Daisy Cooper
MP for St Albans · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“As an Opposition MP myself, I must say that my party and I have been critical of the handover of power that has taken place in the Labour party, but this particular moment, on Third Reading, should belong to the families. [Hon.”
“The Liberal Democrat administration on Hertfordshire county council has made huge strides forward in improving special educational needs and disabilities provision. We were delighted when the Government lifted the improvement notice, which had been imposed when the Conservatives were running the council.”
“I associate myself and my party with the Deputy Prime Minister’s tribute to Sir George Howarth, and his remarks about the 7/7 bombings and all those who live with the consequences of that terrible day. I wish England good luck for Saturday evening.”
“It is clear that it is a two-horse race. [ Laughter. ] On a more serious and very sombre note, MI5 has defended in court an agent who they knew to be openly misogynistic and obsessed with violence. He used his position to coercively control his girlfriend, Beth, and attack her with a machete.”
“Member’s resignation until the investigation is complete, so that the good people of Clacton have all the facts before they cast their votes? Failing that, will he support our “Clacton clause”, so that, even once the hon. Member ceases to be an MP, the investigations can continue?”
“The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham)—the Prime Minister in waiting—has said that his approach to devolution would be one of urgency, yet we understand that there may be conversations about delaying announcements on local government reorganisation and devolution of powers, so that the new Prime Minister has the glamour of an…”
The complete record
Every one of 611 lines we hold for Daisy Cooper, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 13.
“The Government’s expressed political support for Heathrow airport expansion has sparked concerns that they might be getting ready to expand Luton airport too, despite the fact that the Government’s own climate advisers say that no net expansion of airports should go ahead until there is a climate emissions framework in place. Have any Ministers indicated that they intend to publish a climate emissions framework, and if so, when? Will the Leader of the House use every lever in her power to ensure that, in due course, this House has a debate on that emissions framework before any new airport expansion is given the green light?”
“I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way so early in his speech. He mentioned travel times. Travel times to radiotherapy for my constituents in St Albans and Hertfordshire would certainly be much reduced if the relocation of the Mount Vernon cancer centre to Watford General could proceed, and the only way for that to happen is if the new hospital programme goes ahead sooner than is currently planned. Would he agree with me that shortening the travel time would provide a much better service for local residents?”
“Can the Government confirm that there will be enough money for the whole of the route to be constructed on the East West Rail route, and that they will work hand in glove with local authorities to minimise the environmental impacts, introduce infrastructure before or alongside housing, and maximise local community benefits?”
“Can the Government confirm whether they intend to abide by the advice of their own climate change advisers that no airport expansion should proceed until a UK-wide capacity management framework is in place? In the midst of a climate emergency, can the Government give a cast-iron guarantee that the so-called refreshed carbon budget that the Chancellor referred to will not water down climate targets, and what do they have to say to those experts who say that sustainable aviation fuel is not realistic or scalable? Turning to the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, we really welcome plans that further boost the UK’s position as a European and global science leader.”
“To unleash growth through our small businesses, the Chancellor should scrap her national insurance contributions rise, and instead seek to raise the same amount of money through the measures that we Liberal Democrats have suggested: reversing the tax cuts on the big banks, increasing taxes on the big tech and gaming companies, and reforming capital gains tax in a way that would be fairer and raise more money. Will the Government look again at those alternative revenue raisers and lift the burden that the Government have placed on small business? On airports, the Chancellor has voiced her support for Heathrow expansion and has suggested that expansion will be forthcoming for other airports. We Liberal Democrats oppose this, because it will deliver minimal growth at a huge cost to the climate.”
“The Government are absolutely right to focus on economic growth, but their blinkered approach on Europe is holding back British businesses and stifling the very growth that we need to fund our public services. By ruling out negotiations with the EU on a bespoke customs union and a youth mobility scheme, the Chancellor’s dash for growth will be more like a slow crawl in a car with the handbrake on. In order to turbocharge economic growth, will the Government start negotiating those initiatives now?”
“The shadow Minister talks fondly about the importance of family farms. Where were his comments on that topic when his party was negotiating trade deals with Australia and New Zealand that have sorely impacted farms around the country?”
“Unfortunately, commitment to the OBR as an institution cannot be taken for granted, as we have seen over the past few years. We saw Liz Truss’s Conservative Government sideline the independent watchdog at the mini-Budget and cast doubt on its forecasts at every turn. Equally unfortunately, we all witnessed the consequences: soaring interest rates, sky-high mortgage bills and a spike in the cost of servicing our national debt. We Liberal Democrats are crystal clear that we can never have a repeat of that debacle.”
“The charter for budget responsibility is at the heart of the OBR’s function, setting the Government’s fiscal rules, as well as the OBR’s broader remit and how it is to perform its duties. It is important to stress just how vital the OBR is for the sound management of our public finances and for the UK’s economic stability. I am very proud that the OBR was set up during my party’s time in office, and the Liberal Democrats have backed it at every turn since. In our most recent general election manifesto we said that every fiscal event should be accompanied by an OBR report, and we are pleased that this Government are taking the same approach. We also called on the Government at the time to establish the OBR to assess general election manifestos independently.”
“There are several elements in the charter that we support, and we do not want to stand in its way, but I express the hope that, from here on in, we may be able to adopt an approach to fiscal rules that is more pragmatic, open and grounded in what is best for our British economy.”
“It is therefore clearly important that we recognise that any changes to productive borrowing must go hand in hand with the responsible management of day-to-day spending and tax changes. A second point, which I made in an earlier debate around the time of the Budget, is that although the Liberal Democrats welcome productive borrowing for investment, we recognise that the Government’s headroom is quite slim. Will the Minister be able to offer a word or two about which measures the Government are taking to ensure that we have a resilient economy that can withstand any external shocks? We live in a very uncertain world. There are rumours of trade wars and tariffs, and God forbid we have another pandemic. It is only by having a resilient economy that we can withstand unpredictable external shocks.”
“What often seems to be lacking throughout the process is a sober, pragmatic dialogue about what the best fiscal rules are for our economy, for everything from growth and investment to jobs and net zero—a discussion perhaps ideally not affected by politics, but focused on what is right for our economy. Notwithstanding that, and although I hope we will all agree to these changes in the borrowing rules, the costs of borrowing clearly rely on good economic management, which, in turn, as the Chief Secretary said, relies on stability. Borrowing costs have gone up in part due to events abroad, but they have also risen because of the Government’s jobs tax, the uncertainty over their business rates reform and the impact that that will have on small businesses.”
“We Liberal Democrats have long recognised the need to boost public investment in a responsible way, and we are glad that the Government have moved in that direction. However, as we debate the new charter, it is also worth reflecting on how fiscal rules are treated in our politics more broadly. Although they are absolutely necessary for economic stability, there is too often a sense that fiscal targets can be arbitrary and that they are chosen based on what is convenient for each Government; previous Conservative Chancellors changed the fiscal rules five times in seven years between 2015 and 2022.”
“The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the fact that many people were impacted by the mini-Budget in different ways. [ Interruption. ] I hear chuntering from a sedentary position from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller). Those on the Conservative Benches may want to forget the impact of the mini-Budget, but many of our constituents across the country continue to live with the consequences. In the run-up to the Labour Government’s Budget, we Liberal Democrats welcomed one of the Government’s new fiscal rules—namely, the switch to public sector net financial liabilities as the targeted measure of debt. We are pleased that the Chancellor made a change that will create more room for productive public investment, while also making a commitment that debt as a share of GDP should keep falling.”
“The Chief Secretary has given a fantastic example of how improving capital infrastructure in the NHS can improve productivity, but one of the big frustrations in the NHS is the fact that staff cannot be productive because the buildings around them are falling apart. I have seen that in Watford General hospital, where A&E staff cannot be as productive as they might be because they are in a crumbling, cramped hospital. Has the Treasury considered conducting any assessment of the productivity gains that could be produced by the new hospital programme, and by potentially speeding up the delivery of those hospitals?”
“When I visited the jobcentre in St Albans last year I, too, was struck by the fantastic support given by some of the work coaches. However, I was also struck by what some of the jobseekers had to say. One said that she had been in full employment, but had to give up her job to look after her two children because they could not get the special educational needs and disabilities support that they needed in school. Another said that they were struggling with addiction and could not hold down a job because they could not get the support needed from the NHS. Does the Minister agree that, while our work coaches are doing a really good job, ultimately, we need to get our public services, particularly the NHS, back on their feet?”
“Fundamentally, the best way to bring down welfare spending is for the Government to act with urgency and ambition to end the crisis in our NHS and social care. We Liberal Democrats made that our No. 1 priority during the general election, and with 72 MPs, it remains our No. 1 priority in this House.”
“I have to say that the Conservative party has lost every right to criticise the current situation when its fingerprints of failure are all over it. We have previously discussed the impact of the Government’s national insurance contributions rise and other changes. The Government have said repeatedly that these changes are inevitable as a way to fund the NHS, but they know, and we know, that some of this is really not needed. The national insurance contributions rise will impact our GPs, dentists, public health providers, primary care providers, pharmacists, social care providers and hospices—the list goes on. Those people and businesses are propping up our NHS. I use this opportunity once again to encourage the Government to reverse the national insurance contributions rise and look to other means of raising those funds.”
“As I have said a number of times in the House, health and wealth are two sides of the same coin. The best way to bring down welfare spending is for the Government to act with urgency and ambition to end the crisis in our NHS and care, empowering people to join the workforce and reducing the need for welfare support in the first place. The Conservatives’ mismanagement of the economy has had a direct impact on decisions being made today. At informal assessments in 2020, 2021 and 2023, the OBR clearly said that the welfare cap was on track to be breached this year, but the new Labour Government must do far more to fix our health and care services so that fewer people require Government support in the first place.”
“10 and promising to fix social care once and for all, but, as we know, millions of people around the UK are left to pick up the pieces of a broken social care system. That disgraceful legacy and the blatant mismanagement of our economy has left millions of people unable to work due to long-term illness and having to rely on support instead, impacting growth and productivity. Under the last Conservative Government, the number of people not looking for work, especially due to ill health, reached record levels, and Government spending on welfare went up drastically as a result. Their mismanagement has left so many people unable to seek work and reliant instead on Government support. We Liberal Democrats have always understood that a healthy economy requires healthy people.”
“Years of mismanagement by the previous Conservative Government damaged our economy, hit people’s living standards and left our public services on their knees—especially our NHS and care—so it is no wonder that we have seen the welfare bill go up. The Conservatives left GP and hospital waiting times soaring. They also saw staff vacancies spiralling, and local public health funding was slashed. The cancer treatment target has been missed every year since 2015. They promised 6,000 GPs and left government with fewer of them. Of course, the 40 new hospitals fell apart—literally in some cases—leading to inefficiencies in our health service as staff and patients battle cramped and crumbling buildings. I remember a former Conservative Prime Minister standing on the steps of No.”
“I agree with the hon. Member’s point about the kind of growth we want. Does he agree that if the Government were to proceed with expanding Luton airport, as rumours suggest, that would fly in the face of advice from the Government’s own climate experts and economists, who say that it would not deliver the kind of growth that airport expansion used to deliver?”
“I rarely need much encouragement. The hon. Member is making an impassioned speech about the fact that this country has led, and it can continue to lead in this area. He talked about hard power. Does he agree with me and my Liberal Democrat colleagues that if our country is to be better than just assembling parts, we need urgently to rip up the red tape that is stopping so many of our home-grown manufacturers building the climate technology of the future because of the trade barriers that exist with our EU neighbours?”
“Members in this House who have spoken against the money resolution say they are doing so because they have so many unanswered questions about the costs. Does the right hon. Lady agree that if Members vote against the resolution, they will never get those answers? That is precisely why the Bill should move forwards.”
“In effect, the amendment was designed to protect against unintended consequences. Obviously, it could be a catastrophe if the Bank of England were required to rescue one small bank, even if that act may put others in jeopardy. The intention behind the amendment was to protect against the systemic collapse of the banking system. Will the Minister set out the Government’s objections to that amendment? Can the Government provide assurances about alternative protections that could be put in place to achieve the same goal of protecting against unintended consequences?”
“Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), to say a word or two about that in summing up, because it strikes me that if this is not on the face of the Bill, it could create uncertainty rather than provide flexibility in a time of crisis. There is a danger that even the suggestion that this mechanism could be used to support a bigger bank could cause chaos, confusion and instability. I encourage Ministers to think again and to ensure that the restriction on the Bill’s scope remains on the face of the Bill. The Liberal Democrats tabled a further amendment in the other place that sought to create a secondary objective for the Bank of England to consider the competitiveness and growth of the market before directing the recapitalisation of failing small banks through this levy.”
“Liberal Democrats in the other place supported the successful Opposition amendment to prevent the Bank of England from using this mechanism, which is meant for smaller banks, to support bigger banks that are signed up to a different scheme. The Economic Secretary said that an updated code of practice has been produced, but it is disappointing to hear that Ministers intend to table an amendment in Committee to try to delete the Lords amendment from the Bill. The Economic Secretary suggested that the purpose of keeping it in the code of practice, rather than on the face of the Bill, is to ensure flexibility in a time of crisis. I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, the hon.”
“All of our constituents are still feeling the cost of living crisis very acutely, and mortgage holders are still suffering from the misery of the mini-Budget, so the very last thing that taxpayers want to worry about is whether public money will be used to bail out banks that have gone bust. That is why we Liberal Democrats are broadly supportive of the Bill, which we hope will make sure that taxpayers do not have to do so. A number of improvements were made to the Bill in the other place, as the Economic Secretary alluded to, and we welcome the improved requirements on reporting and accountability. However, as she and the shadow Minister acknowledged, there was a point of contention on the Bill’s scope.”
“The rising cost of borrowing will bring more misery to mortgage holders, with reports suggesting that some mortgage holders could pay an extra £500 a year. Given that potential global trade tensions could further affect the UK’s financial stability, what assurances will the Government provide that UK lenders remain in a strong position to support households and small businesses?”
“A number of small high street businesses will be hit hard by the Government’s jobs tax and the dramatic reduction in business rates relief, and House of Commons Library research that I commissioned shows that from April 2026 the Government’s reforms to business rates could leave small and independent businesses in effect subsidising the big chains. Will the Chancellor meet me and a delegation of small and independent businesses from St Albans so that we can make the case for fairer reforms and for wholesale reform of the broken business rates system?”
“The previous Conservative Government promises the people of west Hertfordshire that we would have a new hospital, and they even claimed that it was fully funded, so our sense of betrayal is incredibly acute. Today, the Labour Government have announced that the rebuild start for Watford general hospital has been pushed back by seven to nine years, without Ministers having even visited the hospital, even though it is shovel-ready. We have the land, we have the planning permission and we have done the enabling work, so can the Secretary of State say why 23 hospitals are ahead of Watford general, and what money will be made available for repair bills, which will inevitably pile up, possibly for the best part of a decade, while our hospital is left to crumble?”
“Is there some point at which, in the future, the Government intend to review the effectiveness of this legislation? Secondly, the Minister mentioned that more broadly the Government are looking at the issue of late payments: is he at liberty to mention, either now or at a later stage, the scope of that particular review and which sectors that might apply to?”
“In so many sectors, we have this enormous power imbalance between large companies and the smaller companies that they often contract through their supply chains, and construction is no exception. The Liberal Democrats have no objection to this and broadly welcome it. Anything that increases transparency is a good thing. Anything that tries to redress the power imbalance in those supply chains is also incredibly welcome. I have just two questions for the Minister. As a liberal, I strongly believe in the power of incentives, and we always hope that incentives work. In many cases they do. My first question to the Minister is that if these incentives show that they do not work, will the Government have some system for monitoring that process?”
“My hon. Friend is giving an impassioned speech about the importance of business rates reform. Does she agree that there is a risk of unintended consequences in what the Government are proposing? At the moment, the 75% relief is capped at £110,000, but when the relief goes to zero in two years’ time, that cap will not exist. House of Commons Library research shows that the net effect could be that small businesses end up being 80% worse off, while big chains such as Starbucks could be 40% better off. Although it is important that we get a review of the impact of business rates, it is also important that we get the differential assessment set out in new clause 3.”
“The hon. Member may have heard my earlier intervention. He is absolutely right, and I agree with him wholeheartedly, that we have to shift the burden away from small businesses on to big online retailers. However, that could be undermined if all we do is shift the burden on to the big chains. House of Commons Library research says that small independent businesses are going to end up subsidising the big chains. Does he share my concern that this could be an unintended consequence and that the Government must look at it?”
“The right hon. Gentleman is giving an impassioned speech about the case for an overhaul of the business rates system. Why did the previous Conservative Government never get around to doing that?”
“The hon. Member will recognise that it is the Government’s intention to reduce business rates for the smallest businesses, but as I have mentioned a couple of times in this debate, House of Commons Library research shows that if we compare this year to two years’ time, small businesses will end up 80% worse off, whereas the big chains will end up 40% better off. I believe that this is an unintended consequence. Will he urge the Minister, as I am doing, to address that point in his wind-up?”
“The Minister has been here throughout the debate, and he will have heard a number of my interventions. I accept his point that those figures will not be published until Budget 2025. May I ask if he is in a position to give a cast-iron guarantee that small independents, with a small number of hereditaments, will not be subsidising organisations that have many, such as the big chains?”
“I completely accept that point, and I am very sympathetic to the fact that the Minister inherited a sticking-plaster system from the previous Government. If during the course of this year his Government’s own analysis proves what I have discovered from the House of Commons Library research, will he ensure that the Government at least do not rule out introducing a new small business relief in a targeted way to support such small independent businesses?”
“After the economic vandalism of the previous Conservative Government and their mini-Budget, our NHS and care services are still on their knees. Does the Chancellor accept that wealth and health are two sides of the same coin and that scaling back any investment in the NHS will be not only devastating for local communities but damaging for economic growth?”
“What are we to make of the Chancellor’s pledge to improve existing channels with China? It is nothing short of warm words and mixed messages. The Chancellor should not have gone to China unless there was a commitment that Jimmy Lai was going to be released. Does the Chancellor now accept that the national insurance increase will damage growth? Does she accept that there were and still are much fairer ways to raise the necessary revenue without holding back our economy and our high streets? The international market jitters we have seen in the last few days are largely caused by the threat of tariffs by the new Trump Administration, so will the Chancellor guard against the risks of a Trump presidency by rebuilding our trading relationship with our European neighbours?”
“I thank the Chancellor for advance sight of her statement. Let us be blunt: the Budget has not worked. The Chancellor says that the Government’s No. 1 mission is growth, but to date there are no signs that the Government are going to deliver it. The national insurance contributions rise is self-defeating. It undermines growth—it does not unleash it—and it piles pressure on to struggling small businesses and high streets. Nor does it raise anything like the sums of money for the NHS that the Government initially suggested it would. Now we have this much-lauded visit to China, which the Government themselves say is only worth £600 million to the UK over the next five years. That is equivalent to just five and a half hours of NHS spending a year—27.5 hours over the five-year period. All growth is welcome, but this really is small beer.”
“The shadow Minister talks about situations in which tenants must leave a property. A constituent of mine had a terrible ordeal. She moved into a new rental property, but after three months it became uninhabitable, and she spent a further 11 weeks going in and out of eight Airbnbs. She was left thousands of pounds out of pocket because the landlord’s insurance covered his loss of rent but did not cover the accommodation costs that she incurred as a tenant. Will the shadow Minister support my new clause 22, which would require landlords to hold appropriate insurance for the purposes of paying any costs related to alternative accommodation in such situations?”
“It is self-defeating, because in many cases it will put more pressure on the NHS, and it is fundamentally unfair. It will hit charities that are supporting some of the most vulnerable in our society. Those charities are the glue that hold our societies together and, unfortunately, we are going to see their services slashed.”
“For example, the Liberal Democrats have proposed reversing the Conservative cuts handed to the big banks; increasing the digital services tax to 6%; doubling the rate of remote gaming duty paid by online gambling companies; and introducing a fairer reform of capital gains tax, so that the 0.1% of ultra-wealthy individuals would pay their fair share, while keeping things the same or cutting tax for other capital gains tax payers. Those other choices could have been made. Like other hon. Members in this debate, I urge the Government to think again about what they can do to restrict the impact on our charity sector. The national insurance contribution rise is unnecessary when alternative tax-raising avenues are available, as I have just set out.”
“National Age UK has also said that this will put an intolerable strain on its organisation. We know the Government have a terrible inheritance from the previous Government, but different choices could have been made. The Government say that the national insurance hike will result in additional tax revenue of around £25 billion per year, but the Office for Budget Responsibility clearly states that, after allowing for behaviour changes in response to the tax, such as reducing pay, and once public sector employers are compensated, it will only raise revenue closer to £10 billion. Instead of raising national insurance contributions on small businesses, health and care providers and charities, the Government could have raised that same amount of money through much fairer tax changes.”
“Member who spoke or made an intervention referred to a hospice in their area. That should surely send a strong message to the Government about the amount of cross-party support in this House for the hospice sector, and why we want to see more from the Government in that regard. As the MP for St Albans, I have heard, as others have, about charities in my area. One hospice, Rennie Grove, says that the changes will potentially increase costs by around £250,000. A doctor working in palliative care in another hospice that serves my constituents says that the decision not to exempt hospices is “nothing short of devastating.” A trustee from a local mental health charity says that the cuts that need to be made may result in an increase in demand for NHS services.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) on securing this important debate. I believe I have up to five minutes to make some remarks, which feels positively luxurious in the context of the canter we have just had. I will kick back as I think about what to say. I have been struck by the examples colleagues have given. We have heard a number of charities named from different constituencies: Age UK branches, charities that support survivors of domestic violence, those supporting women and children, ambulances, Mencap, Mind, physical rehabilitation and various volunteer and advice centres. But the one type of charity that has been mentioned more than any other has been hospices. Almost every hon.”
“Part-time workers, especially in the hospitality sector, will be very badly affected. Before these changes a person could work 14 hours a week without incurring employers’ national insurance contributions, but that has now been reduced to eight hours, which will be very disruptive to weekend shifts in particular. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is an especially negative consequence of the changes?”
“Does the hon. Member agree that because the previous Government gutted public health and primary care, there is now a crisis in the NHS? Although it is right that the Government want to move care away from hospitals and back into the community, does he understand the concern of some of us on this side of the House that the move to increase national insurance contributions on GPs, dentists and pharmacists will actually undermine that drive?”