Bradley Thomas
MP for Bromsgrove · Conservative · United Kingdom
“Does my hon. Friend agree that is perhaps the most corrosive consequence of all? Businesses have all the pressure that is bearing down on them, and so many are telling me that it is just not worth it.”
“We know that higher-level apprenticeships are now out-earning the average degree, according to the Centre for Social Justice. The right qualification at the right time can alter the trajectory of an entire family for generations, but we must also be honest that warm words alone will not create a single apprenticeship place, and with level…”
“It would: scrap real interest rates on plan 2 student loans so that balances can no longer rise faster than inflation, saving graduates tens of thousands of pounds over the course of their careers; create 100,000 more apprenticeships for 18 to 21-year-olds by lifting funding caps and supporting employers with up to £5,000 for every Britis…”
“That aspiration is welcome, but aspiration without delivery does little for young people looking for an apprenticeship today or for the small business struggling to recruit for today and tomorrow.”
“That is why I am proud that the previous Conservative Government introduced T-levels, degree-level apprenticeships and the apprenticeship levy, and put English and maths at the heart of all vocational qualifications, helping people to climb up the ladder of opportunity and fortify their careers with the in-demand skills that businesses ne…”
“This is long overdue, and so I congratulate the Prime Minister on bringing this forward and for the tone in which he has delivered it. I would like to raise the case of Jenny and Scott, two constituents who I have been supporting in recent months. They have been fostering a child called Alfie for six years.”
The complete record
Every one of 603 lines we hold for Bradley Thomas, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 13.
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“T6. In the absence of a plan, the Government appear to be centralising power and bureaucracy in the form of new quangos. More than 25 have been created since this Government came into office. What is the Minister doing to drive ministerial accountability and, crucially, to ensure that there are sunset clauses so that when quangos have met their objectives, they are wound up and come to an end?”
“The Solicitor General has expressed several times her and, presumably, the Government’s disappointment at the fact that this did not go to trial. That disappointment would suggest that she and the Government wish for an alternative outcome. The simple point that I and my constituents cannot get our heads around—they have contacted me about this because they are outraged and concerned—is that if the Government wish for an alternative outcome, why did they not exhaust every single possibility to bolster the case of the CPS? Regardless of interference, and there is no question of political interference, why did they not exhaust every single opportunity to put the CPS in the strongest possible position to ensure a successful prosecution?”
“With the Government planning to bulldoze all over the green belt—other parties do not fare much better; the Liberal Democrats, in their manifesto, said they wanted to build even more houses—and given that the Conservatives have pledged to protect the green belt, will the Leader of the House explain to my constituents why the Bromsgrove and the villages housing target has increased by a staggering 85% while Birmingham’s has reduced by over 30%? If he cannot, will he grant a debate on this important topic?”
“We must act decisively and without hesitation to safeguard British businesses and protect our national security. The choice before us is stark: either we allow ourselves to become increasingly exposed as criminals outpace our outdated legislation and other nations fortify their defences, or we rise to meet the moment with urgency, resolve and the protections our country demands. It is time for us to send an important message: we will not allow cyber criminals to continue operating in the shadows, unchecked and unchallenged. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Bradley Thomas, Tom Tugendhat, Alison Griffiths, Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst, Joy Morrissey, Saqib Bhatti, John Glen, Greg Smith, Ben Obese-Jecty, Lincoln Jopp, Sir John Hayes and Jim Shannon present the Bill. Bradley Thomas accordingly presented the Bill.”
“From individual hackers to organised criminal gangs and state-backed attacks from overseas, we cannot afford to fall behind in the race of technological defences and expose ourselves to increasingly sophisticated cyber-extortion attacks. While I acknowledge that the Government referenced the introduction of a cyber-security Bill in the King’s Speech, it is deeply concerning that, despite the urgency of the threat, the Bill has yet to even be brought before Parliament. Cyber criminals are not slowing down, and their methods are not becoming simpler. On the contrary, attacks are growing in complexity, scale and impact. Although I recognise that sound policy requires time to develop, we cannot afford to proceed at our current glacial pace. Delay only deepens our vulnerability, particularly in the light of recent events.”
“When companies report these payments, our security agencies gain vital intelligence—intelligence that helps us to understand who is being targeted, how attacks are evolving and where our vulnerabilities lie before they are exploited. Espionage today is not confined to spies and stolen documents. It is digital, it is silent, and it is relentless. The grey zone exists. Cyber-extortion and ransomware attacks are fast becoming the preferred weapons of hostile actors seeking to destabilise our institutions and exploit our vulnerabilities. Their attacks are becoming progressively more complex, often leaving companies with no viable alternative but to make ransom payments.”
“This will give companies the assurance they need to report without fear and the support they deserve to help their recovery. What happens if a company fails to report within 72 hours of a cyber-extortion attack or neglects to submit a follow-up report within 72 hours of making a ransom payment? Quite simply, it will face a civil monetary penalty. Mandated reporting is essential to our national security and collective wellbeing. Non-compliance must be actively discouraged. It is in the company’s interest, the public’s interest and the Government’s interest. The absence of mandatory reporting, especially for ransom payments, leaves a dangerous blind spot in our national security.”
“This broader scope will enable law enforcement to trace criminal networks, identify patterns and disrupt the flow of illicit funds. It will help to inform better resource allocation, as well as holding the potential to foster collaboration across sectors that would result in faster alerts and stronger resilience. I understand that many companies may have reservations regarding the requirement to report incidents and ransom payments. It could leave them vulnerable to reputational damage from potential leaks, damaging their business further. This proposal is pro-business, and that is why robust legal protections would be established to ensure that any reports made to the Government remain strictly confidential, with no right of publication, unless it is deemed to be in the national interest.”
“National critical infrastructure comprises all 13 sectors defined by the Government: chemicals, civil nuclear, communications, defence, emergency services, energy, finance, food, government, health, space, transport and water. These criteria capture the vast majority of companies whose compromise through attack or ransom payment could pose a serious risk to the UK. It also reflects the volume of reports our resources can realistically manage, while establishing a clear, accessible threshold so that companies are not forced to navigate complex policy during the stress of an active attack. Another imperative component of this approach is the inclusion of all payment types, whether monetary, intellectual property, exchanges of gifts or services or other forms of benefits.”
“What if that payment was made to a terrorist organisation? What if it was sent to a hostile state? It is not the fault of the companies who, under immense pressure and with limited options, choose to pay to regain control of their operations. The fault lies in the gaps in our legislation—gaps that allow ransom payments to go unreported, potentially fuelling even greater threats against our nation. The proposed threshold of an annual turnover exceeding £25 million or those responsible for critical national infrastructure has been carefully considered. It captures approximately 78% of medium-sized businesses and all large corporations, while avoiding the overwhelming influx of reports that a lower threshold would trigger due to the high number of small and medium-sized enterprises in the UK.”
“The Bill would mandate any British company registered under the Companies Act 2006 that has an annual turnover above £25 million or is responsible for critical national infrastructure to inform the Government within 72 hours of becoming victim to a cyber-extortion or ransomware attack, with a further report being required if any payment is made by the company or a third party on its behalf, within 72 hours of the transaction taking place. We have all witnessed the shocking headlines about major British companies under siege from cyber-attacks, resulting in severe disruption and millions in lost revenue. From M&S to the Co-op, Harrods to Jaguar Land Rover, these attacks have been crippling, and yet the Government currently have no legal right to know whether a ransom payment was made to restore their systems.”
“The reality is clear: cyber-crime, particularly extortion and ransomware, has outpaced existing legislation. It has allowed dangerous gaps to emerge in our intelligence gathering—gaps that criminals are likely to exploit—and has weakened the defences of our national critical infrastructure against these escalating threats. The Cyber Extortion and Ransomware (Reporting) Bill seeks to close those gaps and reinforce the UK’s resilience against cyber-crime. Following Australia’s implementation of a mandatory ransomware payment reporting regime, which has so far been successful, it is imperative that the UK follows suit.”
“Under current legislation, cyber-attacks need only be reported in limited circumstances: organisations handling personal data must report cyber-attacks that pose a likely risk to individual rights; essential service operators and relevant digital service providers must disclose incidents with “substantial” service impact; and a few regulated bodies, such as the Financial Conduct Authority and the Solicitors Regulation Authority, follow their own cyber-incident reporting requirements. Notably, there is no requirement for companies to disclose when a ransomware payment has been made, despite the significant financial burden such payments can impose. Cohesity’s “Global cyber resilience report 2024” found that 59% of companies targeted by ransomware chose to pay, with an average cost of £870,000 and some reaching as high as £20 million.”
“Among the significant threats identified in the NCSC’s 2025 annual review are hostile states such as China, linked to a co-ordinated campaign involving three China-based companies targeting foreign Governments and critical networks, and Iran, which the NCSC assessed as a highly likely threat to UK entities. UK IT leaders are understandably alarmed. Research from Armis has revealed that 74% of UK IT leaders cite China and 71% cite Russia as their top cyber-security concerns. If that is not enough, recent espionage trials have thrown a harsh spotlight on the scale and intent of state-sponsored cyber-operations. The threat is undeniable. We must act with urgency to safeguard UK-based companies and critical infrastructure before these escalating menaces begin to seriously disrupt the functioning of our nation.”
“I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require a company that meets a specified criteria to report any cyber extortion or ransomware attack on the company to the Government within a specified time after the attack; to make provision about the content of such reports, including a requirement to provide information about any payments made; and for connected purposes. This is a timely and pressing matter. Illegal activity across the nation is on the rise, and cyber-attacks are no exception. The National Cyber Security Centre has reported a 50% increase in British cyber-incidents deemed “highly significant” over the past year. Furthermore, of the 429 incidents the NCSC was called upon to assist with, at least half were considered of “national importance”.”
“Earlier this week, the Security Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), came to this House and said that the National Security Adviser did not have any links to the 48 Group, a group that promotes economic links between the UK and China. Why did the Minister say that when the National Security Adviser was listed as a fellow of the 48 Group on its website until very recently?”
“The way Jhoots is treating its workforce, the community and suppliers is frankly appalling. It is failing communities who desperately rely on it. The Government are planning to introduce a health Bill at some point in the coming months that will see the abolition of NHS England. Can the Minister update the House on when the Bill will come forward and what provision it will contain to strengthen accountability for the delivery of community pharmacy?”
“I welcome the Minister to her new role. Will the Government consider introducing a policy whereby long-term empty properties brought back into use as homes will count towards a district’s housing target?”
“The Government say that they want to take a long-term and strategic approach to China, but that is exactly what China does, whether we are talking about it increasing control over supply chains to gain leverage over the west, the belt and road programme, or the debt-trap diplomacy with which it is associated abroad. This is nothing less than a concession to an authoritarian regime, and it plays into China’s hands, as it wants to continue gaining economic and military leverage over the west. The head of the CPS said that he requested evidence from the Government to allow the case to proceed, but the Government did not provide that evidence. Why not, and is it still the Government’s view that it is impossible to argue in court that China is a threat?”
“I am wholly opposed to this policy, as I know are many of my constituents. While the Government have talked about the so-called economic benefits of accessing services and digitalising how we interact with Government, my constituents are concerned about infringements on liberty and the shifting relationship between the individual and the state. The state must always be accountable to the individual. Can the Secretary of State rule out this system ever becoming one through which the Government can track location, consumer spending habits or social media activity?”
“The industry is growing far too fast for that and patients are suffering too frequently, with the NHS and society already paying too high a price. We need urgency and clarity, along with a firm timeframe. Right now, because of failures in the law, the industry is instead risking lives. It preys on the vulnerable, particularly the young. It burdens the NHS and leaves countless people traumatised for life. That is the choice before us. We can allow the crisis to continue unchecked, or we can act with the urgency and courage needed to protect the public. Every day of delay is another life put at risk, and we cannot allow that to continue.”
“During this time individuals should feel under no obligation to commit, and any deposit paid should be fully refundable. Every surgical operation currently required to be performed by anyone on the GMC register must be performed by a specialist surgeon. The United Kingdom is home to one of the best healthcare systems in the world, yet in this area we are falling dangerously short and it is time to put that right. This is not about banning or shutting down businesses, but instead must be viewed as introducing protections for patients, practitioners and public health. The Government’s announcement in July pledging to regulate was a welcome step forward, but real concerns remain about the timeframe. This cannot be a two or three-year project.”
“All treatments across the three categories must be performed by CQC-approved professionals, with at least professional indemnity and public liability insurance in a sterile, fit-for-purpose clinical environment. Any treatment involving prescription-only medications, such as botox or certain hormone replacement therapies for weight loss, must be performed only by a prescriber or a regulated professional with the prescriber on site at all times during the treatment. All treatments involving injectables must be performed only by a medical professional registered with the relevant professional body, such as the Nursing and Midwifery Council or the GMC. Every consultation must include a discussion of all alternative options and potential side effects, followed by a mandatory cooling-off period before the procedure may go ahead.”
“To put that into perspective, a study in The European Journal of Health Economics reported that the average cost of treating breast cancer is £9,450. What do we want the Government to do? This is not a party political issue and not just a health crisis; it is an economic one, too, and is entirely avoidable. That is why regulations adopting a traffic-light system that categorises every treatment and procedure with a minimum baseline of standards is imperative: green for non-prescription treatments; amber for treatments involving prescribed medicines or that penetrate the skin; and red for surgical procedures requiring anaesthesia. There must be clear rules.”
“In July 2025, an ITV investigation revealed that more than 50% of women who had undergone non-surgical cosmetic procedures required medical assistance afterwards, with 15% requiring emergency support. Save Face confirmed that those findings matched its patient records. This demonstrates exactly what happens when unqualified practitioners are allowed to continue unchecked. People are suffering serious health complications. Many are left traumatised, and countless others never seek help at all, out of shame and stigma. When help is required, it often falls to the NHS to provide corrective care, which costs time and money. There is currently no exact data on the costs. However, an NHS Scotland study found that over five years the average cost of correcting botched procedures and surgeries was £9,327.”
“They buy cheap products that may never have been properly safety tested in order to undercut professionals with bargain prices, and it works. Young people in particular are increasingly drawn in. The clinics do not offer consultations involving discussion of alternatives or risks. They do not offer cooling-off periods. They do not adhere to safe environment standards to prevent infection. In far too many cases, someone can walk in off the street and undergo treatment on the spot, performed on a living room sofa. What happens if something goes wrong during the treatment or afterwards? For many people, it does. In 2023, the Government-approved register for medical aesthetic treatments, Save Face, received more than 3,000 reports of complications and adverse outcomes.”
“I would welcome the chance to meet the Minister to discuss this further, because we must not allow non-surgical treatments to be regulated while surgical procedures are left behind. There must be one overarching framework that encompasses all cosmetic and aesthetic treatments and procedures, and at the heart of that new framework must be a minimum baseline standard of practitioner training. The absence of such a standard has allowed low-quality, unsafe so-called clinics to spring up across the country. They decay our high streets, feed the black market with untested medication purchases and make access to dangerous treatments easier than any others in the medical sector. These cheap, unregulated clinics, run by anyone who fancies giving aesthetics a go, are putting people’s health at serious risk.”
“If I were having needles put into my face or my nose operated on, I would expect the person holding the needle or scalpel to have the medical qualifications required by the NHS, meaning specialist training and Care Quality Commission registration. Today’s debate is about non-surgical treatments, but let us be clear: surgical procedures are also in desperate need of regulation. After my meeting with the Royal College of Surgeons, it is evident that we must tighten the rules on who is allowed to perform cosmetic and aesthetic operations, and we must amend the health and social care legislation, expanding the powers of the Secretary of State to introduce regulations on operations and making “surgeon” a protected title.”
“The reality is that I could sign up to an online course, complete roughly 10 hours of coursework, attend two days of in-person training and call myself qualified to perform fat dissolution or botox injections. I could sign up to another course, watch a series of “specialist” videos and then be “qualified” to inject lip and dermal fillers. How on earth does watching a few videos or attending a two-day course qualify anyone to perform treatments that carry serious risks, including blindness, tissue necrosis, paralysis and even death? If I were having a simple blood test, I would expect a nurse trained in phlebotomy to handle the needle. If I needed my appendix removed, I would expect a general surgeon to perform the operation.”
“Of course, advertising regulation changes are not the only changes that this industry is in desperate need of. Right now in the UK, anyone can perform non-surgical cosmetic and aesthetic treatments and anyone on the General Medical Council register can carry out surgical cosmetic and aesthetic procedures. We live in a regulated society, leading to a misconception on the part of many people that the industry is already regulated. After all, the rest of the medical sector is, so why would it not be? Many genuinely believe that the practitioners they visit have a medical background. They may see official-looking certificates on the wall, and they presume that the training claimed to have been completed is of the same rigorous standard as nurses and doctors go through.”
“We need tougher regulations—tougher protections for young people on social media and tougher rules to stop the public being misled. The answer? Requiring all images and videos used in advertising on every platform to display a clear symbol showing if they have been digitally altered or enhanced. That idea was first put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) in a private Member’s Bill, the Digitally Altered Body Images Bill, which sadly did not make it through all its parliamentary stages before the Dissolution of the last Parliament. That requirement, alongside stricter enforcement of the advertising ban for under-18s, would protect young people from harmful online content, expose the false promises of cowboy practitioners and help people finally see the reality behind the images.”
“However, the truth is that something can be done. The Mental Health Foundation found that 21% of adults said that advertising images had caused them body image concerns, and 40% of teenagers said the same about social media. Yet, right now, the cosmetic and aesthetic industry is free to advertise however it wants. Businesses can digitally alter images beyond recognition and present them as reality, and social media influencers are allowed to push cosmetic treatments straight at young people. Currently, the Advertising Standards Authority and the Committee of Advertising Practice restrict the use of enhancements that make an image misleading and restrict cosmetic advertising from being targeted at under-18s, but that is evidently not enough.”
“As confirmed by the Mental Health Foundation, the two disorders most closely linked to poor body image are eating disorders and body dysmorphic disorder—the number of diagnoses for which are on the rise. Currently, an estimated 1.25 million people in the UK are living with an eating disorder. Between 2015 and 2021, hospital admissions for eating disorders rose by 84%, and over half of those admitted were aged 25 or younger. Body dysmorphic disorder, despite stigma and under-diagnosis, is thought to affect over 1 million people in the UK, and the true figure is almost certainly far higher. Most shocking of all, one in eight people experience suicidal thoughts and feelings because of body image concerns. This is a crisis. More and more people across the country are suffering, and many are developing life-threating health conditions.”
“Your lips are too thin, then suddenly they are too thick. Your forehead is too wrinkly. Your nose is too pointed. The list goes on and on. There is always something to make someone feel that they are not enough. The impact is undeniable. In 2020, a parliamentary report found that 61% of adults and 66% of children in the UK had negative body image. What do people do? Many turn to cosmetic and aesthetic treatments, searching for confidence in a system that profits increasingly from their insecurity, but these so-called beauty standards do not just lightly shape how people perceive themselves; they create shame, pressure and, for some, a devastating impact on their mental health. A parliamentary report in 2022 revealed the scale of the problem: 80% of people said that negative views about their body had harmed their mental health.”
“Without raising the baseline minimum level of clinical standards, millions across the country will continue to suffer, and some will pay with their lives. We live in a time when beauty standards are set at impossible heights. Every single day, people of all ages are bombarded, whether through social media, advertising, magazines, or messages telling them how they should look. Young women in particular are relentlessly targeted with new beauty trends, each one more unattainable than the last. Failure to follow them leaves many feeling ugly and unworthy in their own skin, but let us be clear: they are not ugly, unworthy or imperfect. More and more people are victims of a culture that thrives on selling unattainable beauty standards. One day, you are too fat; the next, you are too skinny.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered regulations for non-surgical aesthetic and cosmetic treatments. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. We are witnessing an emerging public health crisis. The cosmetic and aesthetic treatment industry is expanding rapidly, yet our laws have utterly failed to keep pace. In 2023 alone, around 7.7 million people in the UK underwent treatments and procedures, ranging from botox injections to facelifts. Every single cosmetic and aesthetic treatment or procedure is currently under-regulated, both surgical and non-surgical alike. Each year, more people undergo these treatments, and each year, more are left vulnerable to devastating complications because of a systematic failure in our legal system. The statistics paint an indisputable picture.”
“We must be careful not to place burdens on local authorities that they cannot or do not have the confidence to enforce. As the Government consult on this issue in the new year, the whole industry will be holding their feet to the fire. Although they have to go through a period of consultation, I encourage the Minister and the Government to work at the utmost pace to get whatever baseline level of clinical standard in place as swiftly as possible, so that we can give confidence not just to industry but to society at large. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House has considered regulations for non-surgical aesthetic and cosmetic treatments.”
“Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) emphasised the fact that most in the industry want there to be a standard that protects them, so that they can be confident that people who come to see them are not questioning whether the procedure will be conducted in a clinically safe way. I am grateful to the Minister for responding. This is one topic that will not go away; it is only going to be on the increase, particularly as societal concerns around body image are exacerbated by the continued use of social media. When the Government introduce a regime around these treatments, it is critical that we work closely with local authorities, so that they have the confidence to administer it properly, with a baseline level of consistency across the country.”
“Let me acknowledge a few contributions from hon. Members. The hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) talked about Jan and the crisis that has taken place with regard to implants. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the importance of ensuring that any regulations apply throughout the United Kingdom, not just in England. The hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) talked about the cost to the NHS. The hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) talked about confidence in practitioners and highlighted the horrific cases of botulism in the midlands and the north-east. The hon.”
“I am grateful to hon. Members from across the House for attending. First and foremost in my mind remain Jan, Alice and anyone who has had a treatment that has gone wrong or, in Alice’s case sadly, been fatal. I put on record my thanks to a constituent of mine, Nicky Robinson, who first brought this issue to my attention, around 12 months ago. Nicky is a CQC-accredited nurse and practitioner. She summed it up to me when she visited my surgery and said, “This is not about banning; this is about raising the baseline clinical standard, not just to protect patients but to protect the industry as a whole.” That is the fundamental point we have to bear in mind. We do not want to be in a society that prevents people from having treatments; we want to enable people to have whatever treatments they want in as safe a way as possible.”
“T6. With increasing e-scooter usage, a small number of people are increasingly conducting antisocial behaviour while riding around on these micromobility vehicles. That is of great concern to my constituents, and I am particularly concerned that there is no minimum age requirement for the purchase of an e-scooter and no national registration scheme that could help track those using them for nefarious activities. Have the Government got any plans to introduce a national registration scheme for e-scooters?”
“China has made no secret of its intent to deepen its relationship with Mauritius. It is an increasingly hostile state towards the UK, and it knows too well that Mauritius is key to supporting its long-term strategic goals. Furthermore, Mauritius has signalled that it is working more closely with Russia on research and development, and with Iran on developing closer relations. Mauritius has gone on public record stating that it is grateful to the Chinese for playing a critical role in its pursuit of international recognition of Mauritian sovereignty over these islands.”
“That £35 billion could have been spent on new hospitals or schools or, in the case of my constituency, on infrastructure to support the thousands of new houses that the Government want to build. It could have been spent on tax cuts to stimulate the economy or even to plug Labour’s own financial black hole. Labour is cutting tax for Mauritians off the back of hard-pressed UK taxpayers. Then we get to the national security risks. Diego Garcia, located on the Chagos islands, is the UK’s most important military base in the Indian ocean. The geopolitical significance of the base cannot be overstated in a world in which China seeks to undermine us. We know that China thinks in a multigenerational capacity. It is a dictatorship that does not share our values, and this is the blink of an eye in terms of how it plans its future.”
“It was arrived at by applying an assumed annual inflation rate of 2.3% over the 99-year lease period, despite inflation running at almost 4%. The total was then lowered again by between 2.5% and 3.5% per year through a Treasury practice called the social time preference rate, which reflects the fact that people value benefits received immediately more highly. It converts future costs and benefits into their present-day value rather than allowing for a more accurate valuation of future costs. The Government are happy to apply that rate in the case of their surrender deal, but will not use the same methodology to cost their affordable homes programme. What is worse is that the Government have refused to allow Parliament a separate vote on the financial obligations under this terrible deal—they could have done, but chose not to.”
“Labour is the worst negotiator, spending tens of billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to surrender the Chagos islands, bunging billions to its unionised paymasters on day one of forming a Government, and showing a lack of will on tackling welfare dependency. Whatever Labour touches, the costs to the taxpayer go up and the benefits diminish. This spectacularly bad deal will leave Britain less secure while British taxpayers stump up tens of billions of pounds for tax cuts in a foreign country—equivalent to 4% of the Mauritian budget and to £50 million for every constituency represented in this House. The staggering £35 billion cost is 10 times more than was originally claimed because of the Government’s creative accounting—even the UK Statistics Authority does not endorse the figure.”
“There have been some fantastic speeches from Opposition Members standing up for British interests, so I will not go on at length, but I wish to make a few points. This surrender Bill is madness. The Government have decided, against the security and financial interests of the United Kingdom, to surrender territory to which there was no claim to a country that has no historical or cultural connection to it. They are doing so because, in the words of the Prime Minister, “If Mauritius takes us to court again, the UK’s long-standing legal view is that we would not have a realistic prospect of success.” Let us be clear: there is no legal or moral obligation to surrender the Chagos islands to Mauritius.”
“I will not. While the Government and the Prime Minister are trying to paint this as a good deal, they know that Beijing, Moscow and Tehran have watched closely and have all taken note. Finally, it is not just this country’s taxpayers who recognise that this is a bad deal. Lord West of Spithead, former First Sea Lord, Chief of the Naval Staff, and Labour Security Minister, said that ceding the Chagos islands to Mauritius would be “irresponsible”, risk our strategic interests, and undermine the fundamental principles of international law. Why do the Government prioritise any interests other than Britain’s, and foreign sovereignty over that of the UK? The Bill will leave Britain poorer, weaker and exposed. It is a betrayal not just of UK interests but also of British Chagossians, and it does not deserve a Second Reading.”