people lining up to keep it. But there is, of course, no cost-free way of doing so. Figures show that the tax raised £13.9 billion in 2024-25.

At this Government’s first Budget, we made changes to stamp duty to help to give first-time buyers, and other people who are buying a home to live in, an advantage over those who are buying second, third or further homes. If an Opposition party proposes getting rid of a tax that raises nearly £14 billion a year, it needs a plan for doing so. Being a credible Opposition means proposing things that could actually work. Frankly, the motion exposes the current Conservative party’s total lack of seriousness, and its complete failure to learn any of the lessons of its time in office. \p Wendy Morton: The Chief Secretary to the Treasury indicated that if there was a plan to fund the proposal, he would back it. The shadow Chancellor has clearly set out that we do have a plan to fund it, so will the Chief Secretary back it? \p James Murray: The right hon. Lady is attempting to bring some humour to the Chamber by pretending that the Opposition have some kind of a plan for their proposal. To call their motion half-baked would be not to go far enough. In fact, it shows the recklessness in their approach to the economy. It may be Halloween on Friday, but the ghost of Liz Truss is here today, because the economic recklessness that the former Prime Minister embodied is back in front of us in this Chamber. We have a half-baked motion from the Opposition, built on the wholly unworkable premise of more unfunded tax cuts. Three years on from their disastrous mini-Budget, they have learned precisely nothing. \p Andrew Murrison: rose— \p James Murray: I will be interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman’s link. \p Andrew Murrison: I will be interested to hear what the Minister intends to do to un-gum the housing market. I think he will accept that it is an important part of our economy and he says that he is very keen on growth, so what will he do to un-gum it? And what does he say to those legions of tradespeople—electricians, plumbers and kitchen fitters—who are all looking to the Government to provide them with some relief in the months ahead? \p James Murray: I would say to everyone who works in building homes that Labour is the party that is getting on with building: we are making changes to the planning system to get those homes build. Despite his attempt to make a link to my previous comment, I notice that the right hon. Gentleman did not address that fact that this motion is entirely half-baked. It is a genuine shame for British politics that we have an Opposition who think that they can put forward a motion like this for serious debate in the House of Commons. To be fair, the Conservative party is steeped in centuries of being in Opposition and in Government, but it has become deeply unserious by putting forward motions such as the one today. The motion simply says that the  Conservatives’ plan to abolish stamp duty is “to reduce public expenditure”; that it is—that is the sum of their plan. \p Connor Naismith: The Minister is right to say that the Opposition have not been clear about how they would fund this tax cut, but there are some clues. The shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), told a fringe event at the Tory party conference that we should look at the Australian system of state pensions and “essentially” a means-tested state pension. Does my right hon. Friend share my concerns that under the Tories the state pension would be under threat? \p James Murray: My hon. Friend is right to point out that the state pension would be under threat were the Conservatives to win the next general election. He is also right to draw the House’s attention to comments made by Conservative Members at their party conference. They may think that people are not listening to what they say at those conference fringe meetings, but we get the reports so we know exactly what they said.

From their recent conference, we know that they think that they can find some £47 billion through cuts to public spending, as the shadow Chancellor said, but let us look at the detail. At least half of those fantasy savings come from a welfare plan that amounts to a menu with no prices: a list of measures that the Conservatives say will raise £23 billion in total, but with no breakdown whatsoever of how. In June last year, just as they were on their way out of Downing Street, they said that they could cut £12 billion from the welfare bill. Now they have doubled that without explanation. Frankly, if the shadow Chancellor thinks that he has any credibility on this matter, he is sadly mistaken. He is far from the best person to make this argument, given that he personally oversaw the biggest increase in benefits spending in decades during his time as the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. \p Bradley Thomas: The Minister is in no position to lecture on reducing the size of the state, given that when Labour attempted to reduce the welfare bill, it marched all of its MPs up the hill, only to march them down again, when it buckled under the pressure from its own Back Benchers. \p James Murray: As Members from both sides of the House know, we are determined to get people back into work, because that is the way to bring the welfare and benefits bills down, and to make people better off. What is not the right thing to do for this country is to follow the Conservatives’ plan for £47 billion of cuts, for which they have no plans and that would represent nothing less than a return to austerity. If their £47 billion were to come from cuts to public services, that would mean 85,700 fewer nurses, cutting every police officer in the country twice and cutting the entire armed forces. Funnily enough, none of that detail is in their motion today.

To have proposed the motion is a shame for British politics, because with the Conservatives’ long history, they really should know better. Were it to be the Greens, Plaid Cymru or Reform proposing policies with little regard for the consequences, I would not be surprised  because they have never had a chance to implement them, but to see the party that was in charge for 14 years acting this recklessly shows just how far it has fallen. \p Graham Stuart: The Minister is always generous with his time and always has a smile, which is a welcome thing in this Chamber. Government spending this year is approaching £1,300 billion, but Ministers could not save £5 billion because of their own Back Benchers. Is it his complete failure to make even the smallest savings on that monumental budget that makes him find it impossible to believe that others would have the will to do so? \p James Murray: What I find it impossible to believe from the Conservatives is that they now have a shadow Chancellor who claims to have a plan for £23 billion of welfare cuts, when he himself presided over the biggest increase in welfare spending in decades when he was the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. That is the record that gives him no credibility whatsoever in this debate.

In their motion, the Conservatives also claim that they want

“to get Britain working, to grow the economy and to give people a stronger stake in their communities”.

Yet they spend their whole time trying to claim that Britain is broken. They have joined the ranks of those who are trying to co-opt our flag for their own ends by claiming that it is in tatters. I cannot believe that so many who claim to be proud of our country are so willing to talk it down. Our country is not broken; we are a great country, filled with great people and great businesses. We are willing to roll up our sleeves and work together for a greater future. However, it is clear that many people across our country feel stuck. Under the last Government, our economy stalled, our public services were starved and opportunities dried up. \p Christopher Vince: The Minister is always generous with his time—I thank him for giving way—and I am always smiling in the Chamber, as the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) will know. Conservative Members seem to be suffering from collective amnesia. Will my right hon. Friend remind me if the national debt went up or down under the last Government? [Interruption.] \p James Murray: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the Conservatives’ record. [Interruption.] In 2010, I think the national debt was about 67% of GDP, but it was about 100% by the time that they left office. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Members on both sides of the Chamber are having their own conversations on the side. I cannot hear the Minister—and everybody wants to hear the Minister. \p James Murray: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was confirming what I think everyone in the Chamber knows about how bad the previous Government’s record on the economy was. We know why that record was so bad. It was because previous Ministers failed to invest, and we know that investment is the fuel for our economic engine. That is why we are taking a different approach. \p Saqib Bhatti: On helping Ministers with amnesia, does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that there was a pandemic that required a huge amount of intervention, or is he claiming that he would not have supported so many people during that period? \p James Murray: Speaking of amnesia, a lot of Conservatives have forgotten Liz Truss and are not prepared to talk about the impact she had. \p Mel Stride: Speaking of amnesia, would the right hon. Gentleman like to remind the House what the deficit was in 2010, when we first formed a Government? \p Lindsay Hoyle: Were you born by that time, Minister? \p James Murray: I had definitely been born by that time, Mr Speaker. I was doing my maths very rapidly, but I can be confident in saying that. I seem to have quite lost my way after your intervention, Mr Speaker, but let me return to the main thrust of the argument that I was making a few moments ago.

We are a serious Government who are a serious partner for the private sector, which is why we are investing in things that will get our country moving again. It is early days; the damage that the Tories did will take time to unpick and there will be more difficult decisions ahead, but since we came to power, this Government have announced £250 billion of new investment commitments, creating tens of thousands of jobs. The Bank of England has cut interest rates five times, meaning that someone on a tracker mortgage of just over £200,000 is already around £100 a month better off.

We have cut red tape and changed planning regulations so that we can deliver 1.5 million new homes over the course of this Parliament. We have acted to accelerate the construction of nearly 100,000 new homes, which were previously stuck. We were the fastest-growing G7 economy in the first half of this year. Most telling of all, since the general election real wages have risen by more than they did in the first 10 years of the Conservative Government.

The Conservatives’ answer to the nation’s challenges is always the same: austerity. They want to cut spending, increase debt and accept decline. In contrast, we will never accept austerity and we will never gamble with the public finances. \p Luke Evans: Another term for austerity is “living within your means”. That is what the British public understand, and that is the point we are trying to make in this debate. When the Government have needed to make difficult decisions, they have fallen short. Can the Minister explain why the Government are not living within their means? \p James Murray: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Chancellor’s fiscal rules say that day-to-day spending must be paid for through tax receipts. That is the definition of living within our means. Those fiscal rules were met at the first Budget last year and at the spring statement this year. They are an iron-clad commitment, and we will continue to meet those fiscal rules next month at the autumn Budget.

Those fiscal rules underpin our approach to the economy and to stronger public finances. We know that fiscal responsibility, which the previous Government abandoned, underpins a stable economy, and we need to secure our country’s renewal through public and private investment. We want to secure rising wages, support for businesses, more jobs, more homes and more opportunities in every corner of our country.

The motion before this House today simply is not serious. It is an admission from Conservative Members that after years in power and countless opportunities to reflect and learn from their mistakes, all they can come up with is the same failed solution: more unfunded tax cuts, more cuts to public services, more failure to invest, more austerity and more pain for the British people. That is what will keep them on the Opposition Benches for a very long time. We reject their recklessness, we reject their lack of ambition for our country and we reject this motion. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Daisy Cooper: Our tax system is a mess. It is complicated and unfair. It is riddled with cliff edges that distort behaviours and create inequities, and there are exemptions that have not been reviewed for years. Council tax is outdated and hated. Inheritance tax and capital gains allow the super-wealthy to exploit loopholes while the squeezed middle picks up the tab. Business rates are a tax on bricks and mortar that penalise our high streets while online giants corner more and more of the market. IR35 is a sledgehammer to crack a nut for contractors, and research and development tax credits are in such a muddle that they are triggering lots of disputes, even for legitimate claims.

When any one of those taxes is tweaked, it causes problems elsewhere. Time and again, we see that when people want to do the right thing and pay the right amount of tax or query a tax issue, they call His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, only to have the call handler hang up, or they contact the Valuation Office Agency and have to spend money on an expensive third party that specialises in disputes.

Stamp duty has all the hallmarks of a bad tax. It is a transaction tax and an extra cost that stops people from moving, when they might want to move to start a family, to take up a new job or to take on caring responsibilities. It prevents people from getting on the housing ladder, from upsizing and sometimes from downsizing. It gums up the housing market in a country where we simply cannot afford for that to happen. It disincentivises people from moving and holds back a dynamic economy. \p Luke Evans: The Liberal Democrat spokesperson is making some excellent points. Will she therefore support the motion? \p Daisy Cooper: No—for all the reasons that I will come to. The hon. Gentleman was a fraction too early. Here’s the rub: stamp duty raises a lot of money, and that is presumably why the Conservatives did not seek to scrap it at any point during all their years in power.

Stamp duty for primary residences in England and Northern Ireland raised around £4 billion in 2023-24, and it is suggested that it will raise £9 billion in 2029-30. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that the cost in 2029-30 will be around £11 billion, with the additional costs in Scotland and Wales taken into account. That means that abolishing stamp duty on primary residences would cost in the region of £36 billion to £44 billion in total over the next five years. For anybody who is not keeping up, that is almost the cost of the mini-Budget, just in slow motion.

The Conservatives say that they want all those cuts to come from public expenditure, but in this motion they do not say where those savings would come from. By my calculations, they could choose to scrap nearly the whole of the Ministry of Justice—given revelations in recent days about prisoners being let out wrongly, it feels like that may already have happened.

The Conservatives could instead decide to end all support for farmers by scrapping the entirety of the budget for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which reached £7.4 billion in 2028-29, including capital—[Interruption.] Well, it does not say that in the motion. Maybe they would want to do away with the cost of clearing the vast majority of the NHS maintenance backlog—a cost they would reach in a single year—or maybe they would want to scrap the £12 billion a year budget for special educational needs and disabilities. It is not clear in the official Opposition motion where the cuts would come from.

There is a strong case for looking at reforming or scrapping stamp duty all together, alongside other property tax reforms and moving to a land value tax. Indeed, some commentators suggest that scrapping stamp duty and council tax together and phasing in a land value tax over time could be one way to move ahead. \p Andrew Murrison: The average price of a property in St Albans is £642,000 a year. Under the proposals of the hon. Lady’s party, how does she think her constituents would face paying ever more taxes, either through stamp duty land tax or the council tax reforms that she and her colleagues propose? \p Daisy Cooper: As the right hon. Gentleman will understand, I am not setting out proposals; I am commenting on the proposals from his party. For the record, I was not setting out Liberal Democrat policy; I was discussing what some commentators have pointed towards. I am sure that in the next two or three years, as we get closer to the general election, the Conservatives will be very interested to read our tax plans, which are under active consideration.

Even if people cannot agree on what should replace stamp duty, they can agree on this: if we change one tax in isolation, there are knock-on negative effects. Far from giving more people the security of home ownership, this measure in isolation would put it further out of reach. How do we know that? We know it because there was a big surge in house prices during the temporary stamp duty holiday in 2020-21; it had a negative impact on house buyers.

If the Conservatives—and, indeed, the Government—are truly interested in growing the economy, surely they will agree that the best and most immediate way to do so is to reverse the damage of their terrible Brexit deal with  Europe. Analysis shows that if the Government did a better deal with the EU, within their own red lines, they would raise an additional £25 billion per year by unleashing the growth potential of our exporting British businesses. \p Hon. Members:: We’ve heard this one before! \p Daisy Cooper: Well, I’ll say it again. The way to grow our economy is to do away with the 2 billion pieces of paperwork that have come in since Brexit: enough paper to wrap around the world 15 times—and yet still the Conservatives groan.

Fifteen months ago, it seemed as though the Conservatives were struggling to adjust to life in opposition; now it seems that they are simply enjoying it far too much. That is precisely why the idea of abolishing stamp duty in isolation and funding it through cuts to public services alone is fantasy economics and desperate politics. The announcement at the Conservative party conference had everything to do with the Leader of the Opposition keeping herself in post until after May’s elections and nothing to do with making a serious contribution to the debate on tax reform. This motion is unfunded, unserious and not worth the paper it is written on, and that is why we will not support it. \p Jonathan Hinder: Let us get straight to the point: what we are discussing today is a Tory plan for tax cuts for the better off, with no plan to pay for it. That is what the Tories have chosen to spend their Opposition day on.

My constituents are frustrated by the stark regional inequality in our country that means that London and the south-east are, economically speaking, another country all together. They lament the lack of public investment in transport, infrastructure and skills that this Labour Government are seeking to put right, so it is staggering that the Tories have chosen to propose tax cuts for people buying expensive homes in London and the south-east, further entrenching that regional inequality.

In the north-west, the average house price is about £200,000; in London, it is over £550,000. That means that 95% of first-time buyers in the north-west of England do not pay stamp duty, whereas 80% of them in London do. These are, let us be clear, the priorities of the same old Conservative party we have always known: the protection of wealth in the south-east above the concerns of constituents such as mine. Where would their supposed spending cuts fall? The motion does not tell us, so we can only assume that they would fall on public services in areas such as Pendle and Clitheroe.

The funny thing is that I am a strong advocate for serious property tax reform, but the Tories are not proposing to address the most unfair, regressive tax in Britain, which is council tax. Our council tax system punishes working-class people in the north precisely because they live in a poorer area. Can you believe, Madam Deputy Speaker, that someone living in a £1 million London townhouse will pay £1,000 less per year in council tax than a constituent of mine living in a house worth £250,000? It bears repeating—£1,000 less for someone who lives in a £1 million London townhouse than for someone who lives in a £250,000 house. That is outrageous, and if the Conservatives were still a serious  party, perhaps they would focus on council tax, which is so emblematic of the regional inequalities I have just mentioned. Those inequalities have condemned once-prosperous regions of the country to steady economic decline.

The Conservatives will not do so, though, because they quite literally no longer represent regions such as mine. Looking across the Chamber, I cannot see a north-west Conservative MP, but that is not surprising, because there are now only three—they are a rare species, just as Conservative MPs are in many other regions outside the south-east. The Conservatives’ answer remains the same as it has always been: that growth in the south-east will lift up constituencies such as mine. “Make those with wealth wealthier and everyone else will benefit”, they say, but that economic thinking has failed time and again. \p Graham Stuart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Jonathan Hinder: I am going to finish.

Property taxes in this country do need radical reform—on that, I hope I can find allies on all sides of this House. We need a more proportional property tax, but the Tories’ hare-brained idea to scrap stamp duty—a big tax cut for the better-off in the south-east—with no plan to pay for it, while leaving the regressive council tax untouched, is just not serious. \p Kit Malthouse: I am very sorry to hear about the antipathy of the hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) towards the south-east. I can assure him that it is not reciprocated, and no doubt the London Members who may or may not be present for this debate will have something to say to him about the wealth and welfare of their residents.

Since this Government were elected, I have often called to mind the famous aphorism uttered by Ronald Reagan about Governments’ approach to the economy:

“If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

It feels to me as if, with housing in particular, we are moving into the third of those phases. I contemplate with some alarm the idea that in chasing their huge housing target—noble though it is, and shared by the Conservative party—the Government are about to pump enormous subsidies into the housing market in the Budget. That is precisely the wrong thing to do, particularly for a Government who are struggling to create growth in the economy.

What the Government seem to have failed to realise is that if we allow capitalism to function—to do what it is supposed to do—it is brilliant at creating abundance. It has been the single greatest tool for alleviating poverty across the world that humankind has ever known, yet here in this country, Governments—not just this Government but, to my alarm, previous Governments over the past 20 years or so—have not appreciated the formula of incentives required for capitalism to function. It is particularly damaging for it not to function within the housing market, and that is especially salient for the United Kingdom, whose economy is so closely tied to its domestic housing market. Looking at the correlation between the two, it is pretty much one to one: if the  housing market is doing well, our economy is doing well, and vice versa. That points to the problem that stamp duty poses.

I want to raise a few points about this motion, as well as to say that I agreed entirely with the shadow Chancellor’s excellent opening speech. First, stamp duty is not a tax on wealth, or even on property; it is a tax on decision making. It skews people’s ability to conduct their life as they wish to, and it deters decisions from being made within the housing market and bungs it up so that it does not work for anybody, wherever in that market they sit and whether or not they pay stamp duty. For capitalism to work—for a market to work—there needs to be lots and lots of transactions. There needs to be fluidity and liquidity. That is what achieves a steady price and creates abundance; people know that they can take a risk in a market, because they will find a counterparty. Scarcity is what raises prices, and that is exactly the position we find ourselves in at the moment. Punitive rates of stamp duty do to the housing market precisely what none of us wants them to do, which is to reward scarcity. They push people into other forms of economic activity, with the result that they cannot fulfil the wishes and aspirations of their family. \p Chris Curtis: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the importance of creating abundance in the housing market. Does he therefore think it was wrong for his party and the Prime Minister at the time to come to my constituency during the general election and campaign against the new homes being built there, which this country so desperately needs? \p Kit Malthouse: I was Housing Minister for 12 golden months, during which, I am pleased to say, the United Kingdom achieved its highest starts and finishes of housing for 10 years either side—not entirely due to my stewardship, but nevertheless, I will take the credit. I am with the hon. Gentleman in wanting to encourage the building of a significant number of houses, and I am very pleased that large numbers are to be built in my constituency, but they have to be built in the right places. We have to protect our landscape, our countryside and our heritage, while at the same time recognising that many of our market towns need to grow and reach a sustainable size. We can have the houses; they just have to be in the right places.

I also think that we would be able to embrace more housing if we were somehow able to breach the conspiracy of crap. Excuse my language, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is a crass word, but it is a great way of summing up the fact that we are building terribly badly designed houses. There is a conspiracy between planners and the development community to produce ersatz housing across the country, rather than to build beautifully designed houses, as generations of housebuilders did before us. It will not come as a surprise to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) that in his constituency, as in mine, the most valuable houses—irrespective of size—are often the oldest ones, dating from the Victorian era and even earlier periods. Georgian houses command huge prices, as they are seen as desirable because of their beauty. We can have the houses, as long as we put them in the right places and they look good. \p Neil Hudson: This stamp duty policy will help to lubricate the system, but my right hon. Friend is talking about putting the houses in the right places. Does he agree that this Government really do need to follow through on that? They have to prioritise brownfield sites and stop bringing in policies that will rip up the green belt, which represents the heart and lungs of areas such as mine. \p Kit Malthouse: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. \p Chris Curtis: Back to scarcity again. \p Kit Malthouse: No, the people best positioned to decide where houses should go are local people. That is why, for many years, I have been a strong proponent of neighbourhood planning. It has been proven time and again that neighbourhood planning produces more houses—15% to 20% more—than other forms of planning, especially local plans. If we get the design right and put power in the hands of local people, they will very often make the right choices, not just for their community but for the next generation.

A point that the shadow Chancellor has made powerfully is that we should recognise that a gummed-up housing market, which is currently stagnating, suppresses the renovation and construction supply chain. When people move house, they invest in redecoration; they invest in extensions, put a new roof on the house, build on the side, and do all sorts of things to their new house that are good, valuable, productive economic activity. At the moment, we are missing out on that activity. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the right hon. Gentleman for what he is saying, and I commend the Opposition on bringing forward this debate. In Northern Ireland, house prices have risen by 7.7%, which is the highest in all the United Kingdom. What is happening in my constituency—I suspect other Members have had this—is that young people are coming up to me and saying, “I cannot get a mortgage.” They need help. I hope that the proposal brought forward by the Opposition can give that hope. The right hon. Gentleman refers to the aspiration, which I have as well, that every person wants to own their own house. This proposal would be a method of ensuring that young people have that opportunity. \p Kit Malthouse: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s hope for the next generation, and I completely agree with him. As somebody with three children, I hope they get the same housing opportunities and economic opportunities as I did. Sadly, given how the housing market has gone and is going, it does not look as if that will be the case, but he neatly makes the point that I made in opening my speech. To get young people on the housing ladder, a subsidy scheme would see us come full circle. Instead, we should think again about how we can have a deregulated free market that functions for them and allows the houses to be built that can accommodate them. Taking tax off young people and then giving it back in the form of housing subsidy is nonsensical.

To return to my point on the supply chain, thousands of small builders around the country are desperate for this kind of work and are seeing the housing market stagnating and their work reducing. Worse than that, in areas of high property value, those who do have capital  decide, instead of moving, to build down, up or out. We therefore get densification, particularly in areas such as central London, which often causes significant problems.

Moving on, this tax does not work very well for Government either. First, as Members will know, it is pro-cyclical and crashes when the Government need it most. During the 2007-08 crash, stamp duty receipts fell by 60%. We saw a surge in stamp duty receipts during the window a year or so ago, but since then, they have been falling significantly. The Chancellor, who is facing significant fiscal problems, will see that fall even further, so the tax does not work for Government on that basis.

Secondly, stamp duty is a bad tax because of its salience. Economists have this idea that taxes have a salience, which is how much people notice they are being taken. VAT has low salience, because we do not really notice it. It is in the prices that we pay. Income tax and pay-as-you-earn have low salience. Stamp duty is enormously noticeable at a moment when people are making a huge decision about their lives. They are trying to progress their families and wham, here come the Government saying, “We are going to have a slice of your wealth.” \p John Glen: My right hon. Friend is making a brilliant speech. On salience, does he acknowledge that stamp duty has had a particularly pronounced effect in the capital, particularly for those who come to this country to invest here and create jobs? One of the prime reasons we have seen such a significant number—perhaps 16,000 people—leave this country is the incidence of that tax in the capital. \p Kit Malthouse: My right hon. Friend is completely right, and he makes a powerful point. Anybody, whether overseas or here, who comes anywhere in the country, but particularly to London and the south-east, and wants to make a significant purchase is immediately presented with a massive bill that cannot be borrowed. It comes out of any equity that they may have spare lying around or that they may have saved up for years to build towards their housing decision. For the Government to show up and take it at that moment of significance in anybody’s life is extremely damaging. It is the same when the Government show up on the death of a relative and say, “We will take our slice.” Such taxes have enormous salience. As a result, stamp duty and inheritance tax are easily the two most unpopular taxes in the country. \p Rachel Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time and is putting forward interesting points. It surprises me that nobody on the Opposition Benches brought these points forward in the 14 years they were in power. Stamp duty land tax is not a new tax; it is a tax that went up under the last Government, yet the Conservatives had brought forward no proposals on it until this unfunded announcement at party conference a few weeks ago. \p Kit Malthouse: The hon. Lady should not assume from the outward utterances that there was not an internal conversation going on within the party about our tax strategy. Those in the Chamber who shared the Cabinet table with me will know that that was often a vigorous conversation. I will leave it at that. \p Rachel Blake: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? \p Kit Malthouse: I will in a minute. The third point I want to make, which I guess is the one that might appeal most to Government Members, is that this tax is generationally unfair. Younger people move house more often, so they are more exposed to this tax. The younger someone is, the more likely they are to be building a family, to require more space, and to be moving up the ladder. Older people tend to sit still. They sit pretty on their capital, which is often in unmortgaged houses. Because of the lack of a market, they generally under-occupy the houses they own. When looking at stamp duty, we have to look at generational fairness, too.

In my constituency, hundreds and hundreds of aspirational families need more space. They would like to move up the ladder. They have worked hard and accumulated a deposit and the money that would allow them to move, but they want to spend that money on curtains, carpets, decoration and all the rest of it. They are deterred from moving by this tax. If we are to be fair to the next generation, we have to not only build the houses that they want to buy, but make it cheap for them to buy them, and that means cancelling stamp duty.

For all those reasons—to ensure fluidity and liquidity in a market that is skewed to produce artificially high prices; to ensure a market in which developers take a risk and build more houses, and landowners put land forward; but fundamentally for a generation who are being denied access to housing—we need to take seriously the idea that stamp duty is at the heart of the problem, and we need to abolish it entirely. The Liberal Democrats say that abolishing it will raise prices. It of course raises prices if we tell people that there is a window. That would result in frantic activity from those who are desperate to buy. If the abolition becomes permanent, we get a liquid market that achieves a real price, notwithstanding the initial bump.

As for those who say that the savings cannot be found, we should be able to find this amount of money, given the size of the Government’s budget, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) said. I had a look this morning, and I could find 50% of the amount in the Department for Transport’s budget, no problem. The other half could come from the welfare reforms on which the Labour party bottled it. We could easily find the money and do the whole country and the economy an enormous favour. \p Chris Curtis: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his speech, and for his fight and campaign within his party in favour of abundance and against scarcity. I hope it is a fight that he can win, given the damage done by there not being enough of that attitude when the Conservatives were in power. Given that this debate cannot be isolated from the issue of the supply of housing, I hope that at the next election, I will not see Conservative leaflet after Conservative leaflet against building the new homes that this country so desperately needs.

I thank the Opposition for bringing forward this debate, and I will start with a few points on which I hope we can agree. Stamp duty is a dreadful tax. It  discourages behaviour that we should want to encourage: people moving out of homes that no longer suit them, and into properties that do. As many others have mentioned, stamp duty deters people from downsizing, which means fewer family homes become available for those who need them. In much of London and the south-east, where housing costs are already painfully high, that makes moving almost prohibitively expensive. When, for various reasons, the demand side of the housing market is struggling, stamp duty is also a barrier to building the homes that this country so desperately needs.

When it comes to the drive to campaign against stamp duty, there is a lot to agree with, and we should find a path to removing it. However, I cannot support the motion for two reasons. First, a tax cut of around £9 billion must come with an honest explanation of how it will be paid for, as has been said. If there are apparently tens of billions of pounds-worth of cuts that we could make to the state, we can only conclude that it was pretty negligent of the previous Government not to make them in their 14 years in power. When they were handing out redundancy notices to police officers, why were they not making those cuts instead? Unfunded tax cuts are either a return to Liz Truss or a return to Tory austerity.

There is a second, perhaps more important, point. I fear that the motion’s focus on stamp duty alone is too narrow. As was mentioned, we need a wider conversation about property taxes. The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) was wrong in one regard. I used to work in market research, and I know that stamp duty and inheritance tax are not the most unpopular taxes; council tax is consistently the most unpopular. \p Bradley Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman regret the fact that his Government have not honoured their pre-election promise to reduce council tax? \p Chris Curtis: I will make some comments about the unfairness of the council tax system in a moment. We can have a conversation about tax and spend, and there is a much wider conversation to have, but today’s debate focuses on a very specific cut in a very specific part of property taxation, and there is a problem with having that conversation in isolation, rather than having the bigger, bolder, politically braver conversation that I would like the Opposition to start about wider reforms of our property tax market. \p Graham Stuart: I must say that I am encouraged by the hon. Gentleman’s speech. For once, he is not purely engaging in the “14 years of failure” rhetoric of the Labour party. He recognises that stamp duty is a bad tax, and he says that we need a proper, joined-up and deeply-thought-through approach to getting rid of it. Is he pledging to lead such an operation in the Labour party? Given that for the next four years there will be 400-plus Labour MPs, the debate within his party is more important than the one within ours. \p Chris Curtis: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has asked me to comment on the 14 years of Tory failure—years in which his party failed to grow the British economy and created a number of the problems that the country faces. While the shadow Chancellor  made many good remarks in his opening speech, there was a little bit of amnesia about the state of affairs that was left to this Government. However, we do need an honest conversation about tax reform, including reform of property taxes.

We have spoken a little about what the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said, and the IFS is right. The UK essentially relies on two big but fairly broken property taxes. Council tax does not create the distortions that stamp duty creates, but it is regressive; stamp duty creates distortions, but it is at least progressive, and mitigates some of the regressive elements of council tax. If we look at only one half of the equation and simply cut stamp duty, we will tilt the system further in favour of the wealthiest households, many of them in London and the south-east, while telling lower and middle-income families elsewhere that there is nothing in the system for them.

We should consider just how unfair council tax has become. Given that the top band is capped so lightly, the bill for a modest family home in the north or the midlands can be similar to that for a multimillion-pound townhouse in London. Paul Johnson, formerly of the IFS, has already been quoted, but let me read out a tweet from him:

“Buckingham Palace, valued at around £1bn, sits in band H and is charged £1,828 by Westminster City Council, less than an average three-bedroom semi in Blackpool...46% of households in England will receive a bigger council-tax bill than the Palace.”

That is clearly a broken tax system, and if we ignore that and focus solely on stamp duty, we will only make things worse.

Moreover, because successive Governments have not had the bravery to revalue, the tax bands are still based on 1991 values. In 1991, Tim Berners-Lee had just invented the world wide web, Nirvana had just released “Nevermind”, Will Smith was filming the first series of “The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air”, and I had not been born. A lot has changed since then, yet we have still not reformed the way in which we carry out council tax valuations. So yes, I agree that we should set a path to reducing stamp duty and ultimately reform the way in which we deal with it, but that should be part of a broader package that shifts tax away from transactions and towards ongoing occupation of higher-value properties. It could include revaluation and re-banding of council tax, so that bills reflect today’s values. There could be a higher rate or surcharge for the most expensive properties, and targeted reliefs to support downsizers and first-time buyers. \p Graham Stuart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Chris Curtis: Yes, go on. Last time. \p Graham Stuart: The hon. Gentleman is giving a brilliant speech, I must say, and given the energy that he is bringing to it, it “Smells Like Teen Spirit” to me. I agree with most of the points that he made about council tax. It is outrageous what we see when we compare the tax on a small flat in Beverley with that on a multimillion-pound apartment in Westminster. Does he recognise that the cut in business property relief will impose huge costs on businesses, such as house builders, one of which I met last week? If that business was worth £100 million, say, on the death of the owner, the tax would be £20 million, and the person inheriting the  business would have to extract £40 million in order to pay it. That house builder told me that for every £40 million taken out of the business, there would be £120 million of investment not made in housing. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that is a real problem? \p Chris Curtis: With respect, I think that I have already taken the debate a little bit away from stamp duty, and I do not want to go into the wider tax system—although, as I have said, it is important to broaden the debate and engage in a wider conversation about property taxes, as I have tried to do. If the Opposition genuinely want to remove stamp duty, I invite them to engage in that wider conversation in good faith. If we want to remove costs at the point of transaction for those buying high-value homes, it is only fair to ask them to contribute more through day-to-day charges. Such a system would be fairer, would support mobility, and would meet the objectives that I think are shared by Members on both sides of the House: a housing market that works, more building, and a tax system that is both pro-growth and fiscally responsible. \p Blake Stephenson: Stamp duty is the worst kind of tax; there seems to be cross-party consensus on that point today. It stands in the way of the aspiring young couple who want to buy their first home, or move on and bring up a family. It punishes the older couple who want to downsize to a more suitable home once their family have flown the nest. It stifles growth and restricts mobility, and it has become so complex that it confuses even Deputy Prime Ministers. It is in all our interests to simplify it, and we can do that by abolishing it, so that we can get the housing market moving once again.

Members on both sides of the House have said that the market is bunged up, and it absolutely is. So many properties have been on the market for many months, not selling. That applies to houses at all points on the housing chain, not just multimillion-pound houses; but if those multimillion-pound houses do not sell, houses throughout the chain will also not sell, which has an impact on young people, families and old people throughout the country.

We have made a commitment to unshackling our housing market by abolishing stamp duty on primary residences. I was extremely pleased when that was announced at the Conservative party conference a few weeks ago. I was also pleased by the honesty of my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) when he said that this debate had been ongoing in the party for some time, and I am very pleased indeed that we have settled on this position.

In my constituency, the average house price is about £372,500. Purchasing a property at that price—if the online stamp duty calculators are accurate—would require a stamp duty outlay of £8,625. When the stamp duty land tax was introduced on land transactions by the then Labour Government in December 2003, the average house price in my constituency was £169,000, which meant a stamp duty outlay of just £1,090. When stamp duty is taken together with increasing house prices, there has been a 224% increase in the cost of buying a home; average earnings have risen by just 190% in the same period. Abolishing stamp duty will not fix that  overnight. We still need to do more to build warm, dry homes in the places where people want to live, and I am pleased that today’s debate has been broadened slightly to cover the subject of house building.

I think that parties across the House want to build good-quality homes in the right places to enable young people to get on to the housing ladder. We do not seem to be at odds on that. However, those homes need to be in the right places, and I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire that their quality is incredibly important. If we improve the quality of new build homes, our communities will be much more open to accepting house building, which will increase supply and improve opportunities for young people. That is critical for all Members on both sides of the House.

In places like London, however, this Government and their Labour Mayor of London have utterly failed to tackle a severe housing crisis; there are lower targets, and there is reduced aspiration, rather than ambition. Building more houses will help to arrest the charging growth in house prices, but we know that just building is unlikely to bring prices down. Some 20% fewer 25 to 34-year-olds are homeowners today than in the year 2000. Average first-time buyers are almost a decade older today than in the 1980s. Our property market is failing our young people.

We must therefore do more to make it more affordable for people to make that next move. The Chancellor, desperate to raise more money following her economic vandalism, wants to drag more people into paying stamp duty, or into a higher rate of stamp duty, by freezing thresholds. Reform, which is reportedly about to scrap its half-baked stamp duty plans, is looking to concrete over our green belt, as it lacks any credible plans to deliver homes at all. The Conservatives are the only party with a sensible plan to unlock our housing market and give young people a stake in society and roots in their communities.

By abolishing stamp duty on primary residences, we can make it more than 2% cheaper for families to buy the average house in my constituency overnight. We can save prospective first-time buyers in London an average of £18,000—and I am sure that at least one hon. Member on the Government Benches, the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake), might wish to comment on the savings that she could deliver to her constituents by supporting this motion and pushing this policy through within her party.

That is the sort of real impact that people will feel in their pockets, and that they will feel while unboxing their prized possessions in the living room of their new family home. It will enable a new generation of young people to achieve the dream of home ownership, enable families to move up the housing ladder into more suitable family homes, unlock our housing market, and knock down a barrier to social mobility, stimulating our economy and abolishing the drag on growth. That is what I got into politics to deliver: less Government red tape, fewer taxes on aspiration and mobility, and families in homes of their own. \p Jeevun Sandher: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on stamp duty, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think there is a lot of agreement on both sides of the House that, if we could just abolish  stamp duty, we would. The question is not about abolishing stamp duty, but about how that would be paid for, and what we have seen from the Conservatives’ so-called costing is £23 billion of cuts to social security. That is £23 billion that they could not deliver while they were in office. Those cuts would lead to rising destitution, and not just for those who are out of work or for children, but for those who are in work as we speak.

It is worth thinking about how the social security system has changed over time and what has happened in our economy, and indeed in high-income nations across the world. Technological change has resulted in a divide between high-paid and low-paid jobs, so that some jobs—mostly done by graduates—pay enough to live on, but a lot more do not. For a two-parent household with two kids to afford just the basics, each parent needs to earn £35,000 a year. Some 40% of full-time workers earn less than that.

So that people can afford to live, we have used the social security system to top up wages. That is what we did with working tax credits, and it is what the Conservatives did when they reformed that system to become universal credit. However, they built a huge amount of cuts into the system. What did those cuts mean? They meant food banks in our nation, which we had never known previously. They meant kids going hungry. They meant parents unable to afford the basics. They meant that people across this country who worked hard and did the right thing could not afford a decent life.

Today, the Conservative party are once again suggesting £23 billion of cuts to social security. That is £23 billion out of the pockets of families, including working families. It is shocking; it should mean something to them—it should mean something to all of us. Our nation does better when every single one of us can afford a decent life. People who work hard should be able to have a decent life, yet those cuts would mean the opposite. \p Blake Stephenson: The hon. Member is making a powerful argument. I just wonder whether he has reflected on the size of the welfare budget. Is he making the argument that welfare spending should not come down at all? \p Jeevun Sandher: That is not at all the argument I am making. My argument is: how can we ensure that people live a decent life through £23 billion of social security cuts, given the huge amounts of destitution and increased unaffordability for families? I say this to the Conservatives as well: I worked in the Treasury under George Osborne, and even he would not have come up with something like this. When he tried something similar, he did not get it past this House. \p Jack Rankin: Will the hon. Member reflect on the fact that one in six people in this country on universal credit are not British citizens? How would he justify that to his constituents? \p Jeevun Sandher: People in this country who have the right to remain and the right to work, and who have earned social security contributions, can make claims. The hon. Member will know that many people in this country have no recourse to public funds at all. That meant that during the pandemic, for example, despite paying into the system, they could not claim back out.

It is a shame to see where the Conservative party has got to on this stuff, to be honest. There was a time when the Conservatives condemned Enoch Powell, and a time when they joined us, across this House, in believing that every single person, regardless of the colour of their skin, when given the legal status to remain, has rights and responsibilities, like a British citizen. It is such a shame to see where the Conservative party has got to.

The truth is, I think the Conservatives feel ashamed. When they talk about things like cultural coherence, we can hear the dog whistle—across this country, we hear it. I will tell you why, Madam Deputy Speaker: it is because British citizenship is not just about the colour of our skin or the way we look; it is about our values, the way we act, and the way we cohere together—different communities across this nation who speak in different ways. It is a deep, deep shame—dog-whistle away. \p Bradley Thomas: I call on the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the fact that, regardless of our political differences, it is the Conservative party that has delivered three female Prime Ministers and the first Prime Minister from an ethnic minority background, while his has not managed to present any other leader than a white man. \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. Before Dr Sandher responds, I ask Members to try to keep this debate in scope. \p Jeevun Sandher: And look how much the Conservative party has changed since last July. That is where we are.

I will come back, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the issue at hand. We have 4.5 million children in poverty and one in six children living in a household with food insecurity, struggling to make ends meet. Making £23 billion of welfare cuts would mean that families and children could not afford to eat. It would mean the most destitute becoming poorer, and working families—40% of those on universal credit are working families—seeing cuts as well. That is the outcome here: making our nation poorer. That is not what we should want; it is not what Labour wants, and I hope it is not what the Conservatives want either. \p Nusrat Ghani: On behalf of Mr Speaker, may I say that it is an absolute joy to see the wonderful Chelsea Pensioners in their glorious red uniforms observing proceedings? No doubt it will elevate the debate. I call Graham Stuart to do so. \p Graham Stuart: It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, and I think the quality of contributions from both sides has been excellent—which has not always been the case over recent months.

No one in Beverley and Holderness likes paying stamp duty—not first-time buyers in Beverley and not grandparents seeking to downsize in Hedon. Of course, as we know, it is not even popular with the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner).

Stamp duty was first introduced in xx-xxxx-xxxx to fund our war against the French. While we may have our differences with our friends across the channel, when I checked this morning, I was pleased to find that we are not currently at war with France. What began as a temporary wartime measure—raising £91,206, 10 shillings and fourpence in 1702—has become a permanent tax. But it is more than  just a tax; it is a barrier to opportunity for young couples in Sproatley in my constituency, an impediment to aspiration in Aldbrough, and a block on families in Withernsea trying to climb the property ladder.

We, the Conservative party, have always been the party of opportunity, of home ownership and of family aspiration. That is why, at the next election, we will abolish this three-century-old tax. There have been welcoming signs that I did not expect to hear today: too often, colleagues on the Government Benches just slavishly repeat their speaking points, but we have heard thoughtful speeches and a recognition that stamp duty is a harmful tax. They may question our way of implementing the policy, but they recognise that.

We will abolish this three-century-old tax and unlock the housing market in Beverley and Holderness—and beyond. I encourage the Chancellor, and colleagues behind her, to follow our lead. \p Andrew Lewin: Let me start by saying that I welcome a debate on how we incentivise home ownership. I am a Labour MP who wants more of my constituents in Welwyn Hatfield to have a secure home of their own and to build a life in our community, and people’s ability to buy a home should not be so dependent on their access to the bank of mum and dad. The Conservatives’ proposition that we are discussing today is that the abolition of stamp duty is the answer. Before we assess that claim, let us look at how we got here.

Home ownership went backwards over the 14 years of the last Conservative Government. There are 600,000 fewer homeowners in the UK than there would have been if home ownership rates had remained at the levels they were at in 2010—that is more than the population of Liverpool. Twenty years ago, 50% of people aged 25 to 34 owned their own home; by 2022, the figure had fallen to fewer than four in 10. Members from across the House will recognise that that is a record of failure. I think they will also agree that there is no panacea that will increase the level of home ownership, and that it requires a range of policy solutions.

That being said, there is one fundamental truth that we need to recognise: if we do not build more homes, we will not have more homeowners. The last Government dropped mandatory housing targets, and I have lost count of how many Conservative MPs have used departmental questions, statements and even today’s debate to say, “I like the idea of homes in the right place, but it doesn’t happen to be in my constituency.” I have to say that the Liberal Democrats have been just as guilty of that as the Conservative party.

Where the Conservatives failed, the Labour Government are acting. We are delivering the return of housing targets for every local authority, ambitious planning reform and a record £39 billion for the affordable homes programme. Do we have further to go? Yes, absolutely, but new housing starts in the first quarter of 2025 were up by 17% on the same period in 2024, when the Conservatives were still in power.

Let us look more closely at the proposition that abolishing stamp duty is the answer. First of all, who benefits most? If someone’s home is worth £1.5 million, they will save £93,750 under this proposal. As I said  earlier, if someone’s home is worth £2 million, they will save £150,000—that was cheered by the Conservative party, which is telling—whereas if they buy a home that is worth less than £300,000, this proposal will save them no money at all. That is the threshold at which stamp duty cuts in at the moment, and 40% of first-time buyers buy homes that are worth less than £300,000.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) said, the Conservatives’ proposition is to ask ordinary taxpayers either to accept deep cuts in social security, or to pay more taxes to subsidise a tax cut for millionaires. Liz Truss would be proud. We have no Reform colleagues in the Chamber today, but I suspect that they would be pleased as well. Of course, their leader famously said at the time of the mini-Budget that it was the best Budget since 1986.

If we seriously want more homeowners, the real answer lies in building more homes of all tenures; in offering mortgage guarantees to help those who earn enough but cannot raise the deposit to get on the ladder; in continuing to support low-cost home ownership models, such as shared ownership; in planning reform; and in embracing a new generation of new towns. In the first 14 months of being in office, this Government have done more to make progress on identifying sites for the next generation of new towns than the Conservative party did in 14 years.

If our objective is to give millionaires a tax cut, abolishing stamp duty in one sweep is a good way to implement that policy. But if we are serious about helping people on to the housing ladder, we should reject the Conservatives’ motion today, reject their failed approach over the last 14 years, and support a package of reforms to get Britain building again. \p Saqib Bhatti: It is very interesting to follow the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin), because I mentioned him in an earlier intervention. He knows that I fundamentally disagree with him. Abolishing stamp duty would be a tax cut for everybody, irrespective of the value of their houses. Fundamentally, we know that the housing market is gummed up, and I have serious questions about whether the Labour Government will be able to meet their housing targets. I am not sure what the housing numbers are currently—maybe he will be able to enlighten me—but this is fundamentally a tax cut that would apply to everybody.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) said earlier, the speeches from Labour Members have been very interesting, but they are slightly siloed. They slightly miss out the context of what we are talking about: the economy is stalling, and the jobs tax means that unemployment has gone up. More hard-working people are now unemployed, and more young people are now out of work, as a result of this Labour Government. They can talk down this motion—as I am sure they will, because the Whips have told them to do so—but the reality is that we are putting something on the table that is credible and funded, that will un-gum the housing market, and that will contribute £1.2 billion-worth of economic growth. At a time when the Chancellor is scrambling to fill her own black hole, we are putting credible ideas on the table that the Government should take more seriously. \p Connor Naismith: The hon. Gentleman said that this tax cut would benefit everybody. Can he tell me how it would benefit people who do not currently pay it because their property is not worth enough? \p Saqib Bhatti: First of all, it would increase mobility in the housing market. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) stated in an incredibly eloquent speech, it would also mean that the construction industry and all the peripheral jobs would start to mobilise. It would create economic growth—I suspect that the figure of £1.2 billion is probably a bit of an underestimate, and that abolishing stamp duty would actually create more growth. We are talking about creating jobs, making people wealthier and being aspirational for the aspirational, whereas Labour Members are talking down a credible policy that would put money on the table for some of our poorest people. Ultimately, abolishing stamp duty would mean that more and more people are able to get on to the housing ladder.

Let us face it: the Government are not going to meet their housing targets. It is already quite obvious that they are massively behind, and it will not be possible to meet their targets. They are killing off aspiration and confidence in the economy, and house builders will not want to meet the targets—unless, of course, they are met with huge subsidies. The question I have for those on the Government Benches is this: given the current economic situation, how much representation have they made to their Chancellor about introducing growth principles and cutting taxes so that people have more money in their pockets? The answer will be none, because that is not happening.

The hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) said that he was not making an argument for not cutting welfare, but he did not put a figure on the table. We know that the welfare bill is ballooning, and it started ballooning post covid. We intervened during the pandemic, which had to happen. We saved a £2 trillion economy, we saved businesses and we saved jobs. We did all those things—sometimes with the support of those on the Opposition Benches and sometimes without, I am sad to say—to save the economy. Of course, all of that comes with a cost. It is now right that we look forward to make sure that we are putting proposals on the table that help grow the economy and, by the way, help the Chancellor to get out of this mess. I want her to do better, because right now I have constituents who are struggling, who are anxious and who are worried. Her policies, backed by those on the Labour Back Benches, have contributed to higher inflation and a higher cost of living. These are all consequences that they backed by walking through the voting Lobbies.

There is a Budget coming. Although Labour Back Benchers may be talking in silos, the Government are already briefing the papers about all the taxes that will rise. They talk about “serious Government”, but they are not talking seriously about the cuts that they will have to put on the table, because the Chancellor knows that the moment she does that, it will be her Back Benchers who stab her in the back. That is her fundamental conundrum, because she also has to placate the bond market, where we have highest bond yields. I see Labour Members shaking their heads, but that is the reality of what Back Benchers are dealing with. We are putting good proposals on the table that would mean that  young families who want to get on the housing ladder—[Interruption.] I am happy for the hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) to intervene if he wants. No? I was offering him an opportunity, because I was getting distracted by his chuntering.

The reality is that most serious economists, such as Dan Neidle and those at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, have said that stamp duty is a bad tax. In fact, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), who I hear has been instrumental in writing the Budget, has talked about stamp duty being a “bad tax”. We all agree on that, so we have put a funded policy on the table that the Chancellor is going to need. Surely this is something that we should all take seriously, because the Government will need answers. I suspect we will come back to that.

A lot has been made of the Chancellor’s fiscal rules. The Chief Secretary to Treasury said that they are “ironclad”, and I suspect they are until the next ones. We have a golden rule. In the spirit of rules, the Leader of the Opposition has created a golden rule, which is that for every £1 saved, half will go to cutting our national debt. Surely we can all get behind that. When the interest on our debt is something like £100 billion a year, surely we can get behind that. When the Chancellor is borrowing more month after month to meet everyday spending, as is obviously happening, we should get behind that rule.

The last point I want to make is about the cliff-edge argument. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire mentioned, we had the window during covid. I was one of those on the receiving end of not being able to buy a house at that time. I was looking for a house for my new family, and houses were going quickly because people were trying to beat the cliff edge at the end of the stamp duty window. This proposal is not the same, because this gets rid of such a window, and it means that more and more people will be able to buy houses. \p Kit Malthouse: I am perplexed by the argument the Liberal Democrats have advanced that abolishing stamp duty will raise prices. Presumably the quid pro quo is that raising it would lower prices, so why are they not proposing that policy? \p Saqib Bhatti: My right hon. Friend makes a good point, and I am sure the Liberal Democrat spokesperson will address it, but that speaks to the economic incoherence of what they have presented.

Fundamentally, we believe in property rights. We believe in the ownership of property and the rights that derive from it, which are among the freedoms—the fundamental freedoms—in this country. It was a moment of great pride when I got the keys to my first house, and I am sure it is the same for others. Cutting stamp duty is the right thing to do, and if we win the next election, that is exactly what we will do. \p Rachel Taylor: The shadow Chancellor would have us believe that the Conservatives have changed, and that the days of Liz Truss and her disastrous mini-Budget are behind them, but we can all see that nothing has changed. Once again, we see the same reckless attitude towards the public finances—cutting public expenditure to fund tax breaks for the wealthiest without being honest with the  British public about who pays the price. The shadow Chancellor tells us he can fund this Liz Truss-style tax-cutting bonanza by making £47 billion in spending cuts. I simply ask him: if these fantasy savings are so easy to find, why did the Conservatives not make them during the 14 years they were in government? \p Graham Stuart: Will the hon. Lady give way? \p Rachel Taylor: No, not at this point.

We have been here before with the Tories. They tell the public they can slash the state without any downsides, but the next thing we know is that our local library is being shut down, our local swimming pool goes with it and our vital services such as the NHS and schools end up in crisis. My constituents in North Warwickshire and Bedworth have suffered 14 years of austerity once, and they do not want to suffer it a second time. Let us look at some of the real facts about stamp duty. \p Graham Stuart: Does the hon. Lady think stamp duty is a bad tax? \p Rachel Taylor: I am not saying whether stamp duty is a good or a bad tax. I am saying that I do not support simply abolishing it without any thought about the impact that that will have on the poorest people in our society.

The Tories have dressed up this fantasy tax cut as standing up for first-time buyers, but as a former property solicitor, I can tell them for a fact that that argument is completely false. In my constituency, a first-time buyer purchasing a property at the average price pays no stamp duty. This tax cut would be of no benefit to them whatsoever. \p Bradley Thomas: Will the hon. Lady give way? \p Rachel Taylor: I will make some more progress.

The average property sale in my constituency would see buyers buying for the second or subsequent time paying between £2,000 and £3,600. That is not an insignificant amount of money for sure, but it is just a tiny fraction of the cost of buying an average home. Comparing that with the kind of house bought by, say, the average Tory party donor—perhaps a £2 million property in central London—we see that such a purchase would attract stamp duty of more than £150,000. That is who this massive Tory tax cut would be helping—not first-time buyers in my constituency, but London-based millionaires.

Let us be clear that this whopping Tory tax cut would overwhelmingly be spent on the wealthiest in our society, while sucking money out of our public services and local communities. It would do nothing to help young people to get a foot on the housing ladder, while giving a whopping tax break to some of the richest people in our society. Let us be absolutely clear that this is not a tax cut for working people; it is a tax cut for the wealthy. It would take money out of our public services and our local communities, while doing nothing to help young people get a foot on the housing ladder. The Conservatives claim that they have changed, but this latest plan shows that they have not learned a thing. It is the same failed ideology, the same unfair priorities—austerity 2.0—and would cause the same harm to my constituents in North Warwickshire and Bedworth and right across this country. \p Liz Jarvis: Stamp duty land tax is one of the most unfair and outdated taxes in our system. It punishes aspiration, locks people out of home ownership and blocks up the housing market. I have heard from constituents who are first-time buyers struggling to get a foothold on the housing ladder because of the amount of stamp duty they are expected to pay. Eastleigh’s Liberal Democrat-run borough council has a strong record of building homes to meet local demand, but according to the Office for National Statistics, the average price of a house in Eastleigh is still £313,000, which is unaffordable for many.

It is simply wrong that the dream of home ownership has drifted so far out of reach of so many people. My constituent Tom and his wife are a young couple who have spent the past two years desperately trying to buy their first home. In the haste to get the purchase through before the end of the stamp duty holiday, they missed key checks and accepted extra costs just to complete the purchase. As someone who grew up in rented accommodation, with everything that goes with it, I find it so incredibly disappointing that, at a time when we should be doing everything possible to make home ownership accessible, the system instead creates obstacles for those simply trying to put down roots and start a family in a home of their own.

As we know, there is a housing crisis. The private rental market is expensive and insecure, far too few homes are available for social rent and poor-quality housing is damaging people’s health. The Government must tackle the root causes by increasing the building of new homes to 380,000 a year, including 150,000 social homes a year, ensuring that every community has access to secure and genuinely affordable housing.

The entire system of property taxation from council tax to stamp duty is wholly unfit for purpose. Reforms must be fair, comprehensive and forward looking. That means setting out a clear plan, not an uncosted headline or a short-term Treasury grab. I hope the Government will replace this outdated, unfair tax with a modern, more efficient system that supports social mobility and economic growth, and that reignites the dream of home ownership for all generations, but I am afraid I will not be supporting this ill-thought-out and uncosted motion. \p Jim Dickson: Like many in this House and many of my constituents in Dartford, I have had the dubious pleasure of paying stamp duty. I can testify to the fact that doing so when buying a home is not a pleasant experience. That is one small reason why I am sympathetic to the case for reform of property taxation in this country when properly thought through, as others have said. However, this proposal, from the party that brought us the former right hon. Member for South West Norfolk as Prime Minister, is simply not a serious one.

At the Conservative party conference in Manchester, the Leader of the Opposition, who previously was going to spend three years thinking through her party’s new policy platform—no doubt looking at all the alternatives and thinking through what the effects might be—produced a proposal, like a rabbit out of a hat, to abolish stamp duty on the purchase of main homes.  The Institute for Fiscal Studies reckons that, if that decision were implemented after the 2029 general election, it would cost the country or the Exchequer about £11 billion a year in lost revenue. Surprisingly, or perhaps unsurprisingly given the fiscal situation left by the Conservative party last July, there is no serious proposal to replace the revenue. Instead, we have a promise that this policy would be paid for by taking the axe once more to spending on public services, with a promise of £47 billion in savings—a proposal to return this country to the austerity that was so roundly rejected by our constituents a little more than a year ago. Indeed, the £47 billion includes a saving, as others have said, of £23 billion on welfare—a figure vastly in excess of anything the previous Government even approached during their 14 years in office, and in fact welfare spending went up during that time. So to attempt to make such a saving on the timescale they are suggesting would inevitably mean a big increase in the number of families in our country living in poverty.

I take a moment to remind the House of the state of the public services and public finances at the end of the 14 years of Conservative Government—a plethora of unfunded spending commitments, and departmental spending plans that were so out of touch with reality that they left, as has been said many times, a huge black hole which this Government have had to try to fill.

Now Opposition Members are proposing to cut public services even further. This is not a serious plan to improve those public services or invest in or grow our economy. Clearly, stamp duty is a far from perfect tax and we should have a sensible debate on property tax reform, but this just isn’t it. In the short term, for instance, it would be possible to increase the number of council tax bands to capture the higher-value properties in some parts of the country and redistribute some of that income elsewhere. In the longer term, a wider reform of council tax and other property taxes could provide a fairer way of taxing property so that those with broadest shoulders bear the greatest burden. Instead, as a former adviser to the party opposite when in government, Tim Leunig, said, this would be

“a very, very big tax cut for rich people”

and would have the effect of pushing house prices further out of the reach of first-time buyers.

The motion is disappointing. It is fantasy economics from what used to be a serious political party. I hope that the House will reject its motion today. \p Sarah Bool: 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. \p Rachel Taylor: Will the hon. Lady give way? \p Sarah Bool: 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. \p Blake Stephenson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful if the Government were much more ambitious in finding the savings in their Budget, in order to deliver this ambitious policy that would support young people up and down our country? \p Sarah Bool: 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. \p Connor Naismith: I start by acknowledging a point that many Members across the House have made. Many of us would not defend the principle of stamp duty; indeed, if it did not already exist, it is hard to believe that we would invent it. However, that is not the question before us today. If we are to decide to abolish stamp duty, we must say how we will pay for it, and we have to justify that decision as a priority above all the other decisions that we might make on what to do with that money. \p Rachel Gilmour: We Liberal Democrats accept that property taxes must be reformed—arguably, radically so—but I struggle with the Conservatives, who governed for years without substantial reform, now promising to abolish stamp duty with no credible plans to pay for it. Where is the money coming from? Is the magic money tree being re-rooted? \p Connor Naismith: The hon. Member is right to point out that the Conservatives had 14 years in government. Now they are in opposition, they want to talk about all the magical savings that they could make. Why did they not do it when they were in government? It is too little, too late. As I was saying, if you decide that you want to do this, you have to tell us how you will pay for it, and justify that priority over all the other priorities. \p Rachel Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that what has locked young people out of the housing market over the last 14 years is not the existence of stamp duty, but the astronomical rise in house prices? They have gone from being around three times a first-time buyer’s income to more like 10 times in constituencies like mine and his. \p Connor Naismith: I completely agree. The most common reason I hear from my constituents for their inability to get on the housing ladder is that astronomical rise in house prices. \p Saqib Bhatti: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Connor Naismith: I will make some progress. The motion tells us everything we need to know about the priorities of the Conservative party today. In the context of the vast majority of options that we could choose to pursue, this is a regressive tax cut, funded once again by cuts—cuts that they will not be brave enough to specify with any credibility. Reckless with our public finances, reckless with our public services, and utterly out of touch with the realities facing working families in constituencies like mine in Crewe and Nantwich. \p Saqib Bhatti: The hon. Member uses the word reckless. Has he heard the news that the OBR has said the Chancellor will have to find another £7 billion to £9 billion due to the fall in productivity? Therefore her black hole has just got bigger. \p Connor Naismith: I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. Look, we will await the Budget to see the OBR’s forecasts, but I will take no lessons from the party opposite on economic credibility. They are the party of Liz Truss, which dragged this country into the economic abyss.

We know that Tory austerity and a lack of investment in our country’s infrastructure are part of the story of why our economic growth and productivity have never recovered since the financial crash in 2008. It seems like the Conservatives want to take us right back to the beginning of that 14 years of chaos, failure and decline. I think my constituents would say no, frankly. What is worse, the Conservatives cannot even tell us with any credibility where the cuts would fall. We have seen this playbook before. They have no credible plan to pay for their promises, just vague talk of savings from the very services that our communities rely on—our schools, NHS and local infrastructure. The Tories have some cheek to come here and talk about home ownership when they manifestly failed to build the homes that our country needs because they presided over a broken planning system that they did nothing to reform.

As I mentioned earlier, my constituents have not forgotten what Liz Truss’s mini-Budget did to their mortgage payments. During the election campaign, I spoke directly with families in Crewe and Nantwich who had seen their monthly costs soar overnight. I distinctly remember speaking to a man who told me that his mortgage payments had risen by £1,000 a month and that he had been forced to sell his home as a result. If we want to examine the reality beyond the rhetoric of the modern day Conservative party’s record on home ownership, it is that: failure to deliver, soaring prices and broken dreams. \p Rebecca Smith: The hon. Member talks about broken dreams, but no Government Member has spoken about the hard-working families in the middle—not the ones struggling to buy their first home and not the so-called rich people at the top who in the Government’s world this will benefit, but the hard-working families, who he has no doubt spoken to, who cannot buy a property with an additional bedroom for their growing family because of stamp duty. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) referenced, that stamp duty is the difference between the price of the home they wish to buy and the dream of actually succeeding in doing so. \p Connor Naismith: It was those families in the middle who suffered most at the hands of Liz Truss’s mini-Budget, so I would expect Conservative Members to apologise to those families in my constituency for their record on the economy over the past 14 years.

Compare all that with what Labour is delivering in government. We are getting Britain building, and not just the homes we need. In Crewe and Nantwich, we are getting a new hospital at Leighton, the new youth zone in Crewe town centre, a new history centre and many more things that our community will benefit from. The choice ahead at the Budget is clear: stick with Labour’s plan for national renewal or return to the chaos and cuts of the past, whatever shade of blue that comes in. Labour chooses a fairer economy, one that works for working people and rewards them. That is what we are building in Crewe and Nantwich and across Britain. The people of Crewe and Nantwich deserve better than unfunded tax cuts and economic instability. They deserve a Government that invest in the future, protect their services and build a Britain for all. \p Gregory Stafford: Today the state of our economy is laid bare: growth has flatlined at just 0.1% in August; inflation remains at almost twice the Bank of England’s target; and long-term borrowing costs are at their highest since 1998. When we left office back in July 2024, we had the fastest growing economy in the G7. A year later, unemployment is up, debt is at its highest since the 1960s, and the UK is sliding backwards. It is hardly surprising from a Government with more experience in the trade union movement than in business. Only the Conservatives are serious about the economy. \p Charlie Maynard: Will the hon. Member give way? \p Gregory Stafford: I have literally only been speaking for 30 seconds, so I think the hon. Member can bear with me for a minute or two.

The Government’s inexperience shows in the policies that they pursue—policies that make it harder for businesses, homeowners and first-time buyers to thrive. Now, just weeks before the Chancellor’s Budget, comes the most destructive raid on homeowners in living memory, if we are to believe the leaked reports coming out of the Treasury. \p Charlie Maynard: Under the Conservatives’ watch, the national debt grew by nearly £1 trillion. They drove our economy through a hard Brexit into the ground, and yet they masquerade as the party of good sense in the economy. I do not understand how that makes sense. Will the hon. Member explain? \p Gregory Stafford: There have been a lot of comments about when people were born and what they remember. I hope the hon. Member does not take offence, but I am sure he was born before covid and the war in Ukraine and so he knows why we had to increase the national debt as a result. He is being entirely disingenuous if he believes those things did not have an impact on the economy. If he had been in power, what would he have done? Would he have not supported those small businesses, employers and hard-working people? \p Charlie Maynard: rose— \p Gregory Stafford: No, I have already heard enough from the hon. Member, so I will not give way for the moment. \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. Just to be clear, good language is appropriate, and I am not sure “disingenuous” is the best language to use. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will find an alternative word.

Is the hon. Member for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson) finished wandering around the Chamber? Are you comfortable now? Fabulous. \p Gregory Stafford: I misspoke, and I withdraw the comment. But I find it strange that Liberal Democrat Members seem to have a collective amnesia on what happened over the past few years.

Returning to the substance of the debate, families across my constituency are bracing for new taxes on homes, capital gains tax on family houses and even potentially a land value tax. This is not reform; it is a sledgehammer aimed at aspiration, mobility and stability. As I have said before, in Farnham, where the average home now costs £660,000, families could face bills of £5,000 a year on top of their mortgage and energy costs. In Haslemere, Liphook and Bordon, already stretched households will be hit again, and pensioners in Grayshott or Tilford face the grotesque prospect of capital gains on the homes they have worked a lifetime to own. Everyone—pensioners, farmers, small business owners—is treated by this Government as a cash cow. A tax on the family home is a tax on aspiration. It traps people in their properties, dries up supply and breaks housing chains. The very people Labour claims to champion—first-time buyers—will be frozen out altogether. The Government claim this is about fairness—we have heard that from a number of Government Members—but there is nothing fair about a pensioner in Greatham being forced to sell their home to pay the taxman, or a young family in Lindford choosing between childcare and a new annual levy. That is not fairness; it is a regional punishment for those of us who just happen to live in the south and south-east.

That is why I back our clear Conservative plan to abolish stamp duty on primary residences. Owning a home gives people a real stake in their community and their country. Our policy would make the economy stronger and help families achieve the dream of home ownership once again. \p David Pinto-Duschinsky: The hon. Member says that owning a home gives people a stake in their community, and I agree with him. Why then does his party oppose this Government’s moves to help build 1.5 million homes and reform the planning system? \p Gregory Stafford: The simple answer is we do not—I cannot add more than that. As the hon. Member has drawn me on this, our problem is that we do not think that is deliverable because the Government have not met any of their targets thus far. From a parochial point of view, in Waverley and East Hampshire my constituents face the doubling of housing targets, whereas in London, where the infrastructure is already in place, the targets are being reduced. That is not joined-up thinking; that is a Government who are spraying their house targets all over the country without thinking about how they will actually deliver them.

As I said, the average price of a family home in Farnham is £660,000, which would meaning paying £23,000 in stamp duty. If we can get our proposal through, that would be an enormous cut. Most important, it is fully funded—part of that £47 billion savings plan—and consistent with our golden rule that every pound saved is split between reducing the deficit and growing the economy. The Institute for Fiscal Studies calls stamp duty the

“most economically damaging tax in the UK”.

The London School of Economics found that it “cuts mobility and investment”. The Centre for Policy Studies calls it a “tax on… aspiration”. They are all right. Our plan would save first-time buyers up to £18,000 in London and £4,000 in the south-east. As my hon.  Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) said, combined with our first jobs bonus, a couple could save £28,000—enough to get on the ladder and build a future.

We have heard a number of hon. Members across the House claiming that they support the principle of removing the stamp duty land tax, with the notable exceptions of the hon. Members for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder), for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) and for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor). What those three Members forget is that people buying a house are almost always part of a chain. Just because someone at the top of the market might be buying a £2 million house—I think they are overreaching a little with £2 million, but even if that were the case—everybody else down that chain would benefit. As soon as we can get the market moving, we will allow people to buy and sell and will give the youngest people, those buying their first home or those trying to upsize because they are starting a family the ability to actually buy. It is not just the people who are technically covered by the tax—it is everybody within the whole chain.

In contrast, Labour froze the thresholds, dragging more families into higher bands. The Housing Secretary even tried to block 237 homes in his constituency. “Build, baby, build”—I think not, Madam Deputy Speaker.

As I said, a number of Members across the House, especially on the Labour Benches, have expressed sympathy for the principle of the policy, but they seem entirely unwilling to make the tough decisions necessary to get there. We saw that with Labour’s total inability to cut the welfare bill by a tiny amount earlier this year. Even if they were not willing to take those decisions, though, as every Member of this House knows, this motion is not binding on the Government, so Labour Members could happily support it to show that they would, in principle, like to see this tax cut. I suspect, though, that their principles will be overridden by the decisions of the Whips Office. The Liberal Democrats were characteristically fence-sitting—so much so that I think the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) must have left the Chamber to remove the splinters.

The reality is that this Conservative Opposition is the only party with serious thinking about how to get the housing market moving again. Our alternative is clear: we will abolish stamp duty on main homes, scrap business rates for hospitality, leisure and retail and give high streets the breathing space to grow again. That is the difference—we listen to people who build, hire, own and aspire.

The choice before the House is stark: a Labour party that punishes aspiration, or a Conservative party that rewards it. Do we want a Government who trap people where they are, or one who set them free to move, work and grow? Only the Conservatives have a serious plan to get Britain working, grow the economy and give every person a real stake in their community through the security of home ownership. \p Antonia Bance: Here we go again, Madam Deputy Speaker—always the promise of tax cuts to come, never the proper plans to ensure it is affordable. This motion tells us everything we need to know about the modern Conservative party; once again, its first recourse is to reach for the austerity button  instead of making a serious plan to invest, grow the economy and strengthen our public services. Reckless with the public finances and reckless with our public services, the Conservatives are not a serious party.

I was going to make this point specifically for the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), but I see that he is not in his place, so everyone else can enjoy it instead. Yes, it is time for the greatest hits of austerity—the 14 years in which the Conservatives talked and did this country down, when day-to-day spending on public services fell by nearly 17%, stripping away nearly £46 billion every year from the services our residents rely on. Members should remember that figure as I talk about austerity, because the Conservatives would fund the tax cut we are talking about today with £47 billion—a larger number than that figure from the austerity years. Look at the back-of-a-fag-packet plans that they have to make it add up.

Let us remember what austerity did to our country. It left our NHS with a £10 billion repairs backlog. It left nine in 10 of our schools in urgent need of repair, with more than 230 schools with Swiss cheese for roofs, including reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete in the roof of Wood Green school in my constituency. Those pupils deserve so much better; they deserve a decent place to learn. We will make that happen—the Conservatives did not.

When the pandemic struck, our public services were critically understaffed and had received critical under-investment. The result, thanks to the Conservatives’ austerity and cuts, was more than 170,000 excess deaths, putting the UK among the worst in the developed world.

In that period, our precious public sector workers who give their all—nurses, teachers, carers—had their pay frozen or capped for years, leaving the average nurse more than £4,000 worse off than in 2010. The Conservatives left one in 10 workers in insecure employment, including the better part of a million on zero-hours contracts.

The Conservatives’ cuts to social security pushed more families into poverty, which has resulted in 50% of children in my constituency living below the poverty line. That is every second kid—every second door when I walk around the estates that I have the honour to represent. Some 117,000 people are now living in temporary accommodation because of the money the Conservatives took out of the affordable housing building fund that today they seem so very pleased to speak in favour of. \p Gregory Stafford: I just wondered if the hon. Lady had any views on stamp duty land tax. \p Antonia Bance: I am speaking today about the other part of the motion before us—the part about the unspecified cuts that would pay for the tax cut—and the implications of that. As the hon. Gentleman would expect of a responsible member of my party, I am not going to speculate with plans about how we fund things for which there is no plan.

Going back to the record of austerity—remembering that austerity cost and took out of our economy less than the Conservatives propose taking out in their motion today—it left the bottom fifth of households £517 poorer, while the top fifth gained £174. Austerity did not just deepen inequality; it entrenched it. It led to  the longest pay squeeze in 200 years, with growth anaemic, productivity absolutely flatlined and public investment slashed.

My friends at the TUC have worked out—[Interruption.] Yes, they are my friends. I was proud to represent millions of working people. Conservative Members speak about those working people with disdain, but it was an honour to represent them in their workplace and negotiate for better wages on their behalf. Good Conservatives in the past used to understand social partnership and the importance of responsibility and working with workers and bosses to get the best outcome; it is a shame those lessons have been forgotten, with the baying calls of the mob at the mention of trade unions. My friends at the TUC have worked out that if wages had risen in the past decade by the amount by which they rose between 1997 and 2010, the average worker in my constituency would be £93 a week better off—that is nearly five grand a year more in people’s pockets. Instead, we got the longest pay squeeze in 200 years. \p Rebecca Smith: I am just perplexed as to where the hon. Lady is going with this. Ultimately, the statistics that she has just quoted would have saved her constituents £5,000, but if the Government do not scrap stamp duty, anybody who aspired to buy a slightly bigger house with that increased income would not be able to afford to do so. \p Antonia Bance: To be clear, the point that I am making is about the unspecified cuts referenced in the motion. I am talking about the implications from the last time the Conservatives made cuts of that magnitude. While it may be the case that getting rid of stamp duty would save some money for people in my constituency, where there is an average house price of £190,000, it would by no means have the impact that it would for people in richer constituencies in other parts of the country. The cuts that the Conservatives intend to make to pay for it would, however, hit people in my ends.

Despite all the pain of those years of austerity, it failed to reduce public debt in any meaningful way. That is why our public services were on their knees and we face a mountain of debt that has built up over 14 long years.

Now compare that to our Labour Government, who are steadily and slowly delivering the change that this country needs. We are creating 5 million extra NHS appointments, and the number of people in my area waiting more than a year for the operation that they need is down 45%. Thanks to the investment from our Heath Secretary, crack teams are going into Dudley, Wolverhampton and Sandwell NHS trusts.

We secured three major trade deals in the first 10 months of our Government, and wages went up by more than they did in the first 10 years of the Conservative Government. We are putting in pride in place funding for communities that are hit the hardest, such as Friar Park in my constituency, and £39 billion of affordable housing funding is going to fund new social and affordable homes—the largest amount in a generation. I hope that 600 of those will be in my constituency. \p Desmond Swayne: The hon. Lady referred to the trade deals—so many more than were achieved under the Conservative Government,   she says—but the reality is that those trade deals could not have been made had we not had the Brexit deal that we achieved when in government. What is more, the Labour party opposed that deal. We could not do those trade deals before 2016. \p Antonia Bance: One of the key achievements in the first 15 months of this Labour Government has been that we are starting to fix some of the mess from the dreadful agreement that the Conservatives made with the European Union, which undermined this country. We are filling some of the holes, and making it easier to do trade with the European Union and sell brilliant British products abroad. I would have thought that would be something that the Conservatives would welcome.

In summation, we choose national renewal—a Britain built for everyone. We choose a fair economy that rewards working people, invests in our public services, restores dignity to work and rebuilds this brilliant country for every single one of our kids. \p Bobby Dean: Ask any economist, or indeed most Members in the Chamber today, and they would say that stamp duty is a bad tax. It creates friction in the market, whether we are talking about someone in a one-bedroom flat who is trying to take the step up to a family home, but who finds that their savings goal is now that much more, or whether we are talking about someone whose kids have flown the nest, and who is considering downsizing but finds the bill a disincentive.

It is important that we do not overstate what abolishing stamp duty will do. There have been lots of claims about how it will help millions of young people on to the ladder. For most people, this would not be the case. There is an exemption for first-time buyers of properties worth up to £300,000, and a further discount all the way up to half a million. It is important that we recognise that the proposal would not make a difference for huge numbers of people, including young people. I appreciate the points made about the fluidity of the market as well, but that is not the critical point.

The central problem in the housing market is the disparity between people’s wages and house prices. People have said to me, “I had to save hard to get my home,” and “You should have seen the interest rates back in the day.” I have no doubt that it has always been hard and a struggle to save up to buy a property, but the extent to which it has become out of reach today is not properly understood. Around the time I was born—1990, if Members are interested—the difference between the average wage and the average house price was about three times a person’s income, but today that average difference is eight times a person’s income. I represent a London constituency, and for people in London, that difference is 15 times the average income. That means that people in the top 10% of earners in the capital cannot afford the average home. It is an absolute disgrace that we have allowed ourselves to get to this situation. \p Blake Stephenson: The hon. Member is making a powerful point in support of our motion. Does he intend to support it this afternoon? \p Bobby Dean: Surprise, surprise, I do not. I will come on to the reasons why.

Mortgage companies will lend around four times someone’s income, so we can see how big the problem is. A couple may stand a chance of getting a mortgage; someone on their own has no chance. The other problem with house prices accelerating away from wages so much is that the 10% deposit that people often need to raise is completely out of reach. To put this in context, in 1990 the average wage was around £8,000 a year, and a person might have needed to save about £2,000 for a deposit. Today, a person on the average wage of £33,000 would have to try to save £28,000. People simply cannot do it unless they have the support of their mum or dad, or others in their family.

This is the death of meritocracy in our country. We now live in a society where a person’s family wealth, not their work or talent, defines their future financial security. We are back to Victorian-era levels of social mobility. That is absolutely abhorrent, and no amount of tinkering around the edges is sufficient to fix it.

Scrapping stamp duty will not be a silver bullet. In fact, on its own, it might represent a bit of a giveaway to those who are already faring better than most in society. If we are serious about fixing the housing crisis in our country, we need a generational change in the level of house building, and a holistic approach to redesigning the property tax system. \p Jack Rankin: I agree with the hon. Member wholeheartedly, and he is making an excellent speech, but I would gently say that lots of us in the shires who face Liberal Democrats in our constituencies get leaflets from his colleagues that oppose building almost anywhere, ever. What would he say about that to some of his colleagues? \p Bobby Dean: I think the hon. Member will find that across the country there will be opposition politicians opposing developments. In Sutton council in my borough, where we are in control, we are outstripping all of London in house building, and I am very proud of that record.

In order to fix the housing crisis, we need sustained wage growth, so that wages come up against the increase in house prices. I do not hear that on offer from the Conservative party today. I am sorry to say that we have a Trussite proposal on the table: an unfunded tax cut that lacks real credibility. \p Ashley Fox: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the shadow Chancellor, he would have heard him say that half the £47 billion in savings will come from reducing welfare spend. Another significant proportion will come from reducing the civil service to the size it was back in 2016. The proposal is fully funded, and he does himself no favours by inventing other facts. \p Bobby Dean: I thank the hon. Member for bringing me on to my next point early. I want to address this proposed £47 billion in public spending cuts. If the Conservatives were to hand over that proposal in its current form to the Office for Budget Responsibility, it would laugh them out of the front door. Those cuts are not credible at all. Over half of that figure is based on  welfare cuts—a welfare bill, by the way, that rose on the watch of the Conservative Government, not least because of the defunding of the NHS, which caused people to be in ill health in the first place.

The Conservatives are also talking about reducing the size of the civil service. Can any Member hazard a guess as to why the civil service has grown since 2016? It is because we have in-housed a lot of bureaucracy that we used to outsource to Brussels. One of the primary reasons why the civil service has grown is the number of services that we now have to deliver in this country. \p Ashley Fox: The hon. Gentleman has not mentioned covid, which is the largest single contributor to the increase in the size of the state. He also did not mention the £5 billion reduction in welfare spending proposed by the Government; the Conservative party supported that, but the Government just gave in on it. There is plenty of money to be saved. \p Bobby Dean: When the hon. Gentleman refers to covid, I think he is referring to total debt, which has increased. We are talking specifically about why the civil service has increased in size. A lot of that can be attributed to the new functions that the UK Government have had to take on.

On the welfare budget, yes, the Government struggled to get through their welfare reforms, but so did the previous Conservative Government. That is why the proposal that half of the £47 billion will come from welfare cuts lacks credibility. \p Daisy Cooper: My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. It really does irk me that the Conservatives keep talking about the welfare bill going up when they blew a hole in the public health budget, eroded primary and community care, and did nothing to fix social care—and NHS dentistry has been hollowed out. Is it any wonder that when people cannot get the care that they need when they need it, we end up firefighting and spending loads of money on welfare and the NHS further down the line? We should be investing to save. \p Bobby Dean: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. I made the point earlier that the welfare bill went up on the Conservative Government’s watch, not least because they cut back NHS funding. \p Andrew Snowden: Will the hon. Member give way? \p Bobby Dean: I will make some progress; I have been intervened on quite a few times. In the Chamber, we may agree on the analysis of stamp duty’s failings, but the Liberal Democrats cannot support the motion, because it is not a credible plan. Also, if a stamp duty cut were made in isolation, it might not deliver what Conservative Members say it would. It might just gum up the housing market further for the next generation.

It is high time that we had a serious debate about property tax reform. Some of that has happened in the Chamber today, but the motion does not reflect that serious debate, so I will not support it. \p Rachel Blake: It is an honour to speak in the debate. In a spirit of cross-party unity, I congratulate His Majesty’s Opposition on their valiant and brave attempts to dress up a political tax cut as a meaningful intervention in the housing market. I have been looking at every single Conservative Member who has spoken and thinking about whether they really believe that such a tax cut would actually make a difference. \p Bradley Thomas: Will the hon. Member give way? \p Rachel Blake: I would like to develop my argument a little bit further, and then I look forward to hearing from the hon. Member. I read the Opposition’s proposals with interest, and have been looking to see exactly how they intend to fund their proposed tax cut. I am struck by the fact that the Conservatives want to bring forward even more unfunded proposals. They are not satisfied with their devastation of public services after their attempts at austerity; with crashing the economy, driving up mortgage costs and rents, and driving down the supply of new homes and overall rates of home ownership; or with their botched Brexit deal, which, through its impact on the economy, has wrecked many people’s chance to buy a home. No, they propose yet more ill-thought-through tax cuts.

In the likely event that the Opposition’s ill-thought-through proposals for funding this tax cut are undeliverable, I wonder whether they would cut £14 billion from Labour’s £39 billion investment in genuinely affordable homes. Would they cut £14 billion from the £23 billion that the Government invested in the National Wealth Fund to get our economy going? Would they take money out of our £3.8 billion homelessness fund? The truth is that the Conservative Government’s interventions in the housing market resulted in temporary accommodation use, rough sleeping, mortgage rates and rents going up, and home ownership going down. The Tories pretend to be the party of home ownership, but it is Labour that is absolutely determined to get homes built. It is Labour that is coming forward with proposals to get homes built, and Labour, I believe, that will deliver on that. \p Bradley Thomas: Does the hon. Member accept that over the last 30 years, the four years with the highest levels of new housing delivery occurred since 2018, under Conservative Governments? She is trying to make the point that stamp duty abolition is a tax cut dressed up as an intervention in the housing market. What on earth is wrong with giving a tax cut to aspirational people who work hard and want to move up the housing ladder? \p Rachel Blake: For the last two hours, the proposal has been presented by Opposition Members as a meaningful housing market intervention because of their supposed commitment to aspiration. The Labour party has always been the party of aspiration, and it has been the driving force behind social mobility throughout the last century. [Interruption.] Conservative Members know that, and that is why they are chuntering so much. \p Rachel Gilmour: I wanted to speak earlier on social mobility, which the hon. Lady mentioned. If anybody wants to see what happens to social mobility under the Conservatives, all they need do is come to Minehead in  my constituency, which is ranked 324th out of 324 for social mobility in the entire country, having had a Conservative Member of Parliament for 23 years who did nothing. \p Rachel Blake: I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, which speaks for itself.

There is a stark contrast with what the Labour Government are doing, and their meaningful interventions in the housing market. The Renters Rights Act 2025, which has received Royal Assent, is stabilising life for renters, making sure that they no longer live in fear of no-fault evictions. We have also defeated a judicial review against vested interests and freeholders, so that we can move forward with our leasehold proposals. Those are both significant interventions that the Opposition failed to deliver after 14 years, five of which they spent trying to deliver reform for renters and leaseholders that would have meaningfully stabilised the housing market. We have not heard anything about all the people stuck in their homes because of the last Government’s complete failure to tackle the cladding crisis or leasehold. We have just had political dressing-up of an unfunded proposed tax cut.

The other thing that the Labour Government have done is made sure that we are stabilising the economy. As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) told us, people who want to save up to join the housing market need a stable economy. We have seen interest rates come down five times, which we think is saving mortgage payers about £100 a month. They are better off because of the stability that our Chancellor and this Labour Government are beginning to deliver. \p Gregory Stafford: The hon. Lady is being generous with interventions; I thank her for that. To bring her back to stamp duty land tax, the average house price in her constituency is over £1 million. [Interruption.] I have not quite finished. Her constituents are the precise people who would benefit from this saving. Does she not think that they would welcome the abolition of this tax? \p Rachel Blake: I am interested in how much the hon. Member knows about my constituency. He may know that nearly half of my constituents are private renters, and only about 15% can afford to own their own home in my constituency because of the record failures of the previous Government to do something about the cladding crisis, the supply of new genuinely affordable homes and the delivery of low-cost home ownership, which would have really made a difference. Rather than the Conservatives’ ill-thought-through proposals, Westminster city council under its Labour leadership is able to deliver more genuinely affordable homes, and this Labour Government are taking the challenge seriously.

We have seen His Majesty’s Opposition make a valiant attempt to dress up a politically motivated tax cut as a meaningful housing intervention. Serious thinking, this is not. I am pleased that the House will vote against their ill-thought-through proposal and that we will carry on with delivering meaningful intervention in the housing market and making sure that our publicly funded services are stable into the future. \p Judith Cummins: I call Rebecca Paul. \p Hon. Members:: Hear, hear! \p Rebecca Paul: I thank my colleagues for their enthusiasm. It is a great pleasure to contribute to this really important debate. So many people—particularly young people—are desperate to get their foot on the housing ladder, but they feel— \p Rachel Blake: Will the hon. Member give way? \p Rebecca Paul: I gently say to the hon. Member that I have not really got into the flow of my speech yet, either. I will finish the first sentence before I take any interventions. People feel that that vital first rung is utterly out of their reach.

I remember when I bought my first property. It was the most amazing feeling in the world when I first walked through that door, with those keys. It was really hard to earn enough to secure the mortgage that I needed and to save up the money for the stamp duty and the deposit. I managed to do it, but I would have been able to do it sooner without that stamp duty cost. That is why I am delighted that the Conservatives have come forward with a clear, coherent and aspirational plan to abolish stamp duty land tax on the purchase of primary residences and to open up the dream of home ownership to the next generation. \p Rebecca Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that when the policy was announced at our party conference in October, it was the first solid political idea to have come forward from any political party since the last election that genuinely offers aspiration for hard-working families? We are talking about not just hard-working families who need to get on the housing ladder in the first place, but those in constituencies like hers and mine who are desperate to expand their families and continue contributing to the society we all live in. \p Rebecca Paul: I thank my hon. Friend for that pertinent point. This is proper Conservative policy. This is the kind of thing everyone in this country is clamouring for—[Hon. Members: “More!”] This party is delivering that under our new leadership. For too long, stamp duty has been a dead weight on the housing market, a tax on aspiration and a barrier to the kind of home ownership that gives people a genuine stake in their community. It is time that we abolished it on primary residences.

Surely we can all agree that our housing market is not working as it should. Far too many young people feel locked out, priced out and increasingly disillusioned. The average age of a first-time buyer in England is now 34, up by nearly a decade from where it was 40 years ago. In London, it is even higher, and across the country 20% fewer 25 to 34-year-olds own a home today than was the case in 2000.

I have skin in the game: I have three children and I want them to be able to buy a house without coming to mummy and daddy to help them out. \p Jack Rankin: I bet my hon. Friend does—she should declare an interest! \p Rebecca Paul: Yes, I should declare that interest.

This amounts to an economic failure, but also to a social failure. Home ownership gives people stability, autonomy and long-term security. It encourages saving, it strengthens families and it fosters pride and a sense of genuine community in our towns and villages. Abolishing stamp duty will save families thousands of pounds and put the many benefits of home ownership back into reach for the next generation. \p Ashley Fox: Does my hon. Friend agree that cutting stamp duty will not only benefit young people aspiring to home ownership, but act as an incentive for older people to downsize, freeing up larger family homes and making them available for families that need to increase the size of the house they own? \p Rebecca Paul: I will make that exact same point later in my speech, and I completely agree that that is a relevant change that will come from this policy.

I clearly see in my constituency the way in which stamp duty chokes and distorts the market as it penalises those who move, creates a disincentive for older people to downsize and deters growing families from upsizing into more suitable family homes. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has put it, in a crowded field, stamp duty land tax is

“the most economically damaging tax in the UK.”

I cannot disagree with that.

My constituents feel that acutely. Stamp duty is all the more painful in an area where the average house price is now above £490,000. The young families I speak to, who have made the move out of London and settled in towns such as Redhill or Reigate, have been hit with eye-watering up-front costs that made those moves extremely challenging. Many more will have found it impossible. That is why our policy matters.

We intend to strip away one of the fundamental barriers to family life in this country. Eliminating stamp duty will save the average first-time buyer in the south-east around £4,000 and as much as £18,000 in London. Unlike the Labour party, we will not punish those looking to move further up the ladder with frozen thresholds and stealth tax hikes.

I would, of course, be expected to paint a suitably positive view of the proposal, but what do the experts think? Zoopla’s Richard Donnell has rightly said,

“More home moves would support economic growth and the ambition to build more homes.”

The Institute of Economic Affairs went further, calling this

“the single best reform any government could make to Britain’s tax system.”

Indeed, the case seems so strong that one has to wonder why the Government oppose us on this.

The truth is that Labour has always been the party of higher taxes on homes. It reversed the Conservative policy that raised the first-time buyer threshold to £425,000. It is freezing stamp duty thresholds in real terms, dragging more and more people into paying this punitive tax each year. While it talks endlessly about house building, its actions tell a different story. Not only is it on track to miss its self-imposed housing targets, but the Housing Secretary tried to block 237 new homes in his constituency  despite promising to “build, baby, build”. By contrast, the Conservatives have delivered 2.8 million homes over the past 14 years, including nearly 750,000 affordable homes, and we pledge to go further. \p Joe Morris: I represent a rural constituency where young people are constantly forced to move away from the villages they grew up in. Will the hon. Lady explain to me where in rural Britain those affordable homes were located, where young people could move to and make a family life? For 14 years, they were shut out of the communities they grew up in. \p Rebecca Paul: The hon. Member raises an important point. We have this situation where a lot of young people are forced to go elsewhere; indeed, the area where I live is very expensive and I am worried that my children will be forced to look elsewhere. That is why it is so important that we now focus on the future. \p Gregory Stafford: Is that not the fundamental point, and why the comments made earlier about downsizing are so important? This tax stops people downsizing, which means that people are not moving out and not freeing up the houses that young people could and should be moving into. \p Rebecca Paul: My hon. Friend makes the point very well. Going back to the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris), we need to take this seriously. We can either look back the whole time, or we can look forward and think about what policies are right for the people of this country and deliver for the people of this country. \p Andrew Snowden: That point shows the complexity of the issue. Painting it with “14 years this” and “14 years that” does not represent what is happening. In Fylde, we have seen the largest amount of house building taking place in the villages and small towns, because developers know that they can get planning permission there and sell the houses for a lot more than they could 5 or 10 miles in a different direction. In some areas, there has been significant overdevelopment on the green belt, and we should not use individual examples as a reason to redefine vast chunks of the green belt as grey belt simply in order to concrete over our countryside. \p Rebecca Paul: My hon. Friend’s excellent point is pertinent to my constituency as well, which is full of amazing and beautiful green-belt land. We are suffering from what this Government have done on housing targets, which have doubled in Reigate and Banstead while going down in London. That means that we are building more homes, but not for local people and not for the children the hon. Member for Hexham mentioned, who want to stay close to home. It is for people living in London who then move out to Reigate and Banstead. \p Ashley Fox: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that in the south-west of England, the Government have reduced the building target for Bristol city council, which has a lot of Labour members, and have instead increased the building target for rural Somerset, where  there are few Labour members, by 40%? Does she share my concern that Labour is fiddling the housing targets for political advantage? \p Rebecca Paul: I thank my hon. Friend for yet another relevant and important point. I urge the Government to think logically about what they are trying to achieve. We all support the ambition to build more homes and recognise the problem that needs to be solved. However, the way we do it is really important, and it is important that we have those homes in the right places and that we set the targets in a logical and meaningful way. With this policy, and others like it, we are offering the public a clear choice between a party that wants to unlock aspiration and reward the hard work of our young people and a party that clings to economically damaging taxes because its own Back Benchers refuse to make even the smallest concessions on out-of-control spending.

We on the Conservative Benches are clear that any significant change to tax policy must be properly costed. The public finances are in a challenging place, and reckless commitments only add to the prevailing sense of uncertainty. That is why it is so important to emphasise that our intention to scrap stamp duty on primary residences is costed, fully funded and fully paid for through our £47 billion savings package. Our plan is clear: it is costed and it is rooted in a belief that home ownership should be within reach of the next generation, just as it was for our own. \p Peter Bedford: This debate captures the key difference between Conservatives and the Labour party, because we on the Conservative Benches believe in people. We believe in their talent, their drive, their hopes and their aspirations. By contrast, the Labour party likes to box people in, to restrict, to regulate and to let the state determine every aspect of their lives. We on this side of the House believe in setting people free to work hard, to achieve and to build their own future. Let us unleash the power of individual freedom. Let us unleash the energy of the maker and of enterprise. Above all, let us unleash the unstoppable force of aspiration across every part of the UK. The word “aspiration” runs through the very DNA of the Conservative party. It is who we are, from delivering educational reforms and promoting social mobility to delivering a property-owning democracy. \p Rachel Blake: I would be grateful if the hon. Member would expand on how that driving value of aspiration came into the Conservative Government when they were completely failing to address the urgent need for leasehold reform over the past five years, when so many people have been suffering and unable to sell their leasehold homes because of the cladding on those homes. Where was the aspiration then? \p Peter Bedford: I will give the hon. Member an example of Conservative aspiration. My family never owned their own homes—my grandparents did not own their own home—but Margaret Thatcher gave them the opportunity to do so. She gave many people like my grandparents the opportunity to aspire, to achieve and to own their own homes. That is the aspiration we need  to get back to as a country. Every generation of Conservatives has understood this ambition. It is not our background that shapes our future. This is equality of opportunity in action, not the equality of outcome that the Labour party desire so much.

We cannot talk about aspiration without celebrating the Prime Minister who understood it best. Mrs Thatcher gave people the freedom to own their own future. She rewarded hard work through lower taxes, turned millions of people into shareholders through privatisation and made dreams of home ownership a reality for many across the country with her right-to-buy scheme. Mrs Thatcher just got it; she understood human nature. She understood that people are ambitious and she knew that when we trust individuals and not the state, Britain succeeds. \p Andrew Snowden: Going back to what a former fantastic, great Prime Minister did—and comparing it with the policy on stamp duty—we know that it was hated by Labour Members, because it took away the choking role of the state and freed people up to have that aspiration and that social mobility. It proved that allowing people to buy their own homes and removing the state from their lives created social mobility in the same way that removing that tax and allowing people the aspiration to smash those ceilings is important. Labour Members hate it because it would reduce the size of the state, the dependency on the state and the hold that they have over people’s lives. \p Peter Bedford: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Unfortunately, Labour Members tend to have the mantra: what I cannot have, you shall not have. We on the Conservative Benches want everyone to succeed. \p Desmond Swayne: I am still smarting from my hon. Friend’s reluctance to squash the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake), who alleged that there had been no leasehold reform. Such was the extent of leasehold reform under Conservative Governments that the Duke of Westminster resigned from the party in indignation. \p Peter Bedford: I thank my right hon. Friend for putting that on record.

I am not confident that this Labour Government understand aspiration, because they simply cannot comprehend the politics of people wanting to better themselves, their families and their communities. Sadly, they actually fear aspiration, and that is why this Labour Government are the most anti-aspirational Government in living memory. They have strangled the jobs market and they have sent unemployment rates soaring. That is the direct result of their punishing employer national insurance hikes, and their reckless unemployment rights Bill is striking fear into businesses up and down the country as they question whether to take a punt on recruiting new people, particularly young people.

The Government have caved in to the hard left on much-needed reforms to the welfare system—a system that should reward hard work and not entrench state dependency. As is always the case with a Labour Government, they invariably side with the shirkers and not with the strivers. Sadly, they have driven our economy into a full-blown doom loop: a cycle of ever-increasing  taxes, rising inflation and net zero growth. Every hard-working family in Mid Leicestershire is paying the price for this Government’s failure, but what is most damaging of all is not the economic damage; it is the lack of a can-do attitude that they are instilling in our young people. \p Gregory Stafford: What has surprised me about this debate is that several Labour Members have seemed to agree that this stamp duty proposal would be a good thing to do, and, as far as I can tell, every commentator on the property market and economics has said the same thing, and yet the Government just do not seem to want to do it. \p Peter Bedford: My hon. Friend puts the case very clearly, and he is absolutely right. Labour Members talk about intergenerational unfairness, but they do nothing about it. We Conservatives believe in encouraging young people to determine their own futures. \p Rebecca Smith: My hon. Friend speaks of intergenerational fairness. Does he agree that the status quo hinders older householders who may be asset-rich and cash-poor, because the value of their property has increased—fortunately for them—but not necessarily their income? Stopping this policy in its tracks would stop older people who may be desperate to downsize, knowing that to do so would be to play their part in providing homes for other families, but who simply cannot afford to because the stamp duty on more expensive properties is unpayable. \p Peter Bedford: I thank my hon. Friend for making an excellent point. Many people come to my surgeries and make that point month in, month out.

That is why this Conservative motion matters. By abolishing stamp duty, we would be empowering young people to aspire to own their own homes and invest in their own futures. That is what a responsible Government do, giving people the tools to achieve their ambitions. This policy will not only transform lives, but boost the economy, stimulate growth in the property market and add an incredible £17 billion to our GDP over 10 years. We saw the results when the last Conservative Government cut stamp duty in 2021. People took the opportunity to invest in their own futures.

This is the Conservative way: lower taxes, greater ownership and rediscovered aspiration. I will be voting for this aspirational motion tabled by the Leader of the Opposition, who understands that it is not just a question of economics, but a question of values. We should choose freedom over control, ambition over dependency and aspiration over stagnation. That is the Conservative vision for Britain, and it is one that I know my constituents in Mid Leicestershire—particularly the young people—will get behind. \p Gideon Amos: Access to home ownership has never been harder. Fewer and fewer people can afford to buy a home of their own, and 12,000 households in my county of Somerset are languishing on the waiting list unable to get a home at a decent rent. We have heard a lot about Mrs Thatcher, but since the sell-off of council houses began, 2.3 million were never replaced. The Conservatives broke that promise  over and over again, so although our population has increased by five times that amount, we have had a massive loss of homes for social and council rent; several Conservative Governments never replaced them.

By taxing transactions, stamp duty land tax is unfair on buyers. It needs to be reformed, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) has said, as part of a full review of property taxes. The vast majority of first-time buyers would be completely unaffected by the Opposition’s proposals, because they already pay no stamp duty land tax. It seems clear that, by triggering a big increase in house prices, the policy would mostly benefit those who are selling homes at high prices, and probably only those right at the beginning of the chain.

More importantly, wiping out tax revenue without wider tax reform or any serious proposals for the resulting massive hole in public finances would be another Liz Truss Budget in the making. Perhaps she planted the magic money tree, but this autumn we are seeing the fruits of it in more mad Conservative tax proposals. It seems clear that the Conservatives have learned nothing from the Truss Budget’s rocketing of inflation and increasing of mortgage rates, which affected everyone in my constituency. \p Andrew Snowden: The interest rates on the bond market are now higher than they were after that mini-Budget. Constantly harking back to that, when we are in a worse position now than we were then, makes the point that the Lib Dems are on everybody’s and nobody’s side. \p Gideon Amos: I understand why Conservative Members keep asking us to look forward not backwards: their own Government’s experience with the Truss Budget is one that they do not want to remember and would like to forget, but unfortunately its effects were long, far-reaching and serious for all of our constituents. \p Adam Jogee: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I followed him when I gave my maiden speech and it is good to see him in his place. Does it not say everything that Conservative Members are now defending the Truss Budget and all the damage that it did to communities like mine and his? \p Gideon Amos: Absolutely. They have no recollection of the past, they are blind to the experience of their own Government, and they are only asking, urging and pleading us to look forward, not back at their own record.

In Taunton and Wellington, there are countless examples of folk who are unable to afford a home of their own. Rosanna, a qualified solicitor, has been living with her parents for over six years because she is unable to afford a new home. What is needed is a far bigger focus on building the council and social rent homes that are needed by our country. The Liberal Democrats propose to raise the number from the Government’s target of 20,000 per year to 150,000 per year. There should be less reliance on a few big house builder developers, whose interest, perfectly reasonably, is in increasing profits and the value of their land, rather  than in making their products cheaper—why would they?—or in necessarily increasing the amount of housing supply.

Less reliance on the big developers and more council and social rent homes delivered by public funding would mean that there would be no need for the Government to cut the affordable housing requirements in London, as they did last week. Our manifesto provided £6 billion a year over five years to begin to achieve not just the 90,000 social rent homes that Shelter and the National Housing Federation say that we need, but our manifesto target of 150,000 homes. A decent home should not be for just the most vulnerable and excluded; all working people should be able to have a home with a decent rent. Coupled with that, we need new routes to be available for people to get on to the home ownership ladder and a new generation of rent-to-own homes, where renters can gain ownership over 30 years. \p Rebecca Smith: The hon. Member is making a powerful speech, as he always does. However, there is a gaping hole in his argument when it comes to people who are looking not for their first home, but for a bigger home, which may be a new property or a property that already exists. What would he say to his Taunton constituents who are in that middle bracket, given that he will be voting not to scrap stamp duty? That land tax will hinder them from taking a step up the ladder, whether by buying one of the many new homes that he admirably wants delivered in his constituency or by buying a home that already exists. \p Gideon Amos: I would point my constituents to the comments made by Lucian Cook, the head of research at Savills, who has said that the proposed SDLT giveaway would simply pass straight into house prices. It would have very little, if any, effect on people’s ability to buy homes, whether they are downsizing or not. \p Graham Stuart: The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. I may have misheard, so will he clarify for the benefit of the House? At the beginning of his remarks, I thought that he said that this was a very bad tax and that it was harmful, but then, as only a Lib Dem could, he proceeded to argue strongly in its favour. Will he help me out, because I am not following the line of his argument? \p Gideon Amos: The right hon. Member, for whom I usually have respect, was clearly not listening to what I said. It is possible for there to be several features to a change in tax policy. Our argument, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans pointed out, is that we need a comprehensive review of property taxes. The effect of the stamp duty holiday was to increase house prices. It may, none the less, be a valuable policy, because it may free up transactions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) argued. My observation is that these are not the policies that will help people who are struggling to afford a home to rent and to get on the housing ladder in the first place. They may be valuable for other reasons, but they will not address that problem. As I say, coupled with that we need a big investment in rent-to-own housing. Since 2015—this is the big point, which would be unaffected by the Conservative proposal— the multiple of income  needed to get a mortgage, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, has risen from four-and-a-half to six-and-a-half times their income.

Without more genuinely affordable homes in significant numbers and wider tax reform, this cut is unfunded. It will leave first-time buyers with nothing new and transfer funds to the wealthiest. That is simply not enough to help my constituents. We need a much more ambitious renaissance in the building of council and social rent homes, and we need new measures to help people to get on to the housing ladder. \p David Chadwick: I am glad that my hon. Friend is calling out the consequence of Thatcherite policies. Does he agree that no country has suffered more from Thatcherite policies than Wales? \p Gideon Amos: My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion of his constituency in Wales and has experienced the effects of the reduction in and dwindling of council and social rent homes around the country in Wales, as in other parts of the country, including in my own constituency. We used to have 30,000 council homes available, but we now have only 6,000, and that number is going down every year.

This is not about the broken promise not to allow people to buy their homes; it is about the broken promise of not replacing those council and social rent homes. That has to be addressed, and it was never addressed by multiple Conservative Governments. Without those changes and wider tax reform and investment in social and council rent homes, this policy on its own would do nothing to help my constituents, and I am unable to support it. \p Jack Rankin: In preparing for this debate, I was thinking about my history when it comes to stamp duty. I recall quite vividly going to see a mortgage broker on Dedworth Road in Windsor—I am not quite sure what year it was; perhaps I was in my late 20s. I had been quite dutifully saving for some years in order to achieve my aspiration, which a lot of young people have, to get a foot on the property ladder. I remember that I dutifully took my payslips and bank statements, and the mortgage broker turned to me and laughed. He said, “Congratulations on saving that, Mr Rankin. You have now saved the stamp duty; we just have to save up for a deposit.” It was a joke, but it was kind of true.

There has been lots of criticism of our record, but one of the things we Conservatives did in office that I was most heartened by was removing first-time buyers from stamp duty. That was incredibly powerful for young people in this country.

I might have to declare an interest that is not just historical. I am a father with a young family—we have two boys under the age of four. Housing is incredibly expensive in my constituency, with the average house costing around £750,000. We are considering a third child, and just like families up and down the country we are discussing what that means. The particular limiting decision for my family, despite us wanting a third child, is housing. We live in a wonderful home in the village of Sunninghill that is probably okay for three babes and  tots, but it would not be okay for a growing family. That is the kind of decision that is being made up and down this country.

One of the things that has made me proud this afternoon to sit on the Conservative Benches was listening to some Labour Members, because from some there has been a sneering assumption that stamp duty is a tax for the rich. When I think about myself and many young people in their early 20s trying to put together their stamp duty, I do not think that is a tax cut for the rich. When I think about families trying to get another bedroom in order to grow their families, I do not think that is a tax cut for the rich. That is not going into any of the other dynamic effects at all. I am proud that on the Conservative Benches, we stand up for aspirational people.

If we think about the crowded field of all the taxes we might want to cut, to my mind stamp duty is where we might start. We have heard from many Members who have quoted distinguished economists—much more distinguished than anything I might come out with—but it is clear that stamp duty is one of those taxes that destroys almost as much wealth as it raises. It is anti-growth, anti-ambition and anti-free market, and as I have already articulated, I think it is anti-family. It is a significant part of the reason why this country has such a lethargic housing market.

This is all despite the fact that home ownership is not only key to our prosperity; perhaps even more so, it is important to people’s pride and the security of millions of families around this country. It is the foundation of this great property-owning democracy, but as a nation, we are not in a great state when it comes to housing. For my generation and the generation behind me, home ownership sometimes looks quite impossible. To fix this, our focus must be on supply, supply, supply, but we also need a market that flows freely. Frankly, today’s housing market is gummed up. \p Ashley Fox: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), used to be part of the Resolution Foundation—that well-known right-wing think tank—which itself has called for the abolition of stamp duty to free up the housing market in the way my hon. Friend is describing? \p Jack Rankin: I would say that I hope the hon. Member in question is closer to this Budget, but having listened to some of his other utterances, perhaps most of us on the Conservative Benches would not hope for that. Never mind!

The main criticism we have heard from Government Members, which is a fair criticism, is that of cost. There has been some constructive criticism from Labour Members who have agreed that stamp duty is a bad tax, but have then said that cost is the problem. They should be a little bit self-aware about that, because one of the reasons we are in such a fiscally precarious place is that some of the decisions the Government made in their previous Budget have put us in something of a fiscal doom loop, which we do not seem to have any chance of escaping. \p Andrew Snowden: While we are on the subject of paying for things and ownership of land—trying to find the funds to abolish a tax and allow our citizens to purchase  their own home—one obvious solution would be to not give away territory that we already own and pay £36 billion over the lifetime of the deal to do so. One way of paying for this policy that my hon. Friend might suggest to Labour Members is to avoid paying to give away our own land, taking money off our citizens who want to buy their own land. \p Jack Rankin: My hon. Friend is quite right. Although we are at risk of picking apart the Budget in its entirety, I would suggest that giving away our sovereign land and paying for the privilege might not be a great thing to do at any time, but particularly in a fiscally constrained environment.

Despite having to have a reasonable answer on the question of cost, which I will get to later in my remarks, Conservative Members should not be shy when it comes to talking about some of the other positive fiscal benefits that abolishing stamp duty would yield. One area in which we Conservatives have not done as well as we could is that of making the positive, dynamic argument for some tax cuts, because every move in the housing market engages a raft of removers, decorators, window cleaners, gardeners, plumbers and electricians. Do those sound like the kind of people who could be described as “the rich”, as we have heard from Labour Members? These are real working people with decent jobs, generating income for the Exchequer through VAT, income tax and national insurance, and we should not be shy about saying that. If we are lucky, abolishing stamp duty might also lead to a reduction in welfare spending through job creation.

There are also gains that cannot be recorded in a spreadsheet. Those include families such as mine moving into homes that are the right size for them, and pensioners rightsizing—some people have used downsizing, but I think rightsizing is the better word—to be closer to their grandchildren, which might provide childcare support for young families. They also include economic and social mobility, such as taking a promotion in a new area. Those things might not show up on a Treasury balance sheet, but they are really important things for our society. Cutting stamp duty would generate extra revenue for the Treasury in myriad ways that we should be happy to talk about.

That said, as a credible Opposition, we still need to cost this policy. That is why, as we have heard already in this debate, the Conservative party has found £47 billion of savings, all while being able to honour our golden economic rule. That economic rule says that the majority of public sector spending reductions that we identify must go on deficit reduction.

As a policy, the abolition of stamp duty aligns with many of the principles that those of us on the Opposition Benches hold dear to our hearts. It rewards ambition, it unlocks free markets, and it lowers the tax burden on families. Labour will not make any difference on housing because it is just too conflicted. Fixing the housing market needs holistic solutions. We cannot talk about improving the housing market with the levels of migration that we currently have. We cannot talk about improving the housing market while overseeing record low house building numbers in London, as our developers are strangled in regulation. We need a holistic solution. We  need to abolish stamp duty. We need to end mass migration. We need, I am afraid to say, to deport hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants.

I look forward to seeing more ambition from the Opposition on reforming our planning system. That is part of a vision for my party, and I am proud to be a part of it. However, it is not a new vision. Home ownership and supply-side reforms have been at the centre of the Conservative vision throughout our storied history, whether that is Stanley Baldwin, Harold Macmillan or Mrs Thatcher. It is a moral mission to support young aspirant people through these important gateways of life. Buying your own home and starting a family—these are the building blocks of all our communities. Abolishing stamp duty in this costed way will give people the keys to their own futures and secure the future of this country. \p Ashley Fox: All of us here want to improve the lives of our constituents, though we often differ in how we might achieve that. As a Conservative, I believe we do so by working with the grain of human nature, by allowing people the maximum amount of liberty to live their lives, by supporting families, by rewarding hard work, rather than penalising it, and by incentivising entrepreneurship and the creation of wealth. As legislators, we do that by keeping the size of the state under control, keeping borrowing low and reducing the burden on taxpayers wherever possible.

It is with regret that I see this current Labour Government increasing taxes, increasing borrowing, increasing the deficit and our national debt, and increasing the interest we pay on that debt. It saddens me that we have a Government whose answer, whatever the question, always seems to be more public expenditure. I am pleased therefore that not only will the Conservative party reduce taxes when we form the next Government, but will scrap one altogether.

Stamp duty is a bad tax. The current stamp duty regime means that anyone seeking to buy their first home or to move house faces an additional burden at one of the most important moments in their lives. By eliminating this tax on main homes, the Conservatives would be removing a financial barrier, which for many first-time buyers or young families makes the difference between owning their first home or not. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) alluded to that in his excellent speech. It would mean the dream of home ownership was made more accessible.

While stamp duty has been around since xx-xxxx-xxxx, the current regime was introduced by Gordon Brown in 2003. When it came into effect, it charged a fixed percentage rate depending on the value of a house—the so-called slab system. It meant that when the price went from £250,000 to £250,001, people faced an enormous increase in the tax paid. The coalition Government, to their credit, reformed the tax so as to remove the tax from those purchasing a property for under £125,000. They eliminated the slabs in the model with a slice model. That made the tax better, but the core problems remain. Stamp duty makes it harder to purchase a house. It dissuades people from upsizing or downsizing, and therefore prevents a host of other economic activities associated with moving house. A vibrant housing market is vital to economic health. When more people buy and  move, transactions increase, new homes are built, tradespeople are employed, and local economies benefit. The tax on each move discourages those transactions. People stay put because of the cost of moving, and that can lead to the housing market locking up. Scrapping stamp duty on primary homes will free up the market. That will have benefits not just for buyers and sellers, but for builders, developers, local services, and the whole national economy.

There is a fairness argument, too. Buying a home is one of the largest investments that most people will ever make, and to tax that moment seems not just counterintuitive but perverse. Removing the tax on a main residence signals a commitment to giving people a chance to grow, to aspire and to build their lives. Those are Conservative principles, and the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in Manchester recognised that. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that this change will create

“a fairer and more aspirational society.” \p Luke Evans: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that when supply is tight, if we allow people to move more easily, the right people will be in the homes that are right for their time of life? An elderly couple in a five-bedroom house will make the choice to downsize, while a family can upsize to the right house. When supply is tight, that fits much better for us as a society. \p Ashley Fox: My hon. Friend has made a valuable point. This tax cut benefits not just the first-time buyer, but the family moving into a larger home and the empty nesters—I am almost one—seeking to move into a smaller house. \p Graham Stuart: May I take up my hon. Friend’s point about the dynamic market that we need? People in south-east England may be thinking of moving to, for instance, Beverley and Holderness to take up a job, but may be put off by the costs involved, and the risk that they are taking in moving to an area where there may be only that one job for them, and no other jobs to compete with it. So they do not make that move, and we do not benefit from their input into a business in Beverley and Holderness, purely because of the dampening effects of this tax. They stay in the south-east, although they, the country and Beverley and Holderness would be better off if only they were incentivised to move and take a chance. \p Ashley Fox: That is another valuable point. This tax cut benefits not just the housing market but the jobs market, and therefore the whole economy. Our politics ought to empower people, not load them with additional burdens. This is an important measure for young people, because, as we acknowledge, they face higher costs and more competition for housing than their parents did.

To be credible, we must explain how we will pay for this measure. That is a valid question, and, unlike some parties in this place, we will not make promises without a plan for delivery. The measure is possible as part of a wider package of economic reform, spending discipline and growth creation. The Government were elected on a policy of “going for growth”, yet everything that they do seems designed to bring about the opposite. A jobs  tax makes it more expensive to employ people; higher business rates make it more expensive to conduct business in a property; the changes in agricultural and business property relief—increasing inheritance tax—reduce investment by family businesses; and the Employment Rights Bill makes it more expensive, time-consuming and difficult to employ people. The Government have turned on the spending taps and levied record levels of tax, while at the same time implementing measures that increase unemployment and make Britain less competitive. Every Labour Government has led to higher unemployment, and it is deeply regrettable that in every month since the general election, unemployment has risen. I do not think that the Government are malevolent; they simply have no clue about how business works. \p Tom Hayes: The Conservative party’s position on the green economy is now to remove some of the support for it. Figures show that the green economy is growing by around 10%; it is fuelling job creation and often provides better-paid jobs. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it is in the economy’s interests to cut the legs out from underneath the green economy? \p Ashley Fox: Well, I am amazed to hear that the real economy is growing by 10%. That must be a forecaster I have not heard of! We believe it is possible to cut welfare spending. In fact, a few months ago, the hon. Gentleman’s party believed it was possible. The Government put forward a modest proposal to reduce welfare spending by £5 billion, which had our support, yet, unfortunately, at the first whiff of rebellion, the Chancellor caved. That shows that the Government have no idea how finance works, how business works or how confidence works. They undermined their credibility by being unable to undertake even the smallest reform.

We can announce the abolition of stamp duty because we have promised to put Britain on a different track. Our golden rule means that, for every pound we make in savings, half will go on reducing the deficit and paying down our debts. We will reduce spending by £47 billion a year, and have announced plans to do so. About half of that will come from cutting the welfare bill, including stopping the ballooning bill for Motability cars for those with mild mental health issues. Some £8 billion of savings will come from reducing the civil service to the size it was before the pandemic. We will save money by closing asylum hotels, reserving other benefits to UK nationals, and coming to a more credible position on net zero.

By taking those tough choices, we can cut taxes and help the economy. We estimate that abolishing stamp duty will cost £9 billion, which is set against the savings we have outlined. By pledging to remove it, we are signalling that we believe in growth, in enterprise and in enabling every citizen to build their future. \p Bradley Thomas: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on this important topic, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is one that I am passionate about. I got involved in politics to make people’s lives better, and to be on the side of those who work hard, do the right thing and aspire for themselves and their family. That is the fundamental point at the core of this argument.

My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) made a great point when he said that this is a moral mission. It is a moral mission to be on the side of those who are aspirational, and to unlock the hopes and dreams of a generation who want a tangible stake in society but have great fears that they will never have it. Stamp duty, for many, is a tax on that dream home, on that bridge between where they are today and where they want to go tomorrow, particularly for their family.

We have heard a lot in this debate about first-time buyers, and it is right that we focus on them; it is particularly shameful that one of the first acts of this Labour Government was to lower the threshold at which stamp duty was imposed on those first-time buyers. But once a first-time buyer has been in their home for a few years and had a child, and maybe a second, and wants to move up the property ladder into a house that will better meet their needs, that is when this tax really starts to bite. Constituents have approached me to say that they are able to afford a mortgage on their next home, and have even identified one that they want to move into, but the stamp duty prevents them from moving.

What strikes me about this argument between the two sides of the House—and, in fact, between Opposition parties as well—is that many make the case that if we removed stamp duty, it would cause house prices to rise. If it was removed as a temporary measure, there would be a chance of that happening, but if it was removed in perpetuity, the housing market would regularise without a huge increase in prices. That is the key to unlocking the aspiration that so many have for themselves and their family.

I do not believe that Labour Members have particularly nefarious intent; I can only conclude that their position really does demonstrate the politics of envy. It is a fact of life that some in society will always have more wealth than others—the scale is always relative—but even if those at the upper end of the wealth scale benefit from the abolition of stamp duty, those further down the chain will also benefit. The great reality of this proposal is that it is universal in its application, so everyone will benefit.

This is fundamentally about unlocking mobility and the aspirations of so many. It applies not just to first-time buyers and those wanting to move up the ladder, but to those who want to downsize, whom we have heard so much about today. There are plenty of constituents across Bromsgrove and the villages who are asset-rich but cash-poor, and who are trapped in larger houses but would like to downsize, should the fiscal incentive be there for them to do so. Stamp duty, in the form of tens of thousands of pounds, is absolutely key in so many cases. \p Luke Evans: A really important issue, especially for elderly people who are caught in a large home, is social care. We need to make sure that healthcare and support is there as people get older. If they find themselves trapped in a large house, how do we make sure that it is modified? That has an additional cost, which is often lost. Does my hon. Friend agree that freeing up such people to move offers them the benefit of saving money? \p Bradley Thomas: My hon. Friend makes a valid and important point. That is one of the great peripheral benefits of this policy, should the Government embrace it, and I encourage them to look seriously at it. I encourage the Government to vote for this motion, even if only to show their intent, and even if they cannot implement it anytime soon.

We have heard about the stimulus effect. The typical spend of a family moving house is around £9,000. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor pointed out that those employed in trades would benefit from saving that money. These are people who are not necessarily rich; they are hard workers who set their alarms in the morning. They are the very people who have aspiration for their family and want to be able to move up the property ladder.

One of the fundamental ideologies that have emanated from Labour Members is a denial of capitalism and the role that it plays in driving up prosperity. My right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) made this point eloquently: capitalism is not something that we should be afraid of; it is the biggest driver of prosperity that the western world has known. Labour Members should embrace it with a little bit more vigour.

A point that I have to touch on, because it affects my constituency so profoundly, is the Government’s increase in housing targets. We Conservative Members are not anti-house building, but we believe that house building has to be proportionate. Bromsgrove and the villages is a 79% rural constituency. It really is the green buffer between Worcestershire and the urban sprawl of Birmingham. It is 89% green belt, yet our housing target has increased by a staggering 85%, whereas the housing target in adjacent Birmingham has decreased by over 30%. I have given various Ministers various opportunities to address this point of the Floor of the House, but no one has been able to do so yet, so I can only assume that, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), the Government are “fiddling” the figures for political reasons. I would welcome it if the Minister could address the disproportionate burden that the Government’s housing targets are putting on rural areas, including Bromsgrove and the villages.

There is something that the Government could do to make the bitter pill of more housing easier to swallow, but they abandoned the idea on day one: make high-quality design a central tenet in the planning system. The previous Government opened the Office for Place, which is an advisory body that advises the Secretary of State on the quality of the built environment. Every single Government, regardless of political colour, should embrace the principles of good design, because they lead not just to good houses, but to better communities. If the Government can convey to communities that new housing is not going to impose red-brick monotony that erodes their sense of identity and character, there will be much more openness from communities to the house building agenda. \p Luke Evans: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. One of the biggest concerns I have is that the Government have taken away the funding for neighbourhood plans. We know that neighbourhood plans give villages their say in where planned housing  goes, but more importantly they deliver more housing. Does he believe it is short-sighted to take away that funding, which will compound the problem he is talking about—he is discussing the aspect of style and design—of getting communities to take on extra housing? \p Bradley Thomas: My hon. Friend is spot-on. That is incredibly short-sighted, and I think it will prove to be a false economy.

I urge the Government to embrace good design to provide a justification to my constituents for why they are pursuing the current house building targets in such a disproportionate way across the country. Most of all, I implore the Government to put at the centre of their fiscal plans the scale of ambition that hard-working people have every single day when they set their alarms and go out to work—they want to do the right thing for their families. The Government must realise that pulling the right fiscal levers and cutting the right taxes will stimulate the very activity that will drive the growth they are so desperate to achieve. \p Judith Cummins: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p James Cleverly: I thank my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor for setting out the opening case for the Opposition’s position on stamp duty. I feel particularly passionate about this policy, which is one I put forward when I was running for the leadership of the Conservative party. Like all good ideas, it has been embraced by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I am particularly glad—this is a key point—that my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor and his team have worked hard to make sure that cutting stamp duty is not just a headline, but a fully costed and set out policy.

The Leader of the Opposition has, I think very magnanimously, said that if the Government want to steal this idea and implement it now, they will get no opposition from us. I think that shows her typical generosity of spirit. The Government are clearly struggling to come up with credible economic plans of their own, so they are very welcome to steal our economic plans.

I have been struck by the positive nature of this debate. As Conservative colleagues have noted, the expected wall of thoughtless opposition to this proposal has not materialised at quite the scale we expected. It has materialised in some instances, but that is only to be expected. We heard in a number of speeches, and I will refer to some contributions as I go through my speech, that Labour Members recognise that stamp duty is a bad tax, a counterproductive tax and a tax that has a dampening, drag-anchor effect on the housing market. However, they went on to say, “But we need the money.” They are desperate for the tax revenues, which I think shows the fundamental challenge that, frankly, Labour is going to have to deal with in November. If the Government cannot agree to get rid of this damaging, counterproductive tax, what tax will they be willing to reduce? If they are going to say to the House that, basically, there is not a single tax in the British system that they are willing to cut, reduce or remove, then the mask has slipped. Under a Labour Government, this country faces ever-increasing taxes—that is basically  what they are saying. They admit that this is a bad tax, but they are not willing to vote for its removal because they want to see—they need to see, are desperate to see—taxes going up. That was fundamentally the argument put by many Government Members. \p Luke Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is compounded by the Government’s position on spending reductions? We saw that on the Floor of the House, when the one attempt to make spending reductions was gutted mid-discussion, with proposals being pulled from a Bill that dealt with welfare. Therefore, the Government will not make any spending cuts either, which does not leave much else bar borrowing, in my estimation. \p James Cleverly: My hon. Friend is spot-on. That point was very well highlighted by my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), who said that official Opposition felt that this damaging and counterproductive tax should be removed. As I have said, my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor has set out that that would be paid for by a reduction in the welfare bill—something that I know has universal support on our Benches. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater highlighted that a reduction in welfare spending is not only something that we think is a necessary and good idea, but something that Labour Front Benchers used to think was a necessary and a good idea until, with great leadership, they were told by their Back Benchers to stop thinking that it was a necessary and a good idea, and to start thinking that it was a terrible idea. Such leadership from the Back Benches is something that I admire from that party. If only Labour Front Benchers had anything like the spine of the Labour Back Benchers, the country might not be in quite such a dire economic state.

Labour Members have basically said that they are unwilling to cut even the worst taxes because basically they want to see taxes go up. The Lib Dem position is yoga-like in its ability to bend— \p Luke Evans: Pretzel-like. \p James Cleverly: Yes, pretzel-like. One after another, the speakers on the Lib Dem Benches stood up and said, “We agree that this is a bad tax. We agree that this is a counterproductive tax. We agree that it is a tax that needs to go.” I, and I suspect others on the Conservative Benches, thought, “Here we go. Here is the crescendo, the pièce de resistance,” and that those speeches would end by saying, “Which is why you will see us in the Lobby with you, ensuring that the motion is passed.” But that is not what we heard. \p Bobby Dean: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? \p James Cleverly: In a minute—I have a punchline to get to.

That is not what we heard. What we heard was, “We think this is a bad tax that should be got rid of, but we are not going to vote to say it is a bad tax that should be got rid of, because blah”—which is always the Lib Dems’ punchline. I was waiting for an explosion of political integrity, only to be presented with a political damp squib. \p Bobby Dean: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way after his fantastic punchline, which everybody really enjoyed. \p Daisy Cooper: Where was it? \p Bobby Dean: Exactly. He obviously was not paying enough attention to our argument. Yes, we did agree with the analysis that stamp duty is a poor tax, but we could not support the motion, because we do not think there is a credible plan for abolishing it. We would like to see a much more holistic review of property taxes, alongside a credible plan. There is no credible plan in the motion. We do not trust the public spending cut proposals that have been put forward. \p James Cleverly: You’ve gotta love ’em, haven’t you? Never seen a fence they would not sit on, never seen a position they would not contort around. “These are our principles”, they say, “but so are these, and so are these other ones as well.” It is that clarity that we value from the Liberal Democrats. \p Rachel Taylor: I will be a little clearer on Labour’s principles: we will not be joining the Conservatives in the voting Lobby because we will not vote for unfunded tax cuts that predominantly serve the wealthy and do nothing to help first-time buyers or ordinary working people up and down the country. \p James Cleverly: That’s how you do it! That is how you actually have a position—it is the wrong position, but at least it is a position. The hon. Lady keeps talking about unfunded tax cuts, but she is getting her language back to front. We do not fund a tax cut, because it is the British people who fund Government spending, so when Government spending is eased, it eases the burden on the British taxpayer. It is spending that needs to be funded, not a reduction in spending.

I will reinforce what I thought were a number of strong interventions in support of the motion. I was struck by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) speaking about his own experience trying to get on the housing ladder and how his enthusiasm was diminished by the realisation that stamp duty was going to make it even more difficult. The hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) made a legitimate point that this tax affects different parts of the country very differently. He made the fair point that there will be many parts of the country where it is not typical that people pay stamp duty land tax, or a significant quantum or scale of it, but that is not a good reason to deny this reduction in cost to those people in the country who do. Although there might not be many in his constituency, I guarantee that he would not have to travel far before he starts to meet people who are being dissuaded from purchasing properties because of stamp duty land tax. Certainly for Members representing constituencies near big cities, wherever they are across the country, or constituencies in the south, significant numbers of people pay this tax.

It has been mentioned by many Conservative Members—too many to single out—that this proposal would positively impact not just the people who pay, or may pay, stamp duty land tax. I guarantee that almost all of us can imagine the streetscape that I am about to  describe from our constituencies. There are perhaps Victorian or Edwardian semi-detached or detached houses on what used to be the periphery of the town or city before it expanded beyond that. It will typically be a band of properties populated disproportionately by older couples or older people, who have often been in the constituency for many decades. Their children have moved out and they are now under-occupying those properties with two, three or perhaps even four bedrooms spare, but they are deterred from downsizing because they fear the stamp duty that they will have to pay. Estimates show that 2.8 million people would consider downsizing—or rightsizing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor said—if stamp duty were removed. We would then have a ripple effect throughout the housing market, freeing up family homes for people who are currently in overcrowded accommodation.

Not only that, but the London School of Economics estimates that for every housing transaction, an estimated £6,000 of economic activity is pumped into the local market, with local builders doing refurbishments, perhaps doing extensions and fitting new bathrooms and kitchens, and people buying soft furnishings and white goods—the sorts of things that people buy when they move. What type of business typically provides those goods and services? It is local businesses—small and medium-sized enterprises embedded in their communities. These are the people who are being denied economic activity because this tax is stifling the property market.

We need liquidity in the property market. We need people buying and selling. We need people spending money with local businesses in local shops across the whole of the country. That is what reducing the tax burden on people does; it is what removing the stamp duty land tax will achieve.

Yet on the Government and Liberal Democrat Benches, Members are contorting themselves to find excuses not to reduce this burdensome tax, and I genuinely do not understand why. Some 2.8 million people could release their homes on to the market; if each of those homes had two or three spare bedrooms, that would immediately eclipse the 1.5 million homes that Labour is desperately trying to convince the country will be built under its tenure. It could be done almost immediately, without a brick being laid, and—more importantly—without the need for any Government subsidy.

That is what the House is saying no to, but not those on the Conservative Benches. We on these Benches understand aspiration. The Conservative party has always been the party of aspiration. We have always been the party that helped people to get on and up the housing ladder—a noble and normal aspiration, and one that we support, even if other hon. Members do not support it. \p Toby Perkins: The right hon. Gentleman wonders why this might not have happened. It might be something to do with the 14 billion quid that he has not worked out how the Government will find. If it was so easy, why, in all those days before covid, did his party never do it in 14 years? \p James Cleverly: It was the Conservatives who reduced the stamp duty burden—something that was reversed almost immediately when Labour came into office.

The simple truth is that the Conservatives have always been the party of home ownership and aspiration: helping people to have a stake in not just the country and the economy, but their local communities; helping parents to stay closer to their own parents so that grandparents can see their grandchildren; creating flexibility so that when job opportunities are created around the country, people can actually move to those jobs without facing a financial penalty for doing so.

That is what is at stake. That is what we are proposing. That is what the Conservatives will continually fight for, even in the face of opposition from Labour—a party that should be about aspiration and used to be about aspiration, but which has lost its way, drifted from the path of righteousness, and, if Labour Members do as they claim today, a party that will oppose the removal of what is regularly described by economic experts as the single most damaging tax on our books.

I will conclude with this point. [Interruption.] I can continue if Members want. [Hon. Members: “More!”] No, I will conclude on this point. If Members opposite and to my left—both physically and metaphorically—are unwilling to countenance the removal of what is pretty much universally described as the single most counterproductive tax, what tax will they remove?

The mask has slipped. Labour cannot and will not bring themselves to reduce any taxes. The British people will notice this, and so will the markets. The unwillingness of the Labour party to make any difficult decisions with regard to public spending or the reduction of the tax burden on the British people is not just painful for taxpayers themselves. It will be painful for our children and grandchildren, who are going to pay increased amounts of money to fund the spending that, as my colleagues have said, is the only way that the Chancellor can try to dig herself out of this hole. That will be a burden on generations to come.

I suspect we will divide on this motion, and when we do the choice will be between a party that seeks to support aspiration, families, small businesses and the building trade, and those parties that oppose all those things and will increase the tax burden on British people, our children and grandchildren, and indeed the great-grandchildren of people alive today. That is not what my party is about or what this country should be about. I urge all those who want to do right by small businesses and future generations to support this motion and scrap this deeply counterproductive tax. I commend the motion to the House. \p Lucy Rigby: I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. I especially thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) for his speech at the start, and the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride) for bringing forward this debate. I also thank the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) for concluding on behalf of the Opposition.

With those niceties over, I turn to the substance of the motion we are debating, which, as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said, is fundamentally flawed. Despite the Leader of the Opposition’s seemingly steadfast commitment to having no policy at all, which has now  been very much abandoned, Conservative Members have looked back at their shockingly bad economic record and taken the rather extraordinary view that they are well placed to offer input and advice on the upcoming Budget, which is entirely a matter for the Chancellor to decide once she has seen the OBR’s forecast and which she will share with the House at the end of next month.

The Conservatives have looked at all of this, thought for seemingly quite a long time about it, and decided that now is the right moment to offer some policy. The solution to all the hardship they inflicted on the country during their time in power is more of the same: more unfunded tax cuts, more instability, more austerity, more harm to our public services and, dare I say it, more of the approach that meant that their penultimate Prime Minister was outlasted by a lettuce. \p Graham Stuart: Will the Economic Secretary give way? \p Lucy Rigby: I will make some progress.

That is the Conservatives’ pitch to the British public—reckless with our public finances, reckless with our public services and reckless with the future of this country. Conservative Members are competing to say how sad and angry they are about this tax. They will be furious when they find out which party gave us the highest tax burden since the second world war! [Interruption.] The motion is a seemingly straight-faced argument from Conservative Members that we should do the exact thing that brought their 14 years of government to an end. It is proof that they have learned— \p Graham Stuart: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. \p Nusrat Ghani: Mr Stuart, is it an actual point of order? I think the Minister was coming to a conclusion, so we are just preventing our business from progressing. Ministers, Front Benchers or Members not taking interventions is not necessarily a point of order. Do you want to proceed? \p Graham Stuart: I would like to proceed, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Laughter.] I wonder if there is anything the Chair can do to help the Minister. She appeared unaware that her own Government, for whom she is a Treasury Minister, have brought us to the highest ever level of tax in this country. \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. It is not my job to write yours or the Minister’s speech—if only. That was not a point of order. \p Lucy Rigby: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The motion is proof that the Conservatives have learned none of the lessons of their catastrophic mini-Budget or of the years of the punishing austerity that was inflicted on the people and institutions of this country, with nothing whatsoever to show for it but soaring debt, low productivity and devastated household finances.

Let me be clear that stamp duty is not a beloved tax—far from it; it is no more beloved than any other taxes—but it is an effective tax that raises billions of pounds annually, with those buying the most expensive properties contributing the most. That contribution is  vital to the upkeep of our public services, our NHS, our schools and our armed forces. Abolishing it would take billions out of the public purse—£13.9 billion alone. It would be a multibillion-pound tax cut affecting the budgets of our most essential services.

It is the same horror show from the same old Conservatives, wildly swinging their scythe at public services without a care in the world for the consequences for our NHS, our schools and our armed forces. Which services would Conservative Members want to cut down this time? Would it be fewer nurses, fewer soldiers or fewer police officers? [Interruption.] Conservative Members are asking me whether I am asking them. I am more than aware that in the debate they referenced their fantasy economics based on welfare cuts. The shadow Chancellor oversaw the biggest increase in benefit spending in decades when he was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. If he truly believes that welfare spending needs cutting, why did he let it balloon? We have heard from various hon. Members about their objections to this tax and about all sorts of things they imagine might be in the Budget. \p Graham Stuart: Just to be clear, does the Minister agree that this is a bad tax? Would she, in a perfect world, seek to find ways of controlling public expenditure so that the tax could be removed and people across the country—first-time buyers and the elderly in particular—could benefit from that? \p Lucy Rigby: It is a tax, so obviously I do not love it, but what I find extraordinary is the Conservative party’s new-found hatred of taxation when they increased taxes 25 times in the last Parliament.

As I said, we heard from various hon. Members about their objections to this tax. I will not engage on the points made about the Budget, for obvious reasons, except to repeat that we are committed to a single major fiscal event per year where the Chancellor will set out any tax decisions in the usual way alongside the OBR’s forecast. That fiscal event will take place, as everyone knows, on 26 November, at which point there will be plenty of time to discuss and debate the decisions that the Chancellor takes in the Budget.

I want to speak to some of the points raised during the debate. We heard plenty from Conservative Members about why they want to abolish stamp duty. I think some points were made thoughtfully; I say that in a well-meant way. I am sorry to say, however, that we heard absolutely nothing from Conservative Members on their appalling economic record. We heard nothing from them on their appalling record on house building—save for the acknowledgment of the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse)—nothing on the waste of public money from the fraud on their watch, and nothing whatsoever that could be described as fiscal responsibility.

We heard from some of my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches about the urgent need to build more houses in this country, given our appalling inheritance. That is the key way that we solve the housing crisis. I pay tribute to the thoughtful speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin), for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis), for Crewe and  Nantwich (Connor Naismith) and for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), and to my hon. Friends the Members for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) and for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance), who spoke powerfully of the consequences of the Conservative party’s mismanagement of the economy, which include food banks, poverty and, of course, the housing crisis.

I welcome the commitment of the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire. He talked about the need to build more housing and, indeed, about beautiful housing. I assure him that that is exactly the type of housing that this Government will facilitate being built—although I note that his colleagues took him straight back to opposing development no sooner had he made that point. I also welcome his mini-insight into the infighting of the last Government. \p Luke Evans: The hon. Lady may recall that it was a Labour Secretary of State who removed the word “beautiful” from the national planning policy framework. How does she expect to have those beautiful designs if that has been taken away as a standard within the guidance that her Government provided? \p Lucy Rigby: I assure him that the houses will be beautiful and that we will build 1.5 million of them over the course of this Parliament. There was a brief reference to Nirvana from the Conservative Benches before a descent back into half-baked and unfunded plans, to which we on the Government Benches thought, “Well, Nevermind.” \p James Cleverly: Have a word with your officials; that was very bad. \p Mel Stride: Stick to the day job. \p Lucy Rigby: Thank you. I was pleased to hear the Liberal Democrats spokesman, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), and others in the party say that they will oppose the motion. I wholeheartedly agree with her that it is fundamentally flawed.

To be clear, we are a Government of fiscal responsibility. Our steadfast commitment to the fiscal rules has brought stability to our economy and allowed us to boost investment by £120 billion over the course of this Parliament. The dividends of that approach, even after just a year, are already clear: the highest growth in the G7 in the first half of this year, cuts to interest rates, real wages rising more in the time since the last election than they did in 10 years of Conservative Government, record investments from overseas, and new homes and infrastructure progressing all over the country. That is a strong foundation to build on in the years ahead.

Today, we have debated a simple question of two visions for the country. Put another way, does this country go forwards or backwards? The Conservative party wants us to go back—back to its time in office, when Britain had a Government that pursued unfunded tax cuts and austerity, leading to soaring debt, low productivity, under-investment and anaemic growth. It was a Britain where we did not build infrastructure, including houses, and where far too many people were unable to get on the housing ladder.

This Government want the country to move forward. We are managing the public finances with stability and certainty in an uncertain world. We are a Government  who invest in public services, our infrastructure and our communities, and work with businesses and local leaders to bring growth and opportunity to every part of the country. We are a Government who are building houses, including in areas of the country that the shadow Secretary of State— \p James Cleverly: She missed out the word “fewer”. It is “fewer houses”. \p Lucy Rigby: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am afraid that I am being interrupted. We are a Government who are building houses, including in areas of the country that the shadow Secretary of State has previously described in rather unparliamentary language. We are a Government who support working people with new jobs, higher wages and new homes. We are a Government who are committed to building 1.5 million new homes this Parliament and to restoring the dream of home ownership.

We are a Government who will not duck the difficult decisions but face into them, because that is the only way that we will deliver a decade of national renewal and a thriving economy for the people of this country. That is what today’s debate is about: backwards with fiscal irresponsibility from the Conservatives or forwards with economic stability, investment and reform under this Prime Minister and this Chancellor.

Question put. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 103, Noes 329.

Question accordingly negatived. \p Nusrat Ghani: I inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected the proposed amendment. I call the shadow Minister. \p Alex Burghart: I beg to move,

That this House calls on the Government to release the minutes of the meeting chaired by the National Security Adviser on 1 September 2025, at which the prosecution of the two alleged Chinese spies, since dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service, was discussed, including all actions arising from that meeting; and further calls on the Government to publish the minutes of all other meetings where the case was discussed, whether by officials or with Ministers, all relevant correspondence between the Crown Prosecution Service and the Government and between Departments, including correspondence between the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Cabinet Office, Attorney General’s Office, and the Treasury, and advice provided to the Prime Minister relating to the China spy case.

The purpose of this Opposition day debate and of our motion is very simple: transparency—that is all that we ask for. The basic facts are that two men were arrested on suspicion of having spied on hon. Members of this House for China, and the Director of Public Prosecutions has acknowledged that this appears to have been a “gross breach of trust” against hon. Members, yet the case against the two men collapsed because, in the words of the senior Treasury counsel, Tom Little KC, the case was “effectively unsustainable”; it was brought to “a crashing halt” because the Government’s own witness, the deputy National Security Adviser, refused to provide the fatal piece of evidence.

Mr Little had what he called a million-dollar question: was China an active threat to national security? The deputy National Security Adviser repeatedly refused to say yes. The Government effectively refused to say what was patently apparent to anyone remotely alive to the facts of the case. This House has every reason to be told why they refused, and why, for example, the Prime Minister did not intervene to prevent the case collapsing, when we know he was warned that it was unlikely to proceed. It is also reported that the Home Secretary tried to intervene.

We do not call for the publication of this material lightly. We know it is an extraordinary measure to call for the Government to publish documents relating to the formation of policy, but this is an extraordinary event. We have reached this point because the Government have been unable or unwilling to answer basic questions about what they knew when, and why they acted as they did. They have hidden behind civil servants and advisers, when it is Ministers who are supposed to make decisions, and in doing so, they have brought the actions and decisions of those advisers and officials into the spotlight in a way that is most irregular.

Just as worryingly, there has been a persistent inaccuracy and inconsistency in the Government’s statements, to the point where this House can no longer trust a word of theirs. There are a number of examples. First, on 13 October, the Security Minister denied in this House that the mega-mandarin meeting on 1 September, which is the subject of our motion, took place. Last week, the Solicitor General admitted that the meeting did take place.  We now know that it was led by the National Security Adviser and attended by the Cabinet Secretary, the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, senior representation from the Home Office and the Attorney General’s office, and the chief of MI5, but we still do not know what was said there, what was agreed or why the Government tried to deny its existence. \p Julian Lewis: I was interested to see that the National Security Adviser was listed as being involved in that meeting. The National Security Adviser is a political appointee—he is a special adviser—and that is usually the reason why the deputy National Security Adviser is put forward to take all the flak. If the NSA himself is participating in policy meetings about this matter, why does he not come forward? Why is he sheltering behind a full-time official who is being hung out to dry? \p Alex Burghart: My right hon. Friend makes a very pertinent point and is personally very experienced in such things. It has been reported that the National Security Adviser chaired that meeting. That is to say that he was taking a very active role in what was going on. That is why it is incredibly important that the Government come clean with us about what happened in that meeting, who attended and what was decided there. \p Andrew Murrison: The National Security Adviser has spent a great deal of time visiting various Chinese entities before and after his appointment. One appointment that he does not appear very keen on taking up is with the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, which has requested—quite legitimately, under the Osmotherly rules—that he appears before it, but Ministers appear to be blocking that. Why does my hon. Friend think that is? \p Alex Burghart: My right hon. Friend is right: the National Security Adviser showed a great reluctance to attend. I understand that he has now agreed to attend, although the report I read said that he was going to attend in camera. If that report is correct—the Minister has the opportunity to say it is not true—I am not sure that that is the best level of transparency that this House might expect.

The second instance of inconsistency and inaccuracy that we draw attention to is from 7 October, when the Prime Minister told journalists that what mattered in this case was the designation of China as it had been in 2023, when the offences were alleged to have occurred. However, last week, on 24 October, the Director of Public Prosecutions said that that was categorically not the case. He said:

“The test was…positively not what the then Government was prepared to, or did, say in public about China…but rather whether China was—as a matter of fact—an active threat to national security.”

This is a most important point, and one that was revisited yesterday. There is a very serious question about why the deputy National Security Adviser believed that he would

“need to be in line with government policy at the time”,

when the Crown Prosecution Service said that it did not need to know about policy, but about the facts. The Minister should explain to the House why the deputy  National Security Adviser chose to ignore the CPS in this case. He should also tell us whether he thinks the deputy National Security Adviser complied with civil procedure rule 35, which requires him to assist the court and overrides any other obligation. \p Scott Arthur: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can clarify what is happening here. Is the issue that the Government thought that China was a threat to national security but did not declare it, or that they declared it but China was not a threat? I am quite confused about the point he is making. \p Alex Burghart: The hon. Gentleman will have a perfectly good opportunity to question the people responsible in a few moments’ time. The point is that the Government have been unclear, inconsistent and inaccurate, and we are giving them an opportunity to clear this up right now. \p Scott Arthur: I think the issue is that the Government in 2023 were not clear on whether or not China was a threat. Did they clearly make the statement that it was a threat, or was China a threat but the Government failed to make that statement? \p Alex Burghart: The previous Government were clear on a number of occasions that China was a threat, but if the hon. Gentleman had been listening to what I just said, he would have heard that the Director of Public Prosecutions said last week that it was categorically not a question of what the last Government said. Now that I have the hon. Gentleman’s attention, I will repeat for his benefit what the DPP said: that the question was

“whether China was—as a matter of fact—an active threat to national security.”

It was not a question of policy; it was a matter of fact. [Interruption.] I am not going to go through it a third time. \p Jerome Mayhew: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for setting out the story so far, but given that there have been so many variations on the truth, can he come up with an explanation of why the Government cannot alight on a single version of the truth of this matter? \p Alex Burghart: I think there are basically two possible answers to my hon. Friend’s question. The first is that the Government cannot tell their elbow from their posterior; the second is that they do not want this House to know the truth. Either way, on a matter as serious as this, it is incredibly important that we get to the truth. Tonight’s motion presents the Government with an opportunity to be entirely transparent with us and set out the facts of the case as they were at the time—particularly on 1 October, when this all-important meeting took place. \p Iain Duncan Smith: I just want to clear up one small point. When the CPS originally decided to prosecute back in 2024, it was convinced on the basis of the then-required evidence that was in front of it that in this case, China was responsible, and therefore it posed a threat. What changed was the Roussev case, which redefined what  the CPS needed to be able to say in order to go ahead with any further prosecution. It was made clear that all that needed to be done was to make the clear point that China was a persistent, continuous threat to the UK’s strategic interests. The reason why the CPS needed to make that statement had nothing to do with what had happened before; it was all about what resulted from the Roussev case. That was the key. \p Alex Burghart: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and the Director of Public Prosecutions has been very clear and consistent on that point. \p James Wild: Will my hon. Friend give way? \p Alex Burghart: I will give way one more time, and then I will make some progress. \p James Wild: The first senior Treasury counsel, Tom Little, yesterday said that he took the extraordinary step of having a direct discussion with the deputy National Security Adviser because he could not understand why what he said was a relatively straightforward piece of evidence—namely, that China was an active and ongoing threat—had not been provided. Why did the Government not provide that commitment? \p Alex Burghart: That is the million-dollar question. Why were the Government not prepared to say something that was manifestly evidentially true to all and sundry?

The third example is that on 15 October, the Prime Minister said that the deputy National Security Adviser acted entirely independently, without consultation with Ministers or special advisers, and without political involvement. However, the CPS has now made it clear that there were multiple discussions about what the DNSA would and would not say, starting with one such discussion on 3 July 2025. Moreover, the DNSA’s first witness statement was sighted by

“the then National Security Adviser and the…Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary”,

and

“sent to the…Prime Minister through No.10 private office”,

including special advisers. \p Luke Evans: Is it therefore not incredible either way that the deputy NSA did not discuss the biggest spy case this century with his boss, the National Security Adviser, and was left to his own devices to provide the evidence? \p Alex Burghart: I think we all find it difficult to believe that the deputy National Security Adviser was left entirely to his own devices.

A fourth example is that on 20 October, the Minister for Security, who is in his place, told the House:

“Final evidence went in in August, and I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that there is nothing the Prime Minister or any Minister could have done thereafter.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 640.]

We now know that there were meetings between the CPS and the Government on 3 and 9 September to attempt to rescue the case. Why did the Security Minister tell the House something that was not correct? \p Tony Vaughan: As far as I can remember, the Attorney General told the House of Lords yesterday that 3 September was when he was informed that there were evidential difficulties with the case. The key point is that he had no power to intervene, because of the memorandum between the Attorney General’s Office and the CPS. The Attorney General does not get involved in evidential sufficiency. \p Alex Burghart: Ministers do get involved; it is their job to be involved. Ministers represent the Government. Ministers represent all of us. It is not good enough for the Government to say that they are entirely powerless in this instance—they are not.

A fifth example is that yesterday, the Cabinet Secretary said that he did not believe that the chief of MI5 had described China as a threat. On 16 October 2025, Ken McCallum said:

“Do Chinese state actors present a UK national security threat? And the answer is, of course, yes they do every day.”

How on earth did the Cabinet Secretary not know that? This issue is of paramount importance. There are many other such examples.

The Government have an opportunity to be clear with us today, not just about the meetings and the dealings of the past six months, but on their position as it stands. Will the Minister tell us what the material difference is between “a range of threats” and “an active security threat”? The deputy National Security Adviser was keen to make that point yesterday. Perhaps most importantly of all, do the Government believe that China is an active security threat? If not, what would it take to cross that threshold? It is time for the Government to publish all the details so that we can see what really happened here.

I know that the Government will protest their innocence and claim that it is all the fault of the CPS, or the last Government, or the legislation, just as they have tried to do for weeks, but such pleas and protests are no good reason for them to refuse to publish the material we are requesting today. This House may have been spied upon. This House has a right to straight answers. This House has a right to see under the bonnet when the safety and privacy of its Members may have been compromised. This House has a right to know the Government’s real position and the Government’s real agenda. If this Government have nothing to hide, they should hide nothing from this House. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that this debate has to conclude by 7 pm. It is heavily subscribed, so I urge them to be as brief as possible. \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: I will do my best, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart). First, I want to reinforce, not just as a Minister, but as a parliamentarian, the Government’s deep regret about the collapse of the criminal case concerning the two individuals charged under the Official Secrets Act 1911. Everyone in the Government was hoping that the trial would go ahead and planning on the basis that it would.

As a reminder, following the arrests of Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry in March 2023 as part of a counter-espionage operation, counter-terrorism police requested that the deputy National Security Adviser act as a witness in the case. [Interruption.] Let me go through this, because it is important to the challenges made by the hon. Gentleman. The DNSA made it clear that he would provide evidence on the basis of the Government’s position at the time of the offences, and that is crucial to the judgment that has been made in this case. The first statement was drafted— \p Chris Philp: Will the Minister give way? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: I will make some progress, and then I will give way to the shadow Home Secretary.

The first statement was drafted between August and December 2023. During that time, Counter Terrorism Policing was updated on progress, including the information that the deputy National Security Adviser would not be able to call China an enemy, as that was not the position of the Government at the time of the offences. \p Chris Philp: On that point, will the Minister give way? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: Okay, I will let the shadow Home Secretary intervene on that point. \p Chris Philp: The Minister has said twice in the last minute that the question was the policy of the last Government. Let me take him to page 4 of the letter from the Director of Public Prosecutions, dated Thursday of last week. In that letter, the DPP said— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. Interventions should be short. \p Chris Philp: The DPP said the opposite of what the Minister has said. He said that the issue was a question of fact, and not—categorically not—the policy of the last Government. \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! The right hon. Gentleman has just quoted page 4 of the DPP’s letter. Let me quote page 5 to him:

“The information that we required related to the period between 31 December 2021 and 3 February 2023. The position of the current Government was not relevant to the case.”

I suggest that the shadow Home Secretary look at the next page. \p Chris Philp: It is misleading. \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: No, it is not misleading. Will the right hon. Gentleman give me a moment? It was the position at the relevant time. What is even worse, however, is that the word “enemy” was not the position at the time. It came out of the statement, and that happened under the previous Government, I am afraid. \p James Wild: Will the Minister give way? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: I took interventions from the shadow Home Secretary, and I must now make some progress.

Before finalising his statement in December 2023, the deputy National Security Adviser sighted the then National Security Adviser and the then Cabinet Office permanent secretary. On 18 December—this was all under the previous Government—the permanent secretary came back with three comments for the DNSA to consider. The DNSA then finalised the statement, and his private office sent a final version of the draft to the then Prime Minister through the No. 10 private office and No. 10 special advisers. Once the statements were submitted they were not shared, and in April 2024, formal charges were laid. That was the position under the previous Government.

Two supplementary witness statements from the DNSA were submitted in February and August 2025, following requests from Counter Terrorism Policing for further detail on the nature and extent of the threat to the UK from China. For the second statement, CTP specifically asked the DNSA to comment on whether China as a state, during the period from 31 December 2021 to 3 February 2023, posed an active threat; and whether that remained the case. For the third statement, CTP requested that the DNSA provide further points of detail regarding the UK Government’s assessment of the nature and extent of the threat, with examples. The DNSA faithfully and with full integrity—I noted that the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster implied that somehow he was not compliant with part 35 of the civil procedure rules—set out the various threats posed by the Chinese state in line with the UK Government’s position at the material time, in order to try to support a successful prosecution. We then come, obviously, to the meeting on 1 September to which the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster referred, and with which I shall deal in a moment.

I was fascinated by the opening speech of the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in which he talked of the “clarity” of the last Government’s position.

“The government’s approach to China is guided by three pillars: strengthening our national security protections, aligning and cooperating with our partners, and engaging where it is consistent with our interest.”

Who said that? The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster did in 2023, and here he is now trying to talk about the clarity of the position in 2023. \p Gregory Stafford: Will the Minister give way? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: Not for a moment.

On 1 September, the National Security Adviser convened a routine meeting to discuss the UK’s relationship with China in the context of this case and several other upcoming moments. That is entirely what we would expect the National Security Adviser to do. We have learned that entirely separately, and entirely independent of Government, the CPS was deliberating on not offering evidence in this case. On 3 September, the DPP told the Cabinet Secretary and the DNSA of his intention, subject to confirmation, not to put forward evidence, and unfortunately that decision was confirmed on 9 September. I must say to the Opposition that that is a matter of regret. It is quite rightly an independent decision, but it  is a matter of regret. On 15 September 2025, the CPS officially confirmed the decision to discontinue the case against Cash and Berry.

I actually welcome scrutiny of that decision. That is why I welcome the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy’s inquiry into espionage cases and the Official Secrets Act and the Intelligence and Security Committee’s investigations into how classified intelligence was used. Since we last discussed the matter in this House, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, the Attorney General, the Cabinet Secretary, the National Security Adviser and the deputy National Security Adviser have all submitted evidence to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy.

Yesterday, the Joint Committee heard evidence from the Director of Public Prosecutions and the First Treasury Counsel, and from the Cabinet Secretary and the deputy National Security Adviser at a later session. Tomorrow, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister and the Attorney General will give more evidence. A question has been raised about the National Security Adviser; he will also be giving evidence soon, and certainly before the end of the year. \p David Reed: The Minister expresses deep regret that this case has not gone to trial. I want to believe him on that, but the case did not go to trial. With the power of hindsight, if he was to go back and do this all again, what would the Minister have done differently to ensure that this case did go to trial? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: I will tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what would have made a massive difference: if we could have updated the Official Secrets Act far sooner than 2023. That would have made a material difference. This case was being prosecuted under a 1911 Act. The National Security Act was passed in 2023. If only the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had been in the Cabinet Office to be close to what was going on; perhaps the legislation could have been changed at an earlier stage and we would not be in this position.

Let me be clear with the House: the allegations of political interference in this case are absolutely baseless. The CPS decision to discontinue the case was independent of Government. Indeed, the Opposition should ask what the Director of Public Prosecutions himself said about that; he reiterated it again yesterday when he gave evidence, sitting alongside Tom Little KC. \p Julian Lewis: Can the Minister explain to the House, once and for all, how it is possible for a Government to believe that China is responsible for posing a wide range of threats, but is not a threat itself? He would clear matters up, and allay suspicions that the Government are holding back for economic reasons, if he would simply say that China is a threat to our national security. Will he say that? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: China poses a multiplicity of threats; it poses a threat in terms of espionage, in terms of cyber, and in terms of economic security. However, with the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, the issue is whether it was considered a threat at the material time, and I cannot go back and change that. \p Peter Prinsley: I am listening carefully to what the Minister is saying, but can we be informed how MPs today are to be further protected from foreign intelligence services? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: My hon. Friend is 100% correct, and that is a huge priority for the Government; it is a very serious issue. As I said when I opened this debate, it is not just about the position of the Government; I say as a parliamentarian that we in this place have to be protected from foreign interference.

The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asked about the meeting on 1 September. We heard about that yesterday from the Cabinet Secretary and the deputy National Security Adviser, who both attended that meeting: it was a discussion about the bilateral relationship between the UK and China in the context of the case. The Cabinet Secretary made it clear yesterday that the meeting was entirely appropriate; no discussion of evidence took place, and everyone involved was participating on the assumption that the case was going to go ahead.

It was only on 3 September—as was confirmed by him in his evidence to the JCNSS yesterday—that the Director of Public Prosecutions informed the Cabinet Secretary and the DNSA of his intention, subject to confirmation, that the CPS would not be putting forward evidence at trial. The Attorney General was informed on the same day.

It is important that I finish this point, because I have been challenged on the chronology and I am only too delighted to enlighten the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The DPP confirmed to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy that the position was agreed after a period of internal decision making within the CPS in the run-up to the meeting on 3 September. At that meeting, the DPP made it clear that the facts must not be briefed out further, with the exception of informing the NSA and the permanent secretary at the FCDO. The Cabinet Secretary and the DNSA therefore did not inform anyone else until shortly before the case became public. On 9 September, the CPS confirmed the decision to offer no evidence to the DNSA. That is the chronology.

Let me now directly address what the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said, because I am conscious of the time. There is already an established mechanism for Parliament to address this issue. The Government are fully co-operating with the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy inquiry and the ISC, and will provide evidence and appear before the Committee in the usual way. \p James Wild: Will the Minister give way? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: In one moment.

In the motion, the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is seeking a wide range of documents. He was a Cabinet Office Minister himself, and he knows the sensitivity of those documents. He knows the legal professional privilege— \p Alex Burghart: Will the Minister give way? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: I will give the hon. Gentleman one more chance before I conclude. I say to him that highly classified material is subject to legal professional  privilege and includes advice to the Prime Minister, which successive Governments have not released to the public. Why? Because it is in our interests to protect such material. The hon. Gentleman knows that in his heart of hearts. \p Alex Burghart: I have always admired the shine on the Minister’s brass neck, and never so much as at this moment. I remember the Brexit debates, when he and many of the other gentlemen and ladies on the Labour Benches overrode legal privilege and asked for classified documents week after week. Members of this House may have been spied on, and the Government have a duty to be transparent. They cannot hide behind anything, given that they have previously asked for similar documents. Make them available! \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: I am looking at the hon. Gentleman and remembering the debates we had. Let me tell him the difference between what I was doing then and what is happening now. First, I was applying at the time, via a Humble Address mechanism, for a single document. By the way, his rather shambolic motion, which seems to be a fishing expedition, is totally imprecise. Secondly, that was not security material at this level, which is in our national interest. \p Alex Burghart: You didn’t know that! \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: Yes, I did.

Let me emphasise that I support parliamentary scrutiny. I support and welcome the ongoing process with the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. I support the Government’s continuing to engage with the ISC. What we will not do, though, is accede to the hon. Gentleman’s demand. He knows in his heart of hearts that it would be totally inappropriate for the long list of material he has stuck in the motion to be put in the public domain. Asking for open publication is completely different from the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny which, quite rightly, will go on.

Let me conclude by saying this. The Government and I are gravely disappointed that the trial did not proceed. In response to the point that was put to me by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), the DNSA’s evidence articulated clearly the range of threats that China posed to the UK’s national security and, indeed, our economic security at the material time. In the light of the threats that have been identified—I agree with the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—this is a very grave matter. The Government are resolute in our determination to work across all parties and in partnership with the parliamentary security authorities, as was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), to ensure that espionage and interference by China or any other country is not successful in the UK. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. We have just 90 minutes, and over 20 colleagues wish to contribute. The last speech was definitely not short. Hopefully, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson can show us how it is done. \p Max Wilkinson: We congratulate the Conservatives on bringing forward this debate. Given recent news headlines about their own weaknesses on this issue, doing so is what Sir Humphrey would describe as a “courageous decision”. As the third party spokesperson, I feel obliged to play the role of a marriage counsellor. It is my duty to urge both sides—the Government and the official Opposition—to concede that they have made mistakes and to bring them together in the hope of finding common ground.

The Government and the official Opposition truly have more common ground on this issue than they would like to admit. The common ground is clear in the DNSA’s evidence statements, and it has become clearer as this sorry saga has dragged on. It became clearer still in yesterday’s Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy that there is barely a cigarette paper between the position of the Conservative party when it was in government and the Labour Government today. The Conservative party will not admit that, because all it wants to do is pretend that the Government are entirely to blame, which is a laudable aim for any Opposition party. The Labour party cannot admit it, because it cannot publicly concede that its position on a matter central to our national security interests is the same as that of the Conservative Government they replaced last summer. It falls to us Liberal Democrats to speak the uncomfortable parts of the truth and tell it like it is, because nobody else is willing or able to do so.

While some of their brave Back Benchers spoke out when the Conservatives were in government, the machinery of the Government were keen to take an approach on China that was far from hawkish. At the heart of this issue is the often unspoken suggestion that we must take a nuanced position on China because our economy is now vulnerable to international threats. The truth is that Conservatives and their allies aligned to the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) cut us adrift from the EU, and they have left Britain more exposed to economic pressure from hostile states than we should be.

We find ourselves in a position where the Government cannot bring themselves to describe as a national security threat a nation whose spies hacked the data of 40 million British voters held by the Electoral Commission. The Government cannot bring themselves to describe as a national security threat a nation that has agreed a “no limits” partnership with Putin, despite Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Just 10 days ago, Beijing was publicly bullying the Government into granting permission for the new Chinese embassy at Tower Bridge, warning of “consequences” if the Government did not approve the plans. Is our weak international trading position, caused by the disastrous Brexit given to us by Conservative and Reform Members, influencing the Government’s decision making on the new embassy? It would seem foolish to argue otherwise.

I would draw a comparison between that and the Government’s position on Russia, which has been listed on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. Given the “no limits” relationship between Beijing and Moscow, it is odd that Russia is listed while China is not. If the Government really wanted to strengthen the case for prosecution, perhaps placing China on the enhanced tier would have aided the prosecution, even absent the word “enemy”. The fact that the word “enemy”  appeared on the original draft witness statement but was later removed again raises concerns about what was happening during the tenure of the previous Conservative Government. The public deserve clear answers not just from those on the Government Front Bench, but from those on the official Opposition’s Front Bench. Did the DNSA meet Ministers between the initial draft and the final version of the witness statement?

This House owes a debt of gratitude to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) and the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), both of whom have shown a great deal of bravery in the very best traditions of British public service. The DNSA’s witness statement referenced “backchannels” used to dissuade those two Members from criticising Confucius institutes in the UK. The Security Minister assured me that he was happy to speak with the Members in question last week about this very point. Has that meeting now taken place, and will the Minister let us know from the Dispatch Box what this Government’s understanding of the word “backchannel” is in that context? Does the word “backchannel” refer to the previous Government’s Whips, officials or others? The public deserve to know which element of the British state was attempting to prevent brave MPs from asking questions. If the Minister cannot let us know, perhaps someone on the Conservative Front Bench or anywhere else on the official Opposition Benches could clarify that for the House.

Finally, I turn to the involvement of the CPS in the collapse of this trial. The Government are adamant that the failure to designate China as an “enemy” is central to the failure to prosecute. I have already addressed the question of how that word was removed from the initial witness statement during the tenure of the previous Government, but I want to draw the House’s attention to the Roussev case, which was referenced earlier, that was being prosecuted at the same time. In that instance, the judge stated that

“any state which presently poses an active threat to the UK’s national security can properly be described as ‘an enemy’ in ordinary language.”

The outcome of that case was the conviction of six Bulgarian nationals last July for operating as part of a Russian espionage network. The CPS has serious questions to answer about why the China case fell apart when the term “enemy” was not an issue for the Roussev case as recently as last July.

Transparency and independence in national security decisions are an essential part of maintaining public trust. This case has thrown that trust into serious jeopardy at a time when the embassy planning application is already undermining the nation’s confidence in the Government’s approach to relations with China. Neither the Government nor the official Opposition have provided clarity. The public could be forgiven for thinking that both sides are ducking responsibility. The Liberal Democrats believe that we need a statutory public inquiry to get to the bottom of what went wrong and how influence over China policy caused the collapse of this case. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call John Slinger, who I believe has a very considerate three-minute speech. \p John Slinger: I will do my best, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Conservative Members are being nothing short of opportunistic and are playing political games with our national security. It is, of course, their job and their right to oppose what the Government are doing, but on issues of national security I would have thought there could be more appreciation of the national interest and the nuances involved.

In my speech I am going to do some myth-busting—quite a useful thing to do in this age of misinformation, disinformation and hyperbolic chest-thumping. What we are seeing is a somewhat phoney, but very definitely opportunistic, brand of national security patriotism. Frankly, if ever over-inflated balloons of confected outrage needed to be burst, it is today. So, I will bust two myths and state two truisms.

Myth No. 1: a narrative that the Tories try to push is that Labour prioritised a strategic relationship with communist China. However, the Government fully recognise that China poses a series of threats to UK national security, from cyber-attacks to foreign interference and espionage targeting our democratic institutions. The true fault lies with the previous Government. The right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), the then Foreign Secretary, said in April 2023 that summing up China in one word as a “threat” was

“impossible, impractical and—most importantly—unwise”.

The Leader of the Opposition, while serving in the Cabinet, also said:

“We certainly should not be describing China as a foe”.

Now that this trial has collapsed, they are accusing this Government of interfering, when it was their carefully worded Government policy that did not define China as an “enemy”—and there is nothing that present Ministers can do to change that. \p Gregory Stafford: I would urge the hon. Gentleman not to misquote the two right hon. Members that he has just quoted. Even if the quotes that he gave were whole and full—which they are not—the DPP has categorically said that it was not about policy; it was about whether China was an actual threat at the time. Is the DPP right, or does the hon. Gentleman have some other information? \p John Slinger: I do not have any other information on that point, but I do believe that Conservative Members ought to look in the mirror and acknowledge the decisions taken by the previous Government. Let me turn to myth No.2— \p Peter Swallow: On that point, it is really important to clarify why such tight definitions were important in the first place. That is because the case was brought under a 1911 Act of Parliament, not a modern, up-to-date Act of Parliament. Is that not why we are in this situation? \p John Slinger: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is absolutely, deeply regrettable that the Conservative party, when in government, did not reform legislation sufficiently well.

Myth No. 2, another myth that the Tories will continue to spread, is that the Labour Government interfered with the delivering of evidence. The shadow Home Secretary has made the accusation that

“the government chose to deliberately submit inadequate evidence that led to two alleged spies getting off scot-free.”

This accusation simply has no real substance, as the Prime Minister has confirmed that no Labour Ministers or special advisers were involved with the provision of evidence for this case.

I shall move on to what I believe all Members across this House know to be true—truism No. 1. It is dangerous to undermine public confidence in the Government on matters of national security for party political advantage. Truism No. 2 is the more important one. It is perfectly possible to hold two thoughts in your mind at the same time: one is that China is clearly a strategic rival to the UK in certain areas, and another is that it is a vital partner, whether on the Security Council, in tackling global challenges or, of course, for trade and investment.

I will conclude, taking the advice of Madam Deputy Speaker, by saying that the Conservatives really do need to look in the mirror on this issue. This Government are acting with integrity. \p Geoffrey Cox: This has been an interesting experience, almost revisiting ancient times with the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) leading for the Government on this debate. While I have a great deal of sympathy with his position, I cannot sympathise with his rather bland, anodyne account of the events to date. What is clear, and it is an apophthegm often imbibed with one’s mother’s milk, is that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, sounds like a duck, looks like a duck, it is almost certainly a duck.

The problem in this case is that the Government were never prepared to describe that animal as a duck. They must have known from a very early period; indeed, the first senior Treasury counsel said yesterday that, even in August, he had made the point abundantly plain to the Government that unless they reconsidered their approach and described the blasted animal as a duck, the case would go down the pan. There was nothing to prevent the Government, through their expert witness, from saying, “In our view, China was a national security threat in 2021”—nothing at all to prevent that. \p Peter Swallow: Will the right hon. and learned Member give way? \p Tony Vaughan: Will the right hon. and learned Member give way? \p Geoffrey Cox: No, I will not—too short of time.

There was nothing to prevent that because it was a question of fact. The fact is that the Government were not prepared to change their approach. It is a perfectly legitimate point for the right hon. Member for Torfaen to say to me, “Back in 2021, the policy of the Government was not to describe China as an enemy,” but at that time, we had not had the spying, the intimidation, and the direct targeting of this institution and the democratic assembly of our people that we have now seen by 2025. Things have moved on, and it was incumbent upon the Government to reconsider their approach, which was that they would not describe a duck as a duck. The witness was prepared to say, “It has webbed feet, it swims, it quacks, it has a bill—but we are not prepared to call it a duck.”

Are you telling me, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the right hon. Gentleman can look this House in the eye and say that nobody raised this problem inside No. 10 and said, “We have a policy problem. It is a roadblock to this case. What are we going to do about it?”? Is he saying that that was never discussed with the National Security Adviser, that the DNSA never raised that with any relevant Minister? The Attorney General, when he met on 3 September, said, “Well, I couldn’t intervene on matters of sufficiency of evidence.” That is perfectly true; he cannot intervene, but he could challenge. He could say, “What do you need? Is there anything I can do by way of intercession with ministries to ensure that you get the evidence that you require?” But nothing was said. Nothing was said on 3 September because “nothing” was the policy of the Government. It was to wait while this case slid down the slope straight into the pan where no doubt many of the, not inaptly named, mandarins of Whitehall were perfectly content to see it slide.

There is extraordinary cheek in the right hon. Gentleman, who came to this House four or five years ago with his Humble Address when he asked for legal advice—advice on the most sensitive negotiating matters that this country was engaged in with the Berlaymont—to be disclosed for all to see, now saying that we should not see the truth of what in reality the Government were saying and doing at the time.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it is almost certainly a duck, and when I apply it to what the right hon. Gentleman says, it is almost certainly a complete crock of old— \p Julian Lewis: Duck! \p Geoffrey Cox: Duck. \p Nusrat Ghani: Follow that, Paul Waugh. I am told that you have four minutes. \p Paul Waugh: First, I want to put on the record my anger and frustration, shared by many in this House, at the collapse of this case, particularly the dropping of the spying charges against Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry and the resulting collapse of their trial, which had been due to go ahead this very month.

Secondly, I welcome Mr Speaker’s guidance on how to improve Members’ security. Members must not forget that we have a personal responsibility too to protect ourselves, our fellow Members and our staff from such foreign interference, which includes in our hiring practices and vetting of staff who can work in this building, which has not been often mentioned in this debate.

However, I want mainly to warn of the danger of some of the rhetoric that has been used to date in this case. Of course, it is the job of His Majesty’s Opposition to probe, challenge and scrutinise the Government, yet what has happened in this case goes way beyond that and risks harming us all, just as spying on our Parliament harms us all. I am talking about the repeated unsubstantiated and scurrilous suggestions that any Minister or special adviser in this Government interfered or intervened in the independent decision making of the CPS.

In an article in The Times on 15 October, the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), accused the Government of deliberately choosing to collapse the case:

“It is clear the government chose to deliberately submit inadequate evidence that led to two alleged spies getting off scot-free.”

He went on:

“They must now also explain who was guiding Matt Collins in preparing this evidence.”

That is an appalling accusation to make with zero evidence and an insult to the professional integrity of the deputy National Security Adviser, and I hope the shadow Home Secretary withdraws it. Sadly, he was not alone. On 13 October, the Leader of the Opposition told the BBC:

“This looks like a deliberate decision to collapse the case and curry favour with the regime in China.”

She went on to say that she suspected that Ministers

“have decided that closer economic ties with China were more important than due process and our national security.”

Just look at those words: “looks like” and “suspect”. There is not a shred of evidence, only insinuation. That is not the language of a Prime Minister in waiting.

As the Security Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), has made clear, it was an entirely independent decision by the CPS to discontinue the case, and the CPS has confirmed that it came under no outside pressure to do so. As for the Whitehall meeting on 1 September referenced by the Opposition in their motion, crucially, Mr Collins said yesterday that there had been

“at least four lawyers in the room who ensured that there was no discussion about the evidence”

in the case.

This House has maintained a proud cross-party consensus on Ukraine, helping President Zelensky to stand up to Putin—a consensus that is, sadly, not helped at times by Reform, whose Putin apologists are indeed Moscow’s useful idiots of the 21st century. We need to maintain a similar cross-party consensus in fighting against Chinese threats. \p Chris Law: The hon. Gentleman is making a good case about cross-party consideration of the threats China poses. I want to ask a very simple question, which I have asked in this place before: does he think that China should be on the foreign influence registration scheme, as Russia is—yes or no? \p Paul Waugh: That is a matter for Ministers to decide; I am not privy to all the information that would be required to make that determination.

It is vital for our own national security and is in our national interests that we maintain a similar consensus as we have on Ukraine on the threats, challenges and opportunities posed by China. We should all stand firm in this House on issues of national security and human rights and on the threats China poses clearly to our economy, our industrial secrets, our intellectual property, our democracy and, yes, our cyber-space. We should also recognise that it is important that the UK engages with China where it is in our hard-headed national interest—and mutual interest—to do so, from climate change to global health and trade.

That is why the Opposition in government had a policy of protect, align and engage—there is that word “engage” again. How different is that really from our own compete, challenge and co-operate? I know that this place often thrives on political knockabout, with parties trying to seize on opponents’ perceived weakness, but in accusing one’s political opponents of somehow being enemies of the people and plotting non-existent cover-ups, the only beneficiaries are our real enemies abroad. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. I come to Sir Iain Duncan Smith, after which Back-Bench Members will have a speaking limit of four minutes. \p Iain Duncan Smith: It is a particular pleasure that you should be in the Chair for this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, because like me and the others, some of whom have been named, you are sanctioned by a brutal Chinese Government. I think it is excellent that you are here to invigilate this debate and to keep us on track—forgive me if I go over. [Laughter.]

I am not going to take the blandishments of the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) who told us to look in the mirror. I stopped looking in the mirror a long, long time ago. In fact, when I was elected in 1992 I was told by a journalist at the Express that I could look in the mirror and see my career behind me. I feel like I have been walking backwards ever since.

Can I just say, I think the whole principle that underlies all this is the Government’s behaviour over this decision? I will come to the decision in a second, but I want to address how the Government dealt with the decision—and how they have publicly dealt with it, which is really rather peculiar. It has been almost impossible throughout this to drag information out of the Government about why the DNSA took the decisions he took, where the Government were in this and when meetings took place. Denials slid towards acceptances that dates were in fact as they stood. As I understand it, it was even exclaimed by the Prime Minister that The Sunday Times was lying when it raised the idea of there being a meeting on 1 September containing all the various individuals, including the DNSA.

It has been a sort of meticulous nonsense. Dodge, duck, dive, dip, and dodge—the five Ds of dodgeball, or in this case the five Ds of dodge the spying case. Getting to the truth of this has been painful, and if it is painful for the Government, they have only themselves to blame. Had they come out straightaway at the beginning and been clear about all this, instead of hiding behind the DNSA, they might have found it easier.

I find ridiculous the position that the DNSA stated yesterday—that he was bound to reflect the position of the Government. The DNSA is not bound to reflect the position of the Government. He was asked by the DPP—and therefore bound to respond to the DPP—whether or not he said that China was an active security threat. What I do not understand is how the then DNSA, both at the time and again when giving evidence yesterday, was able to say that China posed a range of threats—just as the Minister said—on different areas all across the board, from sanctions right the way  through to espionage. I do not understand the difference between posing a series of significant threats to our national security in different areas across the board and being a threat to our national security. It is impossible to even conceive that we could define this so narrowly that we are unable to come out with the very simple statement: “They pose a threat to our national security.”

From my standpoint, I face a threat. I have been chased and regularly followed by wolf warriors, which are low-level intelligence operatives of China. They have impersonated me abroad and spread lies about what I have said, and those of us who have been sanctioned have been spied on. I know what a threat looks like. It looks like that. It is not a duck; it is a threat. There is no reason why any self-respecting Government could not have said that. The DNSA should have said that straight off—not go out and tell us that the police asked him to introduce what had been in the manifesto of the Labour party in the last election and then say that he knew nothing at all about it previously but had to put this in context. He was not asked to put it in context. The DSNA was asked to state clearly, from what he sees and the evidence he has taken, whether China poses an active security threat.

At the nub of this is another particularly important point. The 1 September meeting is critical in all this, because we have been given assurances throughout this—by the Prime Minister, for example, at Prime Minister’s questions on 15 October. He said:

“There was no further submission of evidence, one way or the other, after any discussion in September.”—[Official Report, 15 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 368.]

Yet we know that now not to be the case. Why was the Prime Minister making such a fundamental statement at Prime Minister’s questions trying to shut this down? Did nobody bother to tell him that this had gone to a meeting? By the way, we were told that at no stage was the National Security Adviser or any other appointed individual at any meetings with or in contact with the DNSA throughout the submission of evidence. That is utterly untrue. We know that the DNSA was at the meeting chaired by the National Security Adviser on 1 September. What did they discuss? Was it football scores or what was right in front of them there and then: the still-unfinished business of whether or not the DNSA was going to comply with the DPP’s requirement for a very clear statement? It is that bit of subterfuge, with dipping and dodging throughout, that is really quite peculiar.

I have respect for the Minister. When he gets to his feet, can we not have this ridiculous game of “You did this” and “You said that”? I would simply like him to recognise that China poses a national security threat. Let us deal with that threat and take clear action, and not play games with terminological inexactitudes about what happened at what meeting.

We now know that the DNSA met all those characters —we do not know who they are—so the minutes of the meeting should be released. If the Government will not release them to Parliament, they can do it in camera to the Intelligence and Security Committee. They should do it to clear the record; I recommend that they do. People like me, the Chairman of Ways and Means and others have suffered attacks from this brutal regime, which has massacred people in China and committed genocide. Surely now is the time to make our position clear. \p Peter Swallow: Respect for democracy is fundamental to our British values, and to who we are as a country, but the world is increasingly an unstable place, and we can no longer be complacent about the multiple threats that our democratic norms and values face. Threats are coming from China, as we see from this espionage case, but also from other malign states, such as Russia and Iran. It is the job of all of us in the House to stand up to those threats and work in the interests of national security.

When I held a roundtable with my local Hong Kong community earlier this year to discuss proposed changes to immigration, I was saddened, but unfortunately not surprised, to hear that many members of the community chose not to attend a meeting with their local MP because they were worried about the long arm of the Chinese state, and the repercussions of the Hong Kong national security law on them and their family. Transnational repression is being used by hostile states to directly prosecute those whom they see as their enemies overseas, but it also has a wider, chilling effect, leaving whole communities afraid to engage with their basic democratic rights.

Meanwhile, I grow increasingly concerned about the influence of foreign actors on misinformation and disinformation online. In recent months, I have seen how anonymous posting on local social media groups in my community can have a pervasive effect on community cohesion and our democracy. Social media companies need to step up and do more on that. I am not suggesting that every anonymous social media post is from a Russian bot, but we all know that Russia and other states are using social media against us.

There have been direct attacks on our democracy, too, such as those from these Chinese spies. Last month, Reform UK’s former leader in Wales, Nathan Gill, pled guilty to eight counts of bribery; he was bribed to make statements in favour of Russia while he was a Member of the European Parliament.

I turn to the China spy case. Part of the reason why the case did not proceed to trial and the two gentlemen could not be prosecuted was prevarication over reforming the Official Secrets Act. The Act was introduced in 1911 —it predates the first world war—and despite unanimous recognition for at least eight years that it was completely out of date and not fit for purpose, the previous Government failed to act to fix the holes in our national security laws and left our country ill defended. \p Julian Lewis: Of course, the previous Government did subsequently introduce new legislation. However, under the 1911 Act, if the Government had been prepared to state that China was a threat, the case could have gone forward and would likely have been won. The hon. Member cannot blame that Act. \p Peter Swallow: The case collapsed because under that Act neither Government provided enough evidence. The witness statements issued by the previous Government are a matter of record, and they do not state anywhere unequivocally that China is a threat. In fact, multiple Opposition Members have said on multiple occasions that it would not be possible to describe China unilaterally as a threat. That is a matter of record. \p Chris Law: In 2023—we are going back a couple of years—Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee report on China warned

“that China’s view of an ideal future…would be antithetical to the UK’s interests”.

In its conclusion, China was detailed 11 times as a “threat”, an “acute threat” or a “grave threat”. Why can the UK Government today, based on a report from more than two years ago, not describe China as a threat? \p Peter Swallow: The Minister quite clearly set out the range of threats posed by China. I am clear that China poses a threat. I also think that we have to be mature enough in this Chamber to accept that the way we deal with the second-largest economy in the world has to be to recognise the threats it poses to our democracy and our national security, but also all the ways in which we have to work with it.

I stood for election on a manifesto that committed to our co-operating with China where we can, challenging them where we must, and competing with them where we need to. I genuinely think that is a mature way of dealing with a state that does not share our values, and that poses a great threat to our democracy and to the way that citizens and residents of this country operate within a democracy, but that is also the second-largest economy in the world. As the former director of MI6 said on the “Today” show on the BBC this morning,

“we need to learn to walk and chew gum at the same time.”

We need a mature acceptance of the risks that China poses, and that means recognising that we cannot just walk off the pitch and not deal with the second-largest economy in the world. It is infantile and not realistic to suggest otherwise.

If the new Act had been in place sooner, it is possible that these men could have been prosecuted successfully under it. I therefore have a simple question for Conservative Front Benchers, and they need to be clear on this point: why did they wait so long to replace a vital piece of security legislation, and make sure that we had the appropriate tools to keep this country safe? I am happy to take interventions on that point. \p Luke Evans: Tony Blair was Prime Minister for a very long time. Did he amend the legislation? \p Peter Swallow: As has already been set out, the threat from China has evolved over time. I would have loved it if the previous Labour Government had amended the Act, but it was the Conservative party that held a consultation, and then sat on the results for eight years and did nothing. \p Judith Cummins: Order. I call Mark Pritchard. \p Mark Pritchard: In its inquiry on China from July 2023, the Intelligence and Security Committee, of which I was a member at the time, concluded that China was a threat. The Committee took evidence not from junior security officials, but from the chief of the Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, the director general of the Security Service and the director of GCHQ, the chief of Defence Intelligence and—this is an important “and”—all the deputy National Security Advisers at the time. That is already public; they reported to the Committee.

That report is clear and unambiguous in calling out China as a national security threat to UK interests. It is also crystal clear, taking the report as a whole, that China’s threat is both live and active. The report was from July 2023, and the alleged offences took place, apparently, from December ’21 to February ’23. I am aware that the refresh of the integrated review of ’21 was in March ’23. However, the Committee’s inquiry started taking evidence from those senior officials from November 2017 to a similar time in 2019, and then the subsequent Committee carried on its work. Senior national security officials were giving evidence to the ISC about China being a national security threat well before the offences happened in this place. \p Luke Evans: Is that an assertion of fact from the Committee’s report? \p Mark Pritchard: If we have the directors of all the intelligence agencies suggesting that China is a threat, it does not get much better than that. We have great deputy national security advisers, but their line managers—their directors, their bosses—were also clearly stating that China was a national security threat. In fact, the word “threat” is mentioned 284 times in that 207-page report.

The key word in this whole episode involving the deputy National Security Adviser—that is, the DNSA for intelligence, defence and security, not the other two remaining DNSAs, unless the Minister wants to correct me—is “active”. The question is whether China was an active threat, as underscored by the testimony to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy yesterday. The evidence in the ISC’s report would suggest that China has been known to be an active threat for some time. I have mentioned the various reviews. Indeed, in his own witness statement, the DSNA refers to China conducting “large-scale espionage operations”. Again, this is not a historical reference or a past-tense reference; it is clearly referring to the here-and-now operations taking place today. There is clearly an active threat, not just a general or undetermined threat.

China being an active threat was also underscored by the director general of the Security Service’s recent speech, in which he referred to China’s

“cyber-espionage…clandestine technology transfer…interference in UK public life”

and

“harassment and intimidation of opponents”.

Once more, these threats are not just historical; they are current and active, happening in the UK right now. They have not stopped. They are increasing. They continue. \p Iain Duncan Smith: I am listening carefully to my right hon. Friend’s excellent speech. Did he see, in the testimony yesterday, the intervention in which Sir Chris Wormald suddenly said that he did not believe that Ken McCallum, the chief of MI5, had described China as a threat? He intervened on the DNSA to make that point. That is fundamentally untrue, is it not? \p Mark Pritchard: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. I think hon. Members will take their own view on who they think is the expert on national security. I think it will be Sir Ken McCallum, who is a long-serving and distinguished member of the UK intelligence community. \p Chris Law: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? \p Mark Pritchard: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not, because I will not get another minute, and I want to make some progress and allow other colleagues to speak.

The director general’s speech was explicit. The Security Service is very clear-eyed about the national security threat from China, even though Ministers might be tempted, arguably, to recalibrate and put economic interests over the UK’s national security interests. I wonder whether there might be other factors at work here, too, including underlying vested interests and competing interests between different parts of Government, and even some conflicting personalities. We do not have time to go into that today. Today’s debate is rightly focused on whether politics got in the way of national security.

A wider question might be why a political adviser was appointed to the role of National Security Adviser in the first place, as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said. Perhaps there is something to see here. The current National Security Adviser has wide and vast experience, and I pay tribute to him for his important role in the Northern Ireland peace process and other peace-brokering exercises he has done around the world. There is absolutely no doubt that he is a long-standing, distinguished civil servant, but the fact that an outsider, rather than insider, became the National Security Adviser might be an issue as well. Some may see that as a strength, but today’s proceedings might suggest that it could be a weakness in this case. There is a question mark about that, of course.

Back to China. The conclusions and recommendations of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s inquiry on China talk about proper oversight. We need to ensure that, for example, the investment security unit has proper oversight by the ISC, because if there was ever a place where it was likely that politics would conflict with the economic interests of this country, it was that unit. That is absolutely critical. When politics gets too close to professional, cool, calm intelligence judgments, the situation will always be fraught with danger, as this country witnessed with the Iraq war. In conclusion, when— \p Judith Cummins: Order. I call Gareth Snell. \p Gareth Snell: The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) touched on several relevant points. There was a time in this House when a Member coming under attack and finding themselves on the wrong end of something was a moment of unification for us, and we would come together to find a way forward collectively. It should be of great regret to us all that following the events that happened to the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) and the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), we are throwing political rocks at one another about meetings that may or may not have happened over the last six or seven years. I do not know the hon. Lady, but I know the right hon. Gentleman. He is a gentleman of the utmost standing and principle, and I cannot imagine the horrors that he has been through and how much they have disrupted his life. We should keep that at the forefront of our minds in this debate.

We have had a complex relationship with China for the past decade. I cannot be the only one who is old enough to remember the pictures of the President of China pulling pints in the Plough with the former Prime Minister, who was subsequently the Foreign Secretary when some of what we are talking about was happening. We have not had a consistent approach to China publicly. I say “publicly”, because the evidence we have heard from various Opposition Members this evening makes it quite clear that officials in the last Government were naming China as a threat. They were using that terminology, but unfortunately the political faces of that Administration were not.

I will not get into the rights and wrongs of that, but it is clear that there has been inconsistency in the language applied to China throughout this period. If I were more legally minded, I would say that that may have led to the current situation, in which the CPS is saying one thing and the DNSA is saying something else, and we are getting the interpretation of an illustrious former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox). By the way, I remember the debate in November 2017 when we argued for a Humble Address. Many Conservative Members said that it was a terrible idea to publish Government information, and it could never be done because it would undermine that information. They said that in the future, they might ask for such information and we would say no, and we are clearly at that point today.

We all invest a lot of time and energy into this job, and into our staff. We are at the mercy of the vetting services to make sure that the staff who work for us are looked into properly. We just do not know, for instance, whether operatives from other hostile states are active in staffing units. We can pretend we do, but we honestly do not. I hope we will get some answers from the Minister about how we have got to this point, but what I want to understand is how will we make sure that the same thing does not happen again.

How will we get to a point, in this Parliament, where we can be sure that every Member of Parliament—regardless of which political party they come from, the position they hold, their standing or their length of service—is free from such political interference, oversight and spying? How can we ensure that no more Members are sanctioned, as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green was? He has talked eloquently to the House on numerous occasions about the disruption to his life. For us to do our job properly, we must have confidence in the people around us and the advice we receive from officials, and we have to be certain that the processes that are in place to keep us safe are doing their job.

Ultimately, we all come here to do a job, and to do it well. We are only human, and we ought to hold at the forefront of our minds the fact that mistakes have been made—I think we would all agree on that; I do not think anyone can say, hand on heart, that everything has gone perfectly up to this point—but the key thing is how we learn from that and prevent it from happening again. That, Madam Deputy Speaker, is where I will draw my remarks to a conclusion. \p Chris Law: I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), and I think he hit the nail on the head. I have been thinking throughout the debate that this is not just about the failure of the prosecution, but about our approach to China—not just this year, last year or during this Government; this has gone on for years and years. The sanctions were imposed in March 2021, which is four and a half years ago. Interestingly, neither the Government of the day nor the official Opposition demanded sanctions; it was the Speakers of the House of Commons and the House of Lords who responded by banning the Chinese ambassador from entering. It has been reported that at the time, the Government attempted to overturn that decision. The key point, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central has said, is crystal clear: all of us need to work on our lines and we need cast-iron assurances that, no matter where we have been in the past, going forward we will be very clear about the real threat that China poses.

China’s history tells us that already: six decades of military occupation in Tibet; the mass detention, re-education and forced sterilisation of the Uyghur population; we have witnessed democracy come under attack in Hong Kong time and again; and there is the ever-present threat against Taiwan. China runs a global influence operation and it has been acknowledged in this House that the united front has penetrated every sector of the United Kingdom’s economy. We have been well warned.

As I said earlier, and as has been repeated many times, in 2023 the Intelligence and Security Committee said that China was a “threat”, an “acute threat” and a “grave threat”. In 2022, the head of MI5, Ken McCallum, said that the Chinese threat

“might feel abstract. But it’s real and it’s pressing. We need to talk about it. We need to act.”

That is what we have failed to do until now.

If one of the key hinderances to the prosecution appears to be the concern that the Government would not be able to convince the jury that China was an enemy, how would the Minister describe a state that conducts long-term, large-scale espionage operations, including recruiting those who work in Parliament, and that poses a serious national security threat on these islands? Why has it taken the failure of this case for the Government to definitively state that China is a threat? Why has this position come as a response to an embarrassing political crisis? \p Julian Lewis: The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent and unanswerable case, but the trouble is that even in the circumstances of this case, the Government have not said that China is a threat. They keep saying that it poses a range of serious threats, but they keep baulking at saying that it is a threat. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has no hesitation in saying that China is a threat, and he should challenge the Government to do likewise. \p Chris Law: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. China is a real and serious threat. I say that not just as an individual who happens to chair the all-party parliamentary group on Tibet, who is anxious about being spied on too, but on behalf of my party and of colleagues across the House who feel the real and present threat not only to ourselves but to our constituents.

Why has this position come as a response to an embarrassing political crisis, rather than as the principled position and proactive strategy for which so many of us have been calling for so many years? Why is it, as Luke de Pulford, executive director of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, put it that

“the Chinese Communist Party’s progress towards the ‘Great Rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation’…has met formidable resistance, not from governments, but little ole’ constituency MPs.”?

That is a really good question to consider.

The Government and the Opposition will squabble over who met with whom when, about who said what when, and about who they can blame to squeeze as much political one-upmanship from this case as possible, but the Chinese Communist party must be laughing at this House right now, as we ping-pong when it is clear that we need national security to be taken very seriously and we need to see China placed on the foreign influence registration scheme.

Public trust and the confidence of international allies are wavering, and the ongoing threat to our national security, democratic institutions and economic infrastructure remains. To conclude, it is time to end the inertia, caution and self-censorship from Whitehall and from Government when it comes to China, and to acknowledge, address and act on the threat that we continuously face. \p Tom Hayes: I put on record my anger at the collapse of the case. Colleagues have talked about the particulars of the case, so I will use the short time that I have available to broaden the lens and look again at the foundations of our security.

When the Conservative party brings Opposition day debates to the House, I attend because I am interested to hear the development of thinking in the party as it seeks to become a future Government. I also think about the party’s record in government and where it is going. I will make two points that I think the Opposition will disagree with, but I hope some Members will agree with my third point.

First, any Government, from whichever party, have a duty to invest in the institutions, infrastructure, capabilities and knowledge that enable our long-term advantage and security. Those are not built in five minutes, but they can be built in 14 years. It is my view that in the 14 years that the Conservatives were in power, they gave insufficient regard to building those things that can shore up our security.

Secondly, in cases where the Conservative Government did bother to build or pursue infrastructure, they opened the door to Chinese firms. While the Conservative leadership pretend to know what they think about China now, in truth they did not know what to think about China when they were in office, and that is an important reality to stare at. When it came to Huawei and 5G, the Conservatives were in, then they were out. When it came to nuclear, the Conservatives were in, then they were out. We are still unpacking George Osborne’s mistake on that front.

That contrasts sharply with the position of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). I rediscovered his 2020 Hudson Institute speech, and I thought it was a very good insight into the situation at that time. Looking back at it five years on, it had considerable foresight on what has occurred. I am  very sorry and saddened that he has experienced what he has at the hands of the Chinese leadership—other colleagues have experienced the same—but he is in a minority in his party in standing up on these issues.

I do not believe that the Conservative leadership have been as clear in their thinking or as forceful in their condemnation, and for the leadership of the right hon. Gentleman’s party to now pretend that they were is inaccurate and does him a disservice. We should contrast his position with the words of the Leader of the Opposition when she was in Cabinet. As the Business Secretary pursuing business, she said:

“We certainly should not be describing China as a foe”.

We should contrast his position with that of one of the nine Conservative Foreign Secretaries, who said it would be

“impossible, impractical and—most importantly—unwise”

to sum up China in one word as a threat. As a leadership team, the Conservatives need to stop throwing mud and to come to terms with what happened on their watch.

We must also look reality in the face: we cannot shy away from engagement with China. I bet that most Opposition Members have an iPhone in their pocket that was made in China; I bet they have other things in their home that were made in China. We must engage, but all of us in this Parliament must do so with our eyes wide open about the risks that that involves. Some of us in this Parliament have prophesied about that for many years and for longer than others, but we must be aware of that. \p Iain Duncan Smith: I was not going to intervene, but the hon. Gentleman made a statement about me justifying the position of the Opposition, as opposed to the Government. I assure him that had the two sides been switched, I would be carrying out exactly the same cross-examination that I have done today. No matter who has been in government, I seem to have been in opposition, and I want to say so. I am not doing this for any betterment; I am doing this because it is right. \p Tom Hayes: I apologise if I misrepresented what I was saying. I was saying that throughout his time on these Benches, the right hon. Gentleman has been forceful in his condemnation. Whoever was in government, I believe that he would have done that, but I do not believe that the Conservative leadership either on the Opposition Benches or in office did the same. That is the point I was trying to make.

The Opposition called this debate to throw mud, but it is an opportunity to think about the wider security context in which we operate. As the months go on, I am intrigued to see what the Conservative party’s posture will be as it contemplates the security and intelligence environment we are in. Will it shy away from engagement with China—a significant market and economic opportunity for us—or seek to engage with China with its eyes wide open?

The Conservatives need to accept that they did less than they could have done in office to create the foundations for our security and economic growth. In so doing, they made us more vulnerable. Until they accept that and apologise for it, it begs the question: why should any of us in this Chamber and in the constituencies we represent listen to them ever again on the subject of keeping our country safe? \p Luke Evans: The real threat to our security is not necessarily what others do in the shadows; it is what one’s own Government hide from the light. That is the essence of what we are trying to get to in the motion before us—we are asking the Government to publish the papers.

Let me take a step back from this issue to look at the way in which the public will perceive it. This is the biggest spy story in this country’s history, at least in this century. We can get into the tit-for-tat about what the PM did or did not know, whether the National Security Adviser speaks to his deputy or not, who told the deputy National Security Adviser that he needs to toe the Government line, and how the Labour manifesto got into the witness statements, but I want to concentrate more on the bigger picture.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) rightly pointed out the behaviour of the Government. The Prime Minister could have sorted this out by coming to the House and speaking about this topic. He could have laid it all out and put it all forward. The only thing we have had has been a statement before Prime Minister’s questions. Of course, we Back Benchers cannot ask questions after such statements—there is no way for us to do so. If the Government are so angry, why is more action not being taken? Why are people not being fired, and why are we still having this debate several weeks on if all the information is so crystal clear that this House can move on?

I am worried that this is a pattern of behaviour with the Prime Minister, because we saw this with the ambassador. The Prime Minister was the decision maker on that issue, but he did not come to this House; he sent one of his Ministers. I expect that the retort from Labour Members will be, “It was always thus”, but the reason this saddens me so much is that the Prime Minister is being judged by the standard that he set. He said that he would do things differently, but he is not. He is not coming to the House to explain when he could do so. We know that the information and the decisions rest with him.

When I pushed the Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), about leadership last time, that was not directed at him—I have a great deal of respect for him. He is following the leadership of the Prime Minister, who has not come to this House to explain what is going on. If this issue is as clearcut as Labour Members have said, that would be an easy case to make and this House would believe the Prime Minister, but we are not there. That is why I worry, because it leads to a wider debate and wider concerns among the public about whether something is going on. \p Bradley Thomas: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most obvious point is that, despite the Government’s disappointment at the collapse of the trial—we have heard numerous Ministers, including the Prime Minister himself, stress that—it is shocking that they appear not to have done every single thing possible to bolster the case and put the CPS in the best possible position to secure a prosecution? The two just do not add up. \p Luke Evans: Absolutely. Not only have the Government not done anything with the case, there are wider debates that could take place—about what legislation needs to change and other measures that could be included in the Budget, for example. \p John Hayes: It is true that the Government have repeatedly expressed disappointment, but—still more disturbingly, in a sense—so has MI5. It is quite unusual for MI5 to intervene, by means of a speech by its head which made it very clear that MI5 was profoundly disappointed that this matter had not gone to court. Had it done so, it would have been the culmination of years of work done by MI5 to try to deal with Chinese espionage in Whitehall and Westminster. \p Luke Evans: My right hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. It is because of these unprecedented facts that I would expect the Prime Minister to come forward and provide answers, not send a Minister in his place. \p Peter Swallow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Luke Evans: I will not, because I have taken two interventions already. My worry is about what the public perceive, because it is a statement of fact that since the Chancellor went to China, decisions have been made about the Chagos islands, for example, or British Steel and £1 billion—what is going on there? A spy case has now been dropped, and there is the possibility of a super-embassy and even ID cards. My constituents are coming to me seeing a running theme. \p Tom Hayes: When I hear the hon. Gentleman speak, I listen to what he is saying—I think he could be a very good replacement for the shadow Minister on the Front Bench. The question I want to ask, though, is this: what is his view on the relationship of the UK to China? Ought we to engage and, if so, on what terms, or should we be economically decoupling? What is his view about the nature of that relationship? \p Luke Evans: To repeat the quote we heard earlier, we need to walk and chew gum at the same time. It is easy to call China a threat, but still to engage. That is exactly what the Chinese Government do to us: they say, “We’re embarrassed. We’re upset. You promised us something”, and we just say, “Oh, I’m terribly sorry about that.” We could stand up for ourselves and say what we think. Let us not forget that we are in a trade deficit with China; it is economically in China’s interest to be working with us, as much as it is in our interest to be working with China.

My worry, though, is that the public are joining dots. The Government will say that there are no dots to be joined, but the longer this goes on and the more incidents come out, it becomes harder to make that argument. That brings us full circle to where I started, because this is about transparency and releasing the documentation. \p Peter Swallow: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way and for bringing us back to where he started. He started his speech by suggesting that the Government were intervening unduly in this case. He then went on to suggest that the Government did not intervene unduly enough. Can he be clear on this: is his position and that  of the Opposition that the Government should have interfered in an independent prosecution, or not? It is unhelpful to be saying both things at the same time. \p Luke Evans: I feel I am being misquoted, because I have simply asked for all this to be resolved by publishing the information. The Government could come out and say that China is a threat. I have also said that we can call it a threat and work economically with the Chinese. That is what I hope will happen. [Interruption.] I will finish at that point. \p Katie Lam: My hon. and right hon. Friends have set out well how the Government’s account of how the case collapsed simply does not add up, so in the interests of time I will make just this one point. If, as many on the Opposition Benches and I suspect to be the case, the Prime Minister’s account of this situation is not factually correct, he has allowed this case to collapse to win favour in Beijing. That is a profound state of weakness.

Even if the Prime Minister’s account of the situation is true, that means he does not have control over his officials. Serious national security decisions are being made without his knowledge. That, too, is a profound state of weakness. It is important to establish the facts. \p Peter Swallow: Will the hon. Lady give way? \p Katie Lam: I regret that I cannot; I promised to speak briefly.

Whatever the facts may be, this is not how serious countries behave. Regardless of our politics, we should all want our country to be respected by our friends and our adversaries. Under this Government, our friends see us as unreliable and our adversaries see us as a pushover. It is time for the Government to tell the truth and undo some of the harm that they have done to this country’s standing in the world. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Judith Cummins: I will be starting the Front-Bench contributions at 6.40 sharp. \p Jim Allister: Among all the finger-pointing in this House, there are some immutable facts, and one is that in the spring of 2024, the evidential burden to bring a prosecution was met, because the CPS levelled a charge that the two individuals were guilty under the 1911 Act of having information capable of assisting an enemy. The first point is that a deficiency in the 1911 Act is not the problem, because the CPS was capable of bringing the charge. The second point is that to bring the charge, the evidential tests for bringing a prosecution had to be met: that there was a reasonable prospect of conviction and that it was in the public interest.

The unanswered question in all this is what happened between the spring of 2024 and September 2025, when suddenly the same evidential test was not met. What changed? It was met, or the charges could never have been brought, but suddenly it was not met and the charges were dropped. It seems pretty clear from what has been said to a Committee of this House that what  changed was that the Government backed off in their evidence as to what would establish whether China was an enemy.

The Government were assisted in the meantime by the Bulgarian case, where the Court of Appeal refined “enemy” to “posing threat or threats”. Indeed, the Court said it was a matter of common sense as to whether something or someone was an enemy. There is no greater jury question than to decide whether or not something is common sense. The prosecution looked easier after the Court of Appeal decision, not harder, yet the prosecution was dropped. That is yet to be explained to this House. It seems to me that it can only be explained by the Government’s failing to come up to proof. Since they had come up to proof to bring the charge in the first place, they obviously retreated. We can talk around this as much as we like, but that seems to me to be the immovable reality of the situation.

There are, of course, issues here about the equivocation of the Government towards China, but it is an equivocation that is even infecting devolution. Coming up in Northern Ireland is a co-sponsored conference between the Chinese Government and the Sinn Féin Economy Minister to talk about infrastructure and investment. I say to this Government that they need to take a long, hard look at the way in which devolved institutions, particularly in Stormont, are playing footsie with the Chinese Government. \p Judith Cummins: I call the shadow Home Secretary. \p Chris Philp: “In my opinion, China poses an active and current threat to the United Kingdom.” That is all that the Government needed to say to the Crown Prosecution Service in order to secure this conviction, and yet they did not.

As recently as 12 days ago, the director general of M15 said that China posed a daily threat. In July 2022, he and his FBI counterpart said that China was posing a growing threat. The former Security Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), said it in April 2024, from that Dispatch Box, and the July 2021 integrated review said that China posed the

“biggest state-based threat to the UK’s economic security.”

It is pretty simple. I have said it, and the Government could have said it, but they did not.

The Government’s commentary on this case has been evasive and sometimes misleading. For example, the Prime Minister claimed in India, on 7 October, that what mattered in this case was the previous Government’s designation of China. He said it again, from that Dispatch Box, on 15 October. He said that the issue was the position of the last Government, and the Paymaster General said it again in his opening speech. That claim, made by the Prime Minister and made again by the Paymaster General earlier today, is categorically untrue. We know it is untrue because on page 4 of his letter, the Director of Public Prosecutions said it was untrue. He said:

“The test was therefore positively not what the then Government was prepared to… say in public…whether framed as…policy or otherwise…but…whether China was—as a matter of fact—an active threat to national security.”

He said it again in evidence yesterday. He said:

“We were looking to the DNSA to provide evidence of the actual threat…and not what government policy was.”

The DPP has said that categorically in writing and in evidence yesterday. What the Prime Minister said was misleading, and I ask this Minister, the Security Minister, to retract it on the Prime Minister’s behalf.

Moreover, the Security Minister himself said on 15 September that the collapse of the case had come as a big surprise to the Government, and that they heard about it only that morning. He said:

“the decision was communicated this morning”.—[Official Report, 15 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 1187.]

That, I am afraid, was not true. The decision was communicated on 3 September at the latest, and it most certainly did not come as a surprise to the Government.

It was not the case that, as the Minister claimed, he could not comment on why the case had collapsed, as if he did not know about it, because on no fewer than nine different occasions, according to the DPP, the Crown Prosecution Service pleaded with the Government—begged the Government—to say those simple words that I said a couple of minutes ago and the Government, over two years, refused to say. In June 2024, December 2024, February 2025, May 2025, July 2025—twice, on 3 and 10 July—August 2025, 3 September 2025 and 9 September 2025, the CPS begged the Government to say those simple words, and the Government would not say them. Why exactly was the Security Minister acting all surprised on 15 September, claiming that he did not know what was going on, when on nine separate occasions the CPS had pleaded with the Government?

Now we come to the meeting of 1 September, a meeting that the Home Secretary, quoted in The Telegraph on 5 October, claimed did not happen. Well, we now know that it did happen. What we do not know, however, is precisely what was discussed at that meeting. We have not seen the minutes of it, and we do not know the actions arising from it. We do know that it was chaired by Jonathan Powell, the National Security Adviser. We know that many people were there. We know that the deputy National Security Adviser, Matt Collins, was there. We also know that on 14 August, two and a half weeks before that meeting, he attended a conference that included the First Treasury Counsel, at which it became clear that Mr Collins would not change his evidence, and the case would therefore collapse. So Mr Collins went into that meeting on 1 September, most likely knowing that the case was unlikely to proceed. Was that discussed? Was the possibility of providing more evidence discussed in that meeting? We do not know. That is why the minutes need to be published.

We know for a fact that, on 3 September, the Director of Public Prosecutions informed the Cabinet Secretary and the DNSA that the case was not going to be proceeding on the evidence as it stood. The DPP also said in page 6 of his letter:

“It was agreed that”

the Cabinet Secretary

“might inform a limited group, including some ministers.”

I therefore ask the Security Minister to tell the House now which Ministers were informed pursuant to that meeting on 3 September, and whether they took any action as a result—for example, deciding to provide better evidence, which they could have done. It was  recently reported in The Sunday Times that the Home Secretary got wind of this around that time, and decided to try to intervene.

I did ask the Security Minister this in an urgent question last week, and many of my hon. Friends did as well, but he did not answer the question, so perhaps he now can: when did the Home Secretary become aware of the collapse of the trial? Did she try to intervene? If so, how? It is quite clear that the Government, had they wanted to, could have intervened between 3 September, when the Cabinet Secretary was informed and was given permission to inform Ministers, and the meeting on 9 September, six days later, when the CPS tried, one last time—at least the ninth time—to get the evidence it needed, but, once again, it was not forthcoming.

Did the Government have any discussions in that period, between 3 and 9 September, about further evidence that they might have provided? If they did not, why not? A few simple words were all that were needed—words not about the previous Government’s policy, but about the facts as they stood on the ground. I uttered those words just a few minutes ago—it was simple enough—and if this Government had said what I said a few minutes ago, this case would have proceeded. Why did they choose not to do that?

Members of this Parliament have been spied on by a hostile state: a state that has stolen intellectual property on an industrial scale, both covertly and through acquisition; a state that plans to build a large embassy, probably for espionage purposes among other things; a state that has opened secret police stations; a state that has put bounties on the heads of people living in the United Kingdom; and a state that has actively supported Russia in its war against Ukraine. The Government could not produce evidence that it was an active and current threat, even though I think it is quite clear to everyone in this Chamber that it was.

Why did the Government not provide the evidence they were asked to provide at least nine times? Is it because they are more interested in getting some sort of economic bailout from the Chinese, to fix the mess they have created, than they are in our national security? That is the question they need to answer.

If this House and the country are to understand exactly what happened with this case, we need full transparency and full disclosure: the minutes of those meetings, the actions arising from them, and the correspondence with the CPS. If they really want transparency—as the Minister for the Cabinet Office said earlier—all they have to do is support this motion and put this material where it belongs: in the public domain. \p Dan Jarvis: I begin by thanking the Opposition for bringing forward this Opposition day debate, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) for moving this motion, and the shadow Home Secretary for his remarks.

As I have repeatedly set out to the House, the Government are extremely disappointed that this case will not be heard in court. I also share Members’ concerns about the threats that we face from espionage. \p Bradley Thomas: Will the Minister give way? \p Dan Jarvis: I am just going to make a bit of progress. Let me be clear about two things right from the start. First, we would not be discussing this here today had the outdated Official Secrets Act 1911 been replaced sooner. Secondly, it is the responsibility of the CPS and the DPP to bring criminal prosecutions and compile evidence. The statements submitted to the JCNSS confirm that, as does the evidence that the Joint Committee heard yesterday from the Cabinet Secretary and the DNSA.

We have been consistently clear that no Ministers and no special advisers interfered in the provision of evidence under this Government. \p Mark Pritchard: Can the Security Minister confirm to the House that the UK Government, at ministerial level and diplomatic level, have not been threatened by the Chinese state about this trial? Has it said, “If this trial goes ahead, there will be consequences”? Is the Minister aware of any discussions or any correspondence, either from the Chinese embassy or directly from Chinese Ministers to ours, that threatens this nation? \p Dan Jarvis: I say to the right hon. Gentleman—whom I hold in high regard, not least for the work that he did on the ISC—that I can give him the assurances that he seeks. I can also assure him and the House how seriously this Government take the challenges that we face from countries right around the world.

Let me return to the DNSA’s evidence. As his written evidence makes clear—this is an important point that the House will want to note—from the moment the DNSA’s witness statement was submitted, he was a fully bound witness in criminal proceedings. His evidence had not yet been heard or tested in court, so his witness evidence could not be and was not shared, and this was later confirmed by the CPS.

In this debate and in recent weeks, there have been a number of different, and at times conflicting, claims about this Government’s involvement in the case, and I want to address those claims directly today. At the DNSA’s request, the word “enemy” was removed from the first witness statement during the drafting process, because it did not reflect the Government’s policy at the time. The DNSA made amendments to ensure that his witness statement text reflected his assessment of the strongest elements of the evidential material provided by Counter Terrorism Policing, by demonstrating that the information that was alleged to have been provided was prejudicial to the safety or the interests of the UK.

When CTP approached the DNSA to write a supplementary statement in November 2024, he was specifically asked to comment on whether China posed an active threat to the UK’s national security during the period of 31 December 2021 to 3 February 2023, and to confirm whether that remains the position at the time of writing. That is why paragraph 6 of the second statement references part of the current Government policy towards China. \p Luke Evans: The Minister is making a powerful point about the active threat. At this point in time, do the Government perceive China to be an active threat? \p Dan Jarvis: As the hon. Gentleman knows—I think I may have even said this to him previously, and certainly to the House—China presents a series of threats to the Government. I will say a little bit more about that.

As time is short, I want to focus on the DNSA and the evidence that he has given, because that is important for the House. The DNSA confirmed to the JCNSS yesterday that he used language from an answer to a parliamentary question in his third statement, in which he provided the current Government’s position as context, as had been requested. The DNSA’s third statement was written in a way that ensured consistency with his first two statements.

For the sake of clarity, I will say it again: the current National Security Adviser had no role in either the substance of the case or the evidence provided. There has been misreporting, speculation and fabrication about the officials’ meeting that the National Security Adviser chaired on 1 September—the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) mentioned it just a moment ago. I can tell him and the House that a meeting of senior officials took place on 1 September to discuss the UK’s relationship with China. The meeting was specifically set up to provide— \p Geoffrey Cox: Will the Minister give way on that point? \p Dan Jarvis: Let me just finish my point. I will come back to the right hon. and learned Gentleman if time allows.

The meeting was specifically set up to provide the FCDO with an opportunity to discuss—at an appropriately senior official level; no Ministers attended the meeting—what the approach would be to handling engagement with China across a range of scenarios related to this case, as well as in relation to wider issues that would come up. Those who attended the meeting were operating on the basis that the trial would go ahead at the start of October. \p Iain Duncan Smith: rose— \p Geoffrey Cox: rose— \p Dan Jarvis: I am going to make a bit of progress, because time is against me.

Meetings such as this are a routine part of the NSA’s role. \p Iain Duncan Smith: Will the Minister give way? \p Geoffrey Cox: The Minister did say he would give way to me. \p Dan Jarvis: I am going to make a bit of progress, because time is against me.

Meetings such as this are a routine part of the National Security Adviser’s role of co-ordinating Departments across Government. \p Geoffrey Cox: Will the Minister give way on the question of who was present? \p Dan Jarvis: Yes. \p Geoffrey Cox: Why was the Attorney General’s Office represented and present? If the meeting had nothing to do with the case, why was the Attorney General’s Office present through its representative? \p Dan Jarvis: Simply because a number of Departments were represented at this meeting, as would normally be the case. \p Geoffrey Cox: The Attorney General’s Office has nothing to do with foreign policy. \p Dan Jarvis: The right hon. and learned Gentleman served in a Government a number of years ago. I can give him an assurance that this Government work collaboratively across Government with other Departments, and therefore it seems to make perfect sense that other Departments would be represented at such a meeting.

I will try to reflect some of the points that have been made in this debate, including the point from the shadow Home Secretary, who asked specifically about the Home Secretary. I can tell him and the House that no Minister—no Minister in this Government—was involved in any aspect of the production of evidence. \p Chris Philp: Will the Minister give way? \p Dan Jarvis: The Liberal Democrats spokesman, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), offered his service as a marriage guidance counsellor. I would advise him not to give up his job. \p Chris Philp: rose— \p Judith Cummins: Order. Minister, please continue. \p Dan Jarvis: My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) nailed the myths, I thought very effectively, in his contribution. The right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) described his duck. It felt as if his contribution was as much aimed at the DPP and the CPS as at the Government, but it was engaging none the less. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) raised important points about some of the critiques that have been levelled, and I agree with him about trying to establish cross-party consensus.

The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green spoke about the nature and the description of the threats we face from China. Let me say to him that it is completely unacceptable that he and other Members of this House are sanctioned, and I give him an absolute assurance of the seriousness with which this Government take those particular threats. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) spoke about transnational repression. He has raised it previously, and I can tell him that the defending democracy taskforce has concluded a review, and the Government have developed a range of support and security mechanisms. Most importantly, however, we condemn any malign activity towards anyone here in the UK.

The right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) spoke about the work of the ISC, and he was right to do so. The Government welcome the work of the ISC in looking carefully at the circumstances of this case, as we do the important work of the JCNSS. I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) made the really important point that, given the concerns that have rightly been expressed right across this House about what has happened, we should be trying to seek to work together and establish a consensus. I thought he made that point very powerfully.

Time is running short, so let me say to the House that national security is the first duty of this Government. That is why we oppose the Opposition’s motion, which would see the release not only of information subject to legal professional privilege, but of information vital to the security of the United Kingdom, including advice to the Prime Minister. Successive Governments, including the previous Government in which the shadow Home Secretary served as a Minister, have maintained that position. This is not a question about parliamentary scrutiny. We welcome the ongoing process with the JCNSS, and we look forward to continuing to work with it, as we do with the ISC. This Government will continue to develop a consistent and pragmatic approach to economic engagement, but without compromising our national security. \p Iain Duncan Smith: I have a very simple question: if the Minister will not give the minutes of that meeting to the House, will he give them to the Intelligence and Security Committee, which sits in camera? \p Dan Jarvis: The Government have given a very clear commitment that we will co-operate and work closely with all of the Committees of this House.

It is precisely because everything this Government do is rooted in the national interest that I say that this Government are extremely disappointed that this case has collapsed. It is right that the matter is being investigated by the appropriate parliamentary Committees, and we look forward to co-operating with that work.

Question put. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 327.

Question accordingly negatived. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Mutual Recognition Agreement) (Switzerland) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 21 July, be approved.—(Jade Botterill.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 25),

That this House, at its rising on Wednesday 5 November 2025, do adjourn until Tuesday 11 November 2025; at its rising on Thursday 18 December 2025, do adjourn until Monday 5 January 2026; and at its rising on Thursday 12 February 2026, do adjourn until Monday 23 February 2026.—(Jade Botterill.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Ordered,

That Amanda Martin and Marie Tidball be discharged from the Education Committee and Peter Swallow and Chris Vince be added.—(Jessica Morden, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.) \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Jade Botterill.) \p Liz Jarvis: I am grateful for the opportunity to highlight the issues faced by disabled veterans. At the last census, more than 3,000 people in Eastleigh reported that they had previously served in the armed forces; of those people, 1,045 are classified as disabled. Veterans have made huge sacrifices for our country, yet too often they find that the systems that are meant to support them are inconsistent or simply not fit for purpose.

I have previously raised the case of my constituent Mark Houghton MBE in this Chamber and written to the Minister about it. Mark is a decorated Army veteran who served with distinction for over two decades in the British Army. He was deployed in Afghanistan, Estonia and Latvia. In February this year, Mark suffered catastrophic injuries in an accident while working abroad. Mark cannot walk, yet he has been denied access to the personal independent payment and employment and support allowance because he did not reside in the UK for 18 months out of the last three years. \p Helen Maguire: It is great that my hon. Friend has secured this debate. Nearly half of UK veterans report being disabled. That figure is far higher than it is for the general population. Many of our disabled veterans receive military compensation, as my hon. Friend said, to support them with an injury or illness caused by service. Does she agree that it is an absolute disgrace that military compensation is included when people are means-tested for certain benefits? That leaves so many veterans and their families disadvantaged. \p Liz Jarvis: I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for her intervention. I will come to that point later.

During Mark’s time abroad, he paid UK taxes, and he is now back in the UK permanently, yet he has been blocked from accessing continuous care and financial support because of the residency criteria. The emotional toll on Mark and his family has been enormous. They have been forced to sell their home of more than 20 years. In his words,

“I fought for this country. I’ve paid my taxes all my life. And now because I was abroad for 18 months I am made to suffer. I feel deserted, unwanted…abandoned. It’s devastating”.

I am sure the Minister will agree that this is an appalling way to treat a veteran. The armed forces covenant states that members of the armed forces community should be treated with dignity and respect, but in this case, as in so many others, that simply is not happening. \p Tom Gordon: The armed forces covenant all too often does not live up to what people expect. I have a constituent who has struggled to access housing suitable for his needs. He has two children, but because he suffers with post-traumatic stress disorder and wakes up in the night with night terrors, the children are not able to stay with him. Does my hon. Friend agree that when it comes to housing, we need to do much more to support those who have served? \p Liz Jarvis: I do agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that the Minister wants to champion disabled veterans, so does she agree that Mark deserves support now?

Sadly, Mark is one of the many veterans across this country facing systemic challenges. Veterans report feeling unprepared for civilian life after medical discharge, as the system is unclear and inconsistent. \p Cameron Thomas: I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. I recently spoke with Gloucestershire resident and British Army veteran Chris, who has been confined to a wheelchair since a jungle warfare training accident in 1998. He spoke of the obstacle of pride, and of how too many personnel decline to seek help until a point of crisis, if ever. He would have benefited from a regimental or service advocate, who could intervene either early on or post discharge to motivate and support those affected before it was too late. Does my hon. Friend agree that such support could help bridge the feeling of abandonment that injured veterans often feel after discharge? \p Liz Jarvis: I agree with my hon. Friend.

Too often, the system fails to provide a simple, supported handover to civilian healthcare, or advice on housing, employment and benefits. Charities and veterans’ groups are calling for an independent review of the medical discharge process across all services to make it consistent, compassionate and genuinely supportive, so that no disabled veteran falls through the cracks, or is left without the best possible support. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Lady on bringing forward this debate. The armed forces covenant in Northern Ireland needs to be upgraded as well. The covenant is only as good as the authority that implements it. Does she agree that a review must be carried out to ensure improvements in how our veterans are helped, especially those who have been left with physical or mental trauma? We must review the situation in every constituency of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Every soldier needs to be looked after. \p Liz Jarvis: I thank the hon. Member for his intervention.

According to Help for Heroes, veterans with complex mental health conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder, often face long waits for mental health treatment. Although the armed forces covenant promises priority treatment for service-related conditions, the reality on the ground can fall short. In England, Op Courage is a welcome single front door for veteran mental health, but there remain issues with consistency, capacity and specialist expertise. We need an improved Op Courage pathway with a common assessment tool, better signposting from GPs and acute trusts, and an explicit requirement that practitioners delivering care have expertise in military mental health. Access should be seamless across the UK, so that when it comes to support, there is no postcode lottery. \p Danny Chambers: On the Mental Health Bill Committee, we spoke repeatedly about veterans experiencing mental ill health, often linked to trauma from their service. They often end up in a system that does not recognise their trauma and what they have been through. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a good idea to have a dedicated role of veterans’  mental health oversight officer? The Lib Dems have been calling for such an officer, so that we can ensure that veterans receive the understanding and tailored care that they deserve. \p Liz Jarvis: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I agree with him.

The Royal British Legion has noted the structural failure to automatically transfer a service leaver’s medical records to the NHS. Service leavers must request their full clinical records from Defence Medical Services, which is under the Ministry of Defence. That can take several months. Delays in accessing those records often result in difficulties obtaining civilian healthcare services or financial housing support. I understand that the Government have committed to digitising service medical records through Programme Cortisone, but can the Minister provide a timetable for completion? The delivery of that programme is essential to ensure timely access to services and continuity of care. Meeting the needs of the armed forces community, including those with disabilities, clearly relies on our knowing who and where they are, and how they access services and support. \p Susan Murray: I want to highlight a technicality that affects veterans who served before 1987. Prior to the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987, veterans were unable to bring compensation claims against the Ministry of Defence. The 1987 Act changed that, but cannot be applied retrospectively, so pre-1987 veterans remain excluded. Does my hon. Friend agree that that needs to be looked at to ensure consistent compensation support for disabled veterans across the United Kingdom? \p Liz Jarvis: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I am sure that the Minister will address that.

Veterans who use Government services often report having to set out their veteran status or repeat details of their time in service to multiple agencies. The Government must establish improved collection and sharing of data to help deliver tailored support. Disabled veterans frequently struggle with the PIP process, as the complex forms and assessments can be difficult to navigate, and the situation is made worse by the need to repeat traumatic information.

When health and benefit systems fail, financial hardship is the result. According to the Trussell Trust, veterans are twice as likely to run out of food as people who have never served in the armed forces, and a third of veterans with a physical disability or mental condition regularly go without the essentials. I hope that the Government will tackle that in the Budget next month, and will ensure that veterans never have to struggle to cover the essentials. We know that financial insecurity and poor living conditions can make health conditions worse, so there needs to be greater urgency in ensuring that the benefit system supports the nation’s heroes with the cost of living. \p Brian Leishman: I thank the hon. Lady very much for securing the debate, and for her generosity in taking so many interventions. In Clackmannanshire, we have the Wee County Veterans and Supporters Group, which provides incredible support  and camaraderie to ex-servicemen and ex-servicewomen. However, it is incredibly dismayed at the withdrawal of the armed services advice project from RBL, which has been replaced with a generic telephone service. I consider that to be a serious downgrade from RBL. Does the hon. Lady agree? \p Liz Jarvis: I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I understand he has raised that issue in the House before, and no doubt the Minister will address it in due course.

I pay tribute to the Royal British Legion, Help for Heroes and SSAFA for their advocacy on behalf of disabled veterans. The Royal British Legion’s “credit their service” campaign has highlighted that military compensation awarded for pain and loss in service is too often treated as ordinary income when people are means-tested for benefits, including council tax support, housing benefit and disabled facilities grants. \p Sarah Dyke: John, who lives in Fivehead, lost his hearing due to inadequate ear protection on the practice firing range, and he receives compensation as a result. He has never claimed benefits. However, if he needs to apply for them in future, his compensation payments will disadvantage him. That is contrary to the armed forces covenant. Does my hon. Friend agree that military compensation for disability should not count when people are being means-tested for benefits, and that veterans should not be penalised? \p Liz Jarvis: I absolutely agree. The situation is wrong in principle and damaging in practice. Military and civilian compensation should be treated the same. The Government should amend the legislation and guidance, so that military compensation is fully disregarded in means-tested benefits, and so that there is national consistency where there is currently a postcode lottery. For example, the means test for disabled facilities grants, which fund home adaptations, can deter those on modest incomes. Decisions are inconsistent, and the treatment of military compensation varies. Ministers should work with local government to remove those barriers, and guarantee timely adaptations for disabled veterans.

Rehabilitation is another area where the standard drops after discharge. While serving, severely wounded personnel can access world-class multidisciplinary rehabilitation, including cutting-edge devices, at the Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre. However, once they leave service and the lifespan of those devices expires, replacing them becomes the responsibility of the NHS, which generally provides equipment of lower quality and utility. Help for Heroes is calling for an NHS rehabilitation pathway for veterans that provides an equivalent level of care, and that guarantees like-for-like replacement of essential aids and devices initially provided by Defence Medical Services. \p Jim Allister: I commend the hon. Member for bringing forward this debate. As a representative from Northern Ireland, I am conscious that it is where many of our veterans suffered the injury that gave them their disability; they were defending us from the terrorism of various organisations. For that, we owe a debt of gratitude; their sacrifice is well marked at this time of the year.

Flowing from that, in Northern Ireland, there is the victims’ permanent disablement payment scheme, administered from Northern Ireland but available to all veterans across the United Kingdom who suffered their disability in Northern Ireland. Sadly, despite thousands having been injured, fewer than 1,000 veterans from GB have applied to the fund. It provides a monthly payment and the possibility of a 10-year lump sum. Through this debate, may I urge veterans in GB who suffered their injury in Northern Ireland to apply to that scheme before it closes for applications on 31 August next year? \p Liz Jarvis: I thank the hon. and learned Member for his intervention.

For the most seriously injured, integrated personal commissioning for veterans can be transformative, but eligibility is too narrow; it excludes those injured before 2010 and those in residential care. The Royal British Legion is pushing the Government to increase investment in adult social care to meet the needs of the armed forces community. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government will ensure that social care reforms reflect covenant commitments?

Veterans are being let down across the board. They need much better help with the cost of living crisis. That is why I support the establishment of an Office for Veterans’ Affairs, and the launch of an inquiry on the impact of the cost of living crisis on the armed forces community. More needs to be done for unpaid carers, and to fight stigma around mental ill health, as more than half of veterans say that they have had a mental health problem, and 60% say that they find it hard to speak up about mental health issues. \p Christopher Bloore: I congratulate the hon. Member on holding such an important debate. A veteran in my Redditch constituency lives with severe PTSD and finds everyday noise—banging, shouting and even children playing—deeply debilitating. He would greatly benefit from a service dog, but his accommodation is too small and is without a secure garden. Does she agree that veterans and their families deserve access to housing that properly meets their physical and mental health needs, including space for vital assistance animals, and that they should not be asked to settle for second best? \p Liz Jarvis: I absolutely agree.

More also needs to be done for unpaid carers and to fight the stigma around mental health, as more than half of veterans say that they have had a mental health problem and 60% say that they find it hard to speak up about mental health issues. We also need better recording of veterans’ physical and mental health outcomes, including waiting times, so that we can see where services are falling short. That would allow us to work in this House to address that. Above all, military compensation for illness or injury should not count towards means-testing for benefits.

My constituency of Eastleigh has a unique and proud connection with our armed forces through the Spitfire and the role our community played in securing victory in the second world war. This Remembrance Day, I will also be paying tribute to the disabled veterans in my constituency who, like Mark Houghton, served our country with honour but now feel left behind and let down. Our veterans deserve so much more: better  mental health support; easier access to professional help; regular mental health check-ups at key life points; fair benefits that respect lived reality; and consistent data so that we can fix what is failing. I appreciate the time the Minister has given to this debate, and I hope that she will take on board the points I have made. \p Louise Jones: I very much welcome this debate on disabled veterans. It is a hugely important topic, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) for securing it and for speaking so passionately about the subject, which I know is dear to so many. I thank her for her excellent speech and everybody else for their thought-provoking contributions. As she rightly stated, almost a third of UK veterans have some form of disability, so this is an issue that affects every constituency and every community across the country. I will always welcome scrutiny of what we are doing to support disabled veterans and how we deliver the very best care and support for those who have served.

This is not just a professional imperative for me; it is personal. I served in the Army and I have worked alongside many soldiers and officers who were injured and who today carry the physical and mental scars from their service. Many are able to carry those as part of their day-to-day life, but many really feel the impact on their personal lives. \p Rachel Gilmour: My office is supporting a veteran with complex PTSD who has experienced a judicial process that simply does not adequately reflect the specific needs of some veterans. Does the Minister accept that veterans with conflict-related PTSD can function well in many or most aspects of life but may be especially affected or triggered in confrontational or adversarial settings such as court proceedings? Will she endorse the adoption of trauma-informed practice and proper training within the judiciary on the presentations of complex PTSD to help ensure fair treatment and, crucially, to ensure that veterans are not retraumatised by the system? I want to add that I had very good conversations with the previous Veterans Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), on this issue before the hon. Lady took on the role. \p Louise Jones: The hon. Member is absolutely right to draw attention to the importance of a trauma-informed response. If she is able to write to me with details of the case, I will take a look at it.

I was speaking about those I served alongside and about veterans across the country. They answered when our country called them, so it is now up to us to renew the contract with those who served.

I would like briefly to address some of the points that hon. Members have made. A point was raised by a couple of hon. Members about the interplay of military benefits, compensations, allowances and pensions, and the existing benefits system. As I am sure they are aware, there is a complex range of benefits, and the way in which they interact with the benefits system can be complicated. It is important to note that there is a principle about duplication. For example, where military compensation is received through the independence payment, there is a principle of duplication with regard  to the personal independence payment. A lot of military compensation allowances do not necessarily directly affect entitlement to benefits and have different impacts on tax.

The hon. and gallant Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) made a point about veterans not always reaching out to seek help. I hope he is aware of the recently announced Valour scheme, which will be a regional network of physical hubs. I passionately believe in the strength of those hubs because a veteran will be able to go in with absolutely no obligation, have a cup of tea and speak to people who understand. Veterans will gain trust and comfort from that, and therefore find it easier to talk about the issues they face and the support they need. I hope we will be able to announce more details soon, because I believe those hubs will help significantly. \p Scott Arthur: I thank the gallant Minister for giving way. On the point about the complex benefits ecosystem, I have fantastic charities in my constituency called Sight Scotland and Sight Scotland Veterans, which do an excellent job supporting veterans as they apply for welfare. Will the Minister join me in congratulating charities across the country that work every single day to support our veterans? \p Louise Jones: We are fortunate to have a wonderful charity sector made up of charities both large and small, some with quite broad remits and some, as my hon. Friend mentions, very focused. I am always blown away by people’s dedication to supporting our veterans, and I applaud their valuable work. \p Al Pinkerton: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) for securing this debate. Where the state falls down, so often the charitable sector and amazing volunteers are there to pick up the pieces. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to some of the incredible charities in my Surrey Heath constituency, which, as she knows, is deeply connected to the military through the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, Pirbright and the former Deepcut barracks? I think in particular of the recently reconstituted branch of the Camberley Royal British Legion, but also the Surrey Heath veterans hub and incredible volunteers such as Roy Sellstrom, who have for years given time and effort to rehabilitating and supporting our very well respected veteran community. \p Louise Jones: As the hon. Member knows, I spent some time in his constituency while at Sandhurst. It is an area with deep connections to the armed forces, and I certainly join him in applauding them and the charities that he mentions.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and, I believe, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) spoke about the challenges of making sure that the covenant is applied fairly across the country. As I am sure they are aware, we are extending the armed forces covenant into law. Part of that is about preventing a postcode lottery so that we can set clear expectations about how the covenant affects a range of policy areas, particularly those delivered by local government, but also across areas such as housing. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for all her answers, and I wish her well in her new position. She will be aware of the charity Beyond the Battlefield in Portavogie, in my constituency, which looks after soldiers across Northern Ireland who fall between the cracks. May I extend an invitation to her? It would be lovely to see her in Portavogie and Strangford, and I know that the people there would be encouraged by a visit from her. \p Louise Jones: I certainly hope to visit Northern Ireland soon, and I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s invitation. \p Gareth Snell: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her appointment to her ministerial role. It is encouraging to hear again that the Government intend to legislate to put the covenant on a statutory footing, but she will know that enforcement of the covenant is as important as the statute from which it derives. Across the country, some organisations voluntarily put the covenant at the core of what they do, and it is a tenet of the principles on which they make decisions. In other places, it is a certificate that lots of people have signed for show. How will the Government make sure that the new law is enforced properly to eradicate the postcode lottery, which none of us wants to see, from public services? \p Louise Jones: My hon. Friend raises an important point about how we make sure that the armed forces covenant, when it is put into law, is delivered consistently, and that those working across our country are held to account for their delivery of it. I hope to update him with more details soon.

On the covenant, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) for the point he made, and I would appreciate it if he wrote to me about the case he mentioned. Finally, I thank the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) for mentioning the troubles permanent disablement payment scheme, and for raising awareness of it.

Mark Houghton served his country with honour and courage, so I was shocked to hear about the horrific extent of the injuries he sustained in an e-scooter crash. As the hon. Member for Eastleigh will know, all benefits, including the personal independence payment, have certain conditions attached; some are means-tested or based on the number of contributions paid in relevant tax years, and a past presence test may be applied. The administration of those benefits is a matter for the Department for Work and Pensions. However, if she wishes to write to me, will ensure that the details of the case are shared with colleagues in that Department.

Anyone who has followed defence policy over the past 16 months will know how hard this Government are working to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve. We are delivering the largest sustained increases in defence spending since the cold war, as well as the biggest pay increases for over two decades. We are transforming military housing and ensuring that we overhaul recruitment. \p Lee Pitcher: I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Minister—it is great to say that—for giving way. We know that our disabled veterans are over-represented in the homeless community, but Doncaster council has taken a lead in making the armed forces a locally represented group.  That means that members of the armed forces are considered more in the council’s housing strategy and plans. Does she think that that is a good idea that should be rolled out across the country by other councils? \p Louise Jones: I applaud the work that Doncaster council is doing to take the needs of veterans into account. As the armed forces covenant is put into law, I hope that that is exactly the sort of thing that we will see rolled out across the country.

Although the data shows that almost a third of veterans are disabled, we must always remember that behind every statistic is a person who trained, deployed and served. Every one of those veterans will have a unique story, and faces unique and different challenges. To provide an effective support network, we must ensure that the service is tailored and flexible and responds to each individual’s needs. \p Helen Maguire: I thank the hon. and gallant Minister for giving way and I congratulate her on her position. I recently met representatives of the charity Combat Stress, which is based in my constituency. I was made aware that PTSD can come up to five, 10 or 15 years after deployment, which I did not know. At the moment, there is no obligation for GPs to be aware of the fact that individuals are veterans, so when a veteran presents to a GP, the GP might not know that they are a veteran. What does the Minister think about the mandatory registration of veterans, so that GPs will be aware that they have previously served and can provide adequate support? \p Louise Jones: The hon. Member raises an important point. In common with any veteran of the war in Afghanistan, I find it interesting how the experience changes as we move away from it.

There are many pathways to support. GP surgeries are often the first point of contact. I urge every veteran to flag with their GP that they are a veteran, so that it is added to their medical record, as that will help primary care services understand their needs. I know that many GP surgeries and NHS trusts have gone further and ensured that they have developed veteran-friendly GP practices and veteran-aware NHS trusts.

There are other schemes that provide support. Op Restore, the veterans physical health and wellbeing service, supports veterans if they have a physical health problem of any type or severity that resulted from their service, if they are based England, no matter when the problem first appeared or when they left the armed forces. A GP can refer veterans to Op Restore. The Ministry of Defence veterans welfare service delivers one-to-one support through a network of welfare managers across the UK and the Republic of Ireland. It does a fantastic job and I commend the hard work of those managers. We also have integrated personal commissioning for veterans, which has already been raised.

For many veterans, being able to live independently in a safe and suitable environment is of paramount importance, as hon. Members have said. Local authorities have a statutory duty to provide adaptations for people who satisfy a needs assessment, eligibility criteria and means test. Indeed, this Government have boosted funding for the disabled facilities grant by £86 million annually—

House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).