YouSaid · the spoken record
Andrew Griffith
Lines from Political Thinking with Nick Robinson have been withdrawn from this page while we check who is speaking. See the correction.
On the record 2020–2026
hansard
This is everything the corpus holds for Andrew Griffith. It is not everything they have said on the record.
Every line below is reproduced as it was said and credited to the record it came from, and links to that record wherever it can be linked. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections
“It does not properly fund defence; the Government still have not set out how 3% will be funded. It does not cut taxes to get the economy growing; instead, they are putting up taxes again.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This Budget must be bewildering to members of the Prime Minister’s party. He promised them a “circuit breaker”, an end to “40 years of neoliberalism” and a “new political model”. Instead, it is all gherkins and aubergines. The Defence Secretary, who is sitting on the Front Bench, is probably wondering the same as everyone else: was that it? To be honest, he is probably thinking he would have done a better job, and he might be right. It is not too late: if he resigns again, he might get his chance to be the Chancellor. All the while, Britain has a debt problem, Britain has a defence problem, Britain has a growth problem, and apparently, as we learned yesterday, there is nothing the Chancellor can do. On the big challenges, what has this Budget actually done? It does not reduce borrowing; total debt has gone up.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If time allows, I will be very happy to go into great detail about our record on defence. When Russia invaded Ukraine, we were proud to stand with the people of Ukraine, and to reboot the funding for defence. The test that the Chancellor failed was not my test; it was his own test. It was the Chancellor who resigned because the previous Chancellor and Prime Minister would not give our armed forces the proper funding for our defence. Yesterday we needed decisive action, and all the Government delivered was a Budget of ducked decisions. The Chancellor has taken to heart the idea of, “Why do today what you can put off to next year or the year after?” Let us be clear that, as a result, Britain will be less secure, less fair and poorer for it.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“No, no. I have a very good answer. In 2010, the Defence Secretary’s party wanted to reduce and cut further our armed forces. We were the party that will always stand behind our armed forces.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“EU rules say that a member country’s national debt should be under 60% of GDP, yet the UK is approaching 100%. The EU’s deficit limit is 3%, yet the UK’s is one-and-a-half times that. Despite all that debt, the Chancellor still has not found the money to properly fund 3% of GDP on defence. We welcome that the Government are finally funding their own defence investment plan, but it is not good enough.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Chancellor said in his conference speech that “these levels of debt are an assault on our common sense, they are an affront to our values.” That was just a month ago, so what has changed? He is now raising debt in every single year of the forecast. A month ago, it was an affront to his values; now it is front and centre in his Budget. The Prime Minister may not care about the debt we hand on to the next generation, but he really ought to. And so should Labour’s faithful little helpers, the Liberal Democrats, who are so enraptured by Europhilia, so desperate to crawl back into the clutches of Brussels, that they have not noticed a glaring problem: the nation’s figures are so poor that we could not rejoin the EU even if we wanted to.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It was so out of control that the Bank of England, in the run-up to this Budget, was forced to make an extraordinary £200 billion intervention to try to reduce the cost and still the 30-year gilt rates rose above 6%. It is not fair, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is not fair to our children or to their children. We cannot continue to kick the can down the road for future generations of taxpayers. Instead of getting a grip, the Chancellor doubled down. He repeated his predecessor’s mistakes and cut the fiscal headroom to just £15 billion, the equivalent of just three-and-a-half days of public spending. Is that recklessness why the Defence Secretary want us all to have three days’ worth of stockpiled food?”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Instead, this Government will have added—do they know the number?—more than £300 billion-worth of borrowing over the course of this Parliament. Borrowing is up in every single year of the forecast. The national debt now stands at the equivalent of £100,000 for every household and it is set to grow by a quarter in the next five years. Britain is walking along a fiscal cliff edge and the Government have decided that this is the moment to close their eyes. Yesterday, the OBR confirmed that the Government are spending £124 billion a year on interest alone—up £14 billion and more than the Government spend on defence, policing and prisons combined. That money goes straight out of the door to our creditors.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Thank goodness the Chancellor did not listen to him. It would have meant many more wealth creators joining the thousands who have fled our country under Labour. The public were not asking for much from this Budget and yet even their lowest expectations have not been met. Ordinary people wanted the Government to get a grip on out of control welfare spending. They wanted a Budget that properly funded defence. They wanted the Government to tackle the deficit, with tax cuts for their families to be better off. That would have been real breathing space. Against all and any of those tests, the Budget has comprehensively failed. It could have been a moment when a Chancellor resolved to live within our means.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Let me make some progress, because this debate is about the whole Budget. There will be plenty of opportunities to talk about defence, which we can come back to. Let me give the Government some credit for some of the few positives in the Budget. The Chancellor was right to U-turn on his party’s manifesto commitment to equalise the youth rate of the minimum wage. One in six young people under this Government—shame on them—are looking for a job and cannot find one. Equalising the youth minimum wage would have made a desperately tough situation harder. He should have gone further and halved the jobs tax for young people as we would have done. The Chancellor was also right to ignore those on his Back Benches who wanted to raise capital gains tax. In fact, it was not just the Back Benchers; the Defence Secretary was also calling for that.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Labour Whips have clearly been doing their history lessons, but history lessons are not going to defend our country. The threat is real. The Defence Secretary is running around telling us to put food under our beds and to store water. The issue is now and that is why the Chancellor himself resigned as Defence Secretary, saying that funding below 3% was inadequate. Nobody challenges that.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is true for the Chancellor, it is certainly true for the Defence Secretary, and it is true for the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. They will not get welfare under control because it would cost them their seats—they are putting their own interests before the country’s. [ Interruption. ] I am making progress. Don’t you worry—I am doing very well, Madam Deputy Speaker.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Or at least, so we thought—because this morning the Chancellor told the BBC that there will be welfare cuts before the election. Perhaps a Treasury Minister could come to the House and clean up the Chancellor’s mess. His Budget has not even survived 24 hours. Last week, the Prime Minister called the benefits bill a moral outrage; he was right then, but he is not doing anything about it now, because Labour Members are too afraid to say, “Enough is enough.” They do not have the courage to get a grip on welfare, because they are worried that it would cost them their jobs. Thanks to the TaxPayers’ Alliance, we know that for more than half of all Labour MPs, the number of benefit claimants in their constituencies is larger than their majority.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Chancellor might think it is just a bank tax, but we know that, like every tax, it will end up being paid by ordinary working people: higher mortgages, lower returns on savings and bank branch closures in every constituency and every high street, and fewer jobs in this country. The Budget also contains a vindictive tax rise on people who have done the right thing, those who have done what Governments have always told them to do and what this Government want them to do: save money. Yet for many, up to 49p in every pound of interest on hard-earned savings will now be taken by the Chancellor. It is the same story with landlords, who have already come under attack from this Government, and the OBR says that rents will go up as a result. Of all that the Budget was missing, the lack of welfare reform stands out the most.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Families, small businesses, the self-employed, farmers, the people who work hard and want to get ahead. Why? To pay for those who do not—those who could work, but choose not to. The damage does not just stop with the tax bill itself. It is the disincentives in the economy that do the most harm. Two years ago, the then Chancellor stood at that Dispatch Box and raised taxes on jobs. Now, we are in a jobs crisis, with over 170,000 jobs lost since July 2024, all because Labour does not understand that if you tax something, you get less of it. Now it is raising taxes on the banks, which provide mortgages, loans to small businesses and pay interest to savers.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Despite their failure to fund defence, the Government have still raised the tax burden to the highest level on record—higher than in the aftermath of world war two and higher than even the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves) raised it. Who remembers how this Government had no plans to put up taxes? How is that working? For the third Budget in a row, the tax burden is set to rise. All told, taxes are going up by a total of £75 billion a year: higher next year, higher the following year and higher in every single year of the forecast. Even the Prime Minister’s former economic adviser, Andy Haldane, now says that Britain is “taxed out”. He also called the Chancellor “penny wise, pound foolish”. I am not even sure about the penny wise bit, to be honest. And where will that money come from?”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Labour Members try so hard, but the hole in their Budget is gaping wide open. The problem is that it is not just us on the Opposition Benches who can see that hole, but our adversaries around the world, leaving ourselves open. Not properly funding our armed forces is not going to scare anyone in Moscow and it will not deter Tehran. The Defence Secretary has resigned once before, so we know he is not against resigning. Perhaps he could resign again on principle today. We on this side of the House are used to Labour breaking their promises, but to break the promises they made to our armed forces is a new low. If the Chancellor had any dignity, he would have resigned yesterday.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This is a great country whose potential is being held back. We have a Chancellor who ducks his choices, and a Prime Minister who wants to take us back to the 1970s. We cannot tax and regulate our way to growth. National security really does matter more than social security, and only by tackling the deficit can we back away from the fiscal cliff edge and do the right thing by future generations.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In conclusion—Madam Deputy Speaker is very firm, so I will conclude—this Budget will go down as one of history’s great missed opportunities. It was an opportunity to undo not 40 years of neoliberalism, but the damage of the first two years of this Government—the mistakes made by the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey, who is now busy job hunting and discovering for the first time what it is like to receive rejection after rejection. Yesterday was a chance to put Britain back on the right track, and the Chancellor blew it. Higher taxes, higher spending, higher borrowing; lower growth, lower living standards, fewer jobs—I hope the Chancellor kept the receipt for the Budget, because I think he is going to want to return it. The British people know that this is not the Budget we need.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Real household disposable incomes are set to be lower next year than when Labour took office—£1,500 lower at the end of this Parliament than they were forecast to be under the Conservatives. It is not hard to understand why: inflation is up, interest rates are soaring and unemployment is up again. The one-off £100 that the Government are putting into bank accounts will not touch the sides for most people, given the cost increases. The only thing that will put us on a path out of decline and deficits is growth. The Conservatives understand the value of growth. The Prime Minister has got his history entirely wrong. The mistake this country made was not to choose markets over socialism in 1979—it was not electing Mrs Thatcher—but giving up all that we achieved in the ’80s and ’90s.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“] The Defence Secretary says, “How to keep the Conservatives out.” That is probably about right—that is probably exactly what they are doing! It is a political bung to their political allies. It is ridiculous. While families face tough choices in a cost of living crisis, this Government use their Budget to tax people and hand money to the trade unions. It was not just the Budget we heard yesterday; we also heard the figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility, and they really do show us just how bad things are. For the first time ever, the Government are planning to spend over 45p in every £1 in the economy. Government spending goes up every year of the forecast, debt is up every year of the forecast, and it is official: living standards are down.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I read that the Budget had the most measures in it of any Budget, but also that they were the most inconsequential. I will try to crack through a few other things. [ Interruption. ] Labour Members are all chuntering, but I will tell you who else’s interests they are putting first: the trade unions. While the Government are raising taxes on everybody else, they are handing out more than £40 million over the next two years to a union learning fund. I cannot even begin to imagine what they will be learning: how to run rings around the Health Secretary; what to do with those extra days off from working a four-day week; how to keep public sector pay rises twice as high as the private sector— [ Interruption.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is because we believe that people who work hard and save hard should keep the rewards, rather than seeing them sold and snaffled up to pay a taxman who refuses to make hard choices and to cut welfare. We will hear later from the shadow Secretary of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins); she has been a stalwart defender of Britain’s farmers, who this Government have attacked. I will speak briefly to the family businesses that this Government are also attacking. Many of them are small businesses: people who get up every day and take on the responsibility of hiring—often hiring young people—of making payroll and of creating growth in this country.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That this House calls on the Government to cut public spending in order to abolish Inheritance Tax on family homes, farms and businesses. There is a divide the size of Manchester’s Etihad arena in British politics today: between those who want to tax family farms, and those who do not; between those who want to tax family businesses, and those who do not; and now, between those who want to tax family homes, and those who do not. Not content with the highest tax burden in peacetime history, in their first Budget the Government chose to impose inheritance tax on farmers and family businesses. The Conservatives would scrap the family farm tax and the family business tax, and we would abolish inheritance tax on the family home.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This is causing extreme jeopardy, to the point that people are having to take action right now to protect those family interests. Edmund Burke, a man much beloved on the Opposition Benches, said that society is a partnership “between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are yet to be born.” There could be no better manifestation of that than Britain’s family businesses, which are rooted in their local community and provide jobs down the generations. Yet this Government are hellbent on breaking them up and forcing them to sell the pieces to pay an inheritance tax bill that they should never have to face. We Conservatives are on the side of family businesses.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My right hon. and learned Friend is exactly right. The original reason for the exemption in death duties that previous Labour Governments respected was that generational aspect—the fact that a business or farm does not necessarily produce the cash flow necessary to hand over an enormous part of that value when, tragically, death takes place. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle will pick up on that point later. I will move on to businesses, which, as Members across the House will know, are far more numerous than the farms who we know are impacted. Inheritance tax affects businesses in every one of our constituencies, on every one of our high streets and in every one of our trading estates. Often they are businesses that have been in the same family for multiple generations.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My right hon. Friend is quite right. I urge every Member of this House to spend time with family businesses in their constituency; there are excellent organisations such as Family Business UK that would be delighted to make the introduction. My right hon. Friend is also absolutely right about the relative dearth on the Government Benches of business and private sector experience and of an understanding of how the economy works. However, that is capable of remediation, if only Government Ministers and Members were to seek to educate themselves on the benefits to their constituencies and constituents of family businesses. We Conservatives will not let a spiteful, prejudiced Labour party destroy those family businesses, which is why we will—”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I would be delighted to give way and for the hon. Member to talk about the family business contribution in his own constituency, and why he will therefore be supporting the Opposition motion this afternoon.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Inheritance tax more generally was once a tax paid by the privileged few—the super-rich, a tiny sliver of a minority of taxpayers and estates. Today, however—these are independent numbers that the Government will understand—inheritance tax is a tax on ordinary middle-class families in every corner of our country. I invite the Minister to challenge these numbers when he eventually responds. By 2030, one in six families will face an inheritance tax bill. At the start of previous decades, that was one family in 20. The scope of this tax has dragged so many more people into its terrible net, and it is only getting worse. One in five homes last year was sold at a price above the threshold where an inheritance tax liability would arise.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There have been exemptions for family business far beyond that. This goes across multiple generations—the origins date back to the 1960s, and every Labour Government under every Labour Prime Minister have understood the contribution of family businesses, including to those in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. We could, of course, talk about many of the other headwinds that business face, but I would then be deviating from the subject of debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that many colleagues want to speak this afternoon, so I will not talk about the higher energy costs, or the costs of hiring, or the red tape that this Government have imposed or the national insurance jobs tax, among many other things. We will not talk about any of those things, Madam Deputy Speaker!”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We will see whether they are useful helpers of the Government or willing to stand up for their constituents who are being over-taxed by this Government. We would take the majority of families out of inheritance tax, abolish the truly awful family farm tax and abolish the anti-growth family business tax—and, when we can afford it within our fiscal rules, we would abolish inheritance tax entirely, because we do believe that it is an immoral tax.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“But we all know what Labour will choose: more welfare. Labour is not the party of home ownership. That is a Conservative value, not Labour’s. We are the party of home ownership; they are the party of welfare, and we know how many people are on out-of-work benefits in Britain today. Even the leader of the Liberal Democrats—this week at least—can see that taxing family homes is wrong. Just two years ago he told the BBC, when they still wanted to hear from him, that “lots of people’s homes in many areas of the country are quite valuable, and they end up being clobbered by inheritance tax…I think that’s unfair”. We shall see whether his colleagues—current colleagues—agree with him and which Lobby they end up in today.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We would make it cheaper to buy by abolishing stamp duty on people’s primary residences and would make homes cheaper to live in by scrapping Labour’s tax on family homes—the so-called mansion tax that, in truth, applies in many parts of the country to flats and ordinary suburban homes. It applies in Birmingham, in Bristol, in Nottingham, in Edinburgh and, yes, in Manchester too. We are the party that prioritises home ownership, and now we are committed to making it free for people to pass on their family home to direct descendants. The Government should follow our plan: no tax to buy a home, no tax to live in a home, and no tax to pass on a home to family. If the Chancellor is looking for ideas for his Budget in two weeks’ time, he can have that one for free. If the Minister takes that back, maybe he will become the Chancellor.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There is a fundamental difference between the Government and Opposition on this issue, and I am very keen to hear what our colleagues in the Liberal Democrat party have to say on the matter. The Conservatives believe that our homes are special. They are not just another asset to be taxed by a Government who refuse to cut out-of-control welfare. They are where we feel safe with our families, where our young take their first steps, and where we spend religious festivals and precious family moments. That is why so many of the policies we have announced recently focus precisely on those family homes. We would make it cheaper to buy a first home for young people by removing gold-plated regulation, saving £50,000 from the price of an average new-build home, because we are the party that believes in home ownership.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. Very few of us will not be aware of the challenges of the care sector from meeting constituents at our surgeries. It is why I regret the fact that one of the first actions of this Government on coming into office was to reject the consensus around the Dilnot review, which would have moved that conversation forward. We on this side of the House will continue to engage with ideas that the Prime Minister puts forward, but none of that takes away from the iniquity of inheritance tax, which is a double tax, often as a result of earned income, and sometimes even a triple tax as a result of businesses. As I said, the scope and breadth of inheritance tax is dragging more people into its net all the time.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is why so many other countries in our situation—those many economies that are growing faster than ours—do not impose multi-generational taxes on businesses. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister why it is that he and his Government single out family businesses—not those owned by private equity, those owned by international domiciled corporations, or even listed companies—for this iniquitous measure. I would love to hear that, as we all would on the Conservative Benches.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My right hon. Friend is right. I do not think that any fair-minded person in the United Kingdom today would say, “The problem is that we have too many successful companies. Too many companies are setting up, being founded and listing on our stock exchanges; our economy is growing somehow too fast; we have not got enough young people to fill the jobs available; and the economy does not have enough debt.” Therefore, were there a measure that would allow productive capital to flow down the generations to allow enterprises across communities in all our countries to help our economy grow, we might think the Government would clutch on to it like a sinking man clings to a life raft. Perhaps we will get that damascene conversion from the Minister today—perhaps we will hear it in two weeks’ time—but I rather fear not.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Their companies are taking on the world and their young people have more job opportunities. Not that the Labour Government have any interest in calibrating, counting and identifying those who are leaving, but that is why the flow of wealth creators and ambitious young people is not to our wonderful country, with its history and heritage, but from our country to those economies that are successfully growing faster than ours. One of the reasons for that—to conclude—is that those countries are more understanding of family businesses, more understanding of family farms, and more sympathetic and on the side of those who work hard to create wealth and a better life for themselves, for their family and for the next generation.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As I have said many times in the House, I think the G7 is the wrong comparator peer group. We are not the fastest growing member of the G7. If the hon. Member took the time to read more than the headlines handed out by the Labour Whips, he would know that yesterday the International Monetary Fund downgraded the growth forecast for our wonderful country and enterprise for 2027. That is what Labour is doing to our economy: it has reduced the rate of growth. While the G7 largely consists of relatively sclerotic economies that suffer from the same levels of indebtedness and lack of growth as the United Kingdom, in the meantime the G20 is coming up on the outside track. Those are the more prosperous countries, and they are building airports, building infrastructure and forming capital.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, let me pay tribute to my own predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), and let me welcome the Chancellor to his role. He is already responsible for the highest borrowing costs for 28 years. One in six of our young people are unemployed and yesterday we had the news that one of Britain’s top taxpayers is leaving our country. Every time a billionaire leaves, our country becomes poorer. Chris Rokos is reported to have paid over £300 million in taxes last year. Could the Chancellor tell us how many average taxpayers it will take to replace him?”
House of Commons8 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Chancellor does not know the answer. On the Treasury’s own statistics, it would take 38,000 average income tax payers to make up for the loss of Chris Rokos. That is a lot of breathing space paid for. It means higher taxes for everyone else, or lower public spending. We know what Labour will choose. The last Chancellor raised taxes on farmers, family businesses and jobs. Conservatives will reform welfare to cut taxes; Labour always puts them up. Which, if any, of his predecessor’s damaging decisions will the Chancellor reverse?”
House of Commons8 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I welcome the moratorium on, and potential saving of, West Sussex, in response to my opposition and that of thousands of residents who did not want our historic county cleaved in two. Now that he has acknowledged that the proposal from the Government was less sustainable than the status quo, will the Secretary of State remove the jeopardy and confirm that he will not be proceeding with the proposal, and will instead save West Sussex?”
House of Commons16 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have been very generous in praising the Government today, and on what I hope is not, but may be, the Minister’s final outing, I hope he will reciprocate by being honest with the country about why the deal was possible. I have just one question, and the interests of time a yes or no answer will suffice: does the Minister agree that, as a point of fact, it was only Brexit that made this agreement achievable?”
House of Commons14 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Finally, I look forward to hearing an unabashed welcome for the benefits that will flow to his Maidenhead constituents from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds). Had his party’s policy been in force, this agreement could not have been struck at all. The Liberal Democrats’ settled ambition is to march Britain straight back into a customs union, turning it back into a rule-taking vassal state, with none of the freedoms that, for example, the Canadian Parliament enjoys. The hon. Gentleman’s cheerleaders on the Liberal Democrat Benches would have legislated away every benefit that the Minister has described to this House. We warmly welcome this deal—no ifs, no buts. It is a win for Britain, a win for growth and a win for friendship between our two great nations.”
House of Commons14 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), and I have agreed to make ambassador appointments among leaders in business, the City and former Lord Mayors of London. I gently point out one glaring omission in the Minister’s otherwise very positive statement about this excellent enhanced Swiss free trade agreement. In nearly 1,400 words, he did not mention the words “Brexit benefit” once. That is a curious insight, since this deal exists only since and because we left the European Union. A nation inside the customs union cannot cut its tariffs on sparkling wine, win tariff-free access for British lamb, gain mutual recognition of professional qualifications, or secure better access to Swiss public procurement.”
House of Commons14 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Without that, the Government could never have launched the consultation this morning on deepening our trade relationships with Indonesia, the Philippines, the UAE and Uruguay—all countries with whom the UK should seek closer ties. The next Conservative Government will go further and faster on trade. We support deeper trade agreements with the UAE and Saudi Arabia, following the recent agreement with the Gulf Co-operation Council, and we will seek a trade agreement with Mercosur. We will boost rather than cut the number of Department for Business and Trade boots on the ground in Asia, Africa and Latin America. We will reintroduce a revised investment visa for those seeking to create wealth and jobs here in the UK. As part of a “trade first” culture change in the Foreign Office, the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon.”
House of Commons14 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), were involved in the commencement of the planning for the negotiation that we are discussing today. The benefits of this deal are what taking back control looks like in practice: British lawyers advising in Zurich without requalifying, British firms winning contracts that an EU customs union would have blocked, and British travellers enjoying e-gate access and lower roaming tariffs. As the Minister said, this joins a growing number of such deals, including our accession to the CPTPP and agreements with Australia, New Zealand, the Gulf, India and the United States. This is Britain once again charting its way in the world, engaging directly with the leading or fastest-growing economies on the planet. Britain could strike this deal only because of our independent trade policy.”
House of Commons14 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. We Conservatives warmly welcome this excellent agreement and congratulate the Ministers and officials who delivered it. I was pleased, when I was the City Minister, to have been part of the team behind the forerunner, the Berne— [ Interruption. ] Would the Minister listen for a moment? The Berne financial services agreement with Switzerland was signed by the then Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt). That was one of our first ever post-Brexit agreements based on mutual recognition of each country’s regimes, and Conservative Ministers, including my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) and my hon.”
House of Commons14 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government and their Lib Dem little helpers in the Lords voted against a Conservative amendment in the name of the noble Lord Hunt to limit support to £2.5 billion over three years. That is almost £2.3 million every single day. The cap was not plucked from thin air—that £2.5 billion was the Government’s own figure. In their refusal to accept a cap, the Government concede that the figure is likely to be more. That could have been 35,000 new police officers, eight brand-new hospitals or more than double what the Chancellor raised over the course of this Parliament by destroying the livelihoods of British farmers.”
House of Commons14 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to their lordships for their work on the Bill. We support the amendments before the House. Let me be plain from the outset: our objection has never been to steelmaking, or to the men and women who make steel; it is to a Government who have crashed around and used blunt instruments without ever having a detailed plan. Hope is not a strategy, and a blank cheque is not a plan. Nationalisation is a bad idea, and nothing that has yet been said at that Dispatch Box has told the House where the spending stops. The Government are taking us down a fast and expensive road with no idea where the exit lies. Even members of the Government concede in private that they rushed into something that they now repent at leisure. Let us look at what we have learnt over the passage of the Bill.”
House of Commons14 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗