House of Commons

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 11 November 2026

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Commons Chamber

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked—

[Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)]

1. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help remove children from poverty.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

4. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help remove children from poverty.

[The Minister for Women and Equalities (Bridget Phillipson)]

The Government are taking decisive action to tackle child poverty, for instance by removing the two-child limit, expanding free school meals and rolling out Best Start family hubs. Measures in the child poverty strategy are expected to lift more than half a million children out of poverty in 2029-30. That is what Labour Governments do: they make the choices that lift children out of poverty.

[Michelle Welsh]

I am proud of what the previous Labour Government did in rolling out Sure Start services, and of the role that I played in Nottingham and Derby in that connection. Does the Minister agree that where people are born should not determine their future, and that connecting Sure Start to maternity services delivers hope and opportunity and pulls many children out of poverty, including those living in former coalfield communities in my constituency such as Ollerton, Blidworth, Rainworth and Clipstone?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. Sure Start was one of the proudest achievements of the last Labour Government. We are now bringing it to life for a new generation of children with Best Start family hubs, and I am delighted that from April next year we are expanding healthy babies funding to every local authority in England, giving every family access to trusted, practical support during those critical 1,001 days. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has spoken so powerfully about what needs to change in maternity services so that all women receive care and support at that vulnerable period in their lives.

[Chris Murray]

Child poverty haunts Edinburgh. In Scotland’s capital there are more homeless children than there are in the whole of Wales, which is a shameful legacy of 20 years of Scottish National party rule. Worryingly, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation warned last month that we are set to miss our child poverty targets by a significant margin; one in five Scottish children are still in poverty. What conversations has the Minister had with Scottish Ministers about tackling child poverty, and will she press them to use some of the extra £18 billion that this Government have given the Scottish Government for Scotland’s poorest children?

[Bridget Phillipson]

Again, I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. Tackling child poverty is not just a moral imperative; it is an investment in our country’s future and our children’s future. The fact that so many children in my hon. Friend’s community grow up in poverty is a scar on their life chances and a scar on all of us, but this Labour Government are taking decisive action in lifting the two child-limit, which will benefit an estimated 94,000 children in Scotland. In England, we are also expanding Government-funded childcare for children under two, and I am sure that many Scottish families hope the SNP Government will do the same.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

The Secretary of State recently announced the closure of the independent Social Mobility Commission and its replacement with a Government-run class unit. The commission existed to pose independent challenges to Ministers, whereas the new unit will report to Ministers. Many will conclude that abolishing an independent commission and replacing it with an internal Government body amounts to weakening scrutiny, at precisely the moment when the Government claim to be serious about tackling inequality and child poverty. How can we have confidence in the Government’s assessment of their own performance when the independent body established to provide that assessment has been abolished?

[Bridget Phillipson]

We have been squeamish about class for too long as a country, and we need to tackle the deep inequalities that hold back too many people. I do not believe that that should be outsourced. It should be central to the work of every single Government Department, which is why I have decided to establish a new class unit in Government that will focus on everything that holds people back in our country. The difference between our party and that of the hon. Lady is that we are serious about tackling child poverty, and during this Parliament we will lift more children out of poverty than any other Parliament on record.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

2. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to tackle period poverty.

[The Minister for Women and Equalities (Bridget Phillipson)]

This Government are focused on giving people more breathing space. We are tackling the root causes of poverty through measures to make work pay, and are boosting the living wage so that no one has to go without the essentials. We are working with businesses to ensure that women are supported at work, and we support women’s health needs through our action plans too. We are ensuring that those with the greatest needs can access period products, with schemes that are already operating in schools and health settings.

[Mr Brash]

Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to my constituent Lyndsay Hogg for her tireless campaign to persuade businesses to provide free sanitary products in their public toilets? Lyndsay believes that we should go further and make that a legal requirement for businesses, ensuring that no woman or girl is ever prevented from participating fully in society because she has no access to essential sanitary products. Does the Minister agree that that could be a huge step forward in tackling period poverty, and will she agree to meet Lyndsay and me to explore how we can make this ambition a reality?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I pay tribute to Lyndsay, and I would be delighted to meet her and my hon. Friend to discuss what more we can do. It is good to see businesses and public services already opting to provide products, but it is right that, in parallel, we make sure that women have more money in their pockets and are lifted out of poverty. We are doing that by making work pay, cutting energy bills and scrapping the two-child limit, but I look forward to discussing this issue further with Lyndsay and my hon. Friend.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Period poverty is a huge issue. The measures that the Minister has outlined are welcome, but it is a much wider issue. It has been estimated that women spend 20% more than men in their lifetimes on essential products—not cosmetics, but essential hygiene products. For a family with two or three children who are girls, that has a massive impact on their budget. Will the Government consider something that I have suggested often: looking at the pink tax—the extra money that women are charged—and doing something about it?

[Bridget Phillipson]

The hon. Lady raises a fair point and a fair challenge. No one should pay more for essential products, including health or hygiene-related products. I will pick up the issue with colleagues across Government, and I will come back to her with a full response.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

3. What assessment she has made of the impact on trans people of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s updated services code of practice.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

The code is explicit that trans people must remain protected under the Equality Act 2010, must have access to vital services and must not be subject to discrimination. This Government will always treat everyone with dignity and respect. As an independent regulator, it will be for the EHRC to monitor and review the impact of its guidance.

[Josh Newbury]

In the three months since the revised code of practice came into force, trans people have reported being forced out of all single-sex spaces, such as toilets for either gender, and they feel that the clock has been turned back to a time when their very existence was policed. That is clearly incompatible with their ongoing protections under the Equality Act, and I hope that it is not in the spirt of what the EHRC hopes to achieve. Will the Minister keep listening to the real-world experiences of trans people and, if necessary, tell the EHRC to look again at the code?

[Simon Lightwood]

The EHRC will keep the impact of its guidance under review. The code is clear that trans people should not be left without facilities to use. Where single-sex services are provided, service providers should consider alternative options, such as gender-neutral or individual self-contained facilities, to ensure that trans people are included. We expect service providers to take proportionate approaches that protect safety and privacy for everyone.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

5. What steps she is taking to help disabled people with the cost of transport.

[The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)]

The Government are committed to travel being accessible to all. The English national concessionary travel scheme, for example, provides free off-peak bus travel throughout England for eligible older and disabled people. From 1 April, disabled passholders will be able to travel free of charge, at any time of day, across England.

[Noah Law]

I welcome the recent revision to the way the Motability changes are set to be delivered, which will ensure that people can apply for a mileage allowance if they are making journeys for healthcare, education, employment or other essential needs. There is also an automatic increase of up to 3,000 miles for rural users, which will go some way towards reducing the otherwise unfair impact of the changes on those living in rural areas. I am grateful for the representations of Labour Rural Research Group colleagues on this issue, and I am grateful to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for his nuanced approach, but what further steps are Ministers taking to support disabled travellers in rural areas?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and I join him in welcoming the announcement by Motability, particularly to help drivers in rural areas. He will have heard what I said about the extension of the time at which the free bus pass can be used, starting from 1 April. Let me also point him to the fact that the Department for Transport is providing £10.5 million in 2026-27, including an additional £1.9 million this year, to support mobility centres around the country, which help disabled drivers, including those in rural areas, to stay mobile.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the extension of the travel hours for those with disabled bus passes, but there is one further step that is still necessary for disabled people who cannot travel on a bus without a companion. At the moment, whether a council allows the disabled bus pass to cover a companion is still discretionary. That needs to be made mandatory, because there is not much point in a disabled person having a free bus pass if the person who has to be with them has to pay the full fare.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, which I know my hon. Friends will be aware of. The Bus Services Act 2025 includes strengthened requirements for disability training for drivers and for customer-facing staff working for bus companies, but I will certainly reflect on his point.

[Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

6. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help tackle violence against women and girls.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

12. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help tackle violence against women and girls.

[The Minister for Equalities (Satvir Kaur)]

Violence against women and girls is one of the biggest challenges of our time, which is why this Government have committed to halving it in a decade. Progress towards achieving that includes rolling out dedicated specialist teams in every police force, providing specialist rape and serious sex offence courtrooms, and introducing domestic abuse protection orders. We have launched a new taskforce to tackle misogyny, we are teaching children about healthy relationships in school and we are preparing legislation to make it impossible for children to take, share and view nude images.

[Richard Quigley]

Members will have heard me speak many times about the injustice of victims of sexual assault and rape on the Isle of Wight having to travel by ferry for evidence gathering and treatment, because of the lack of a sexual assault referral centre, yet these traumatic journeys continue and many victims tell me how they feel badly let down. Will the Minister meet me to discuss a way forward so that no one has to leave the island to access that essential service?

[Satvir Kaur]

I thank my hon. Friend for the work he does in supporting victims and survivors in his constituency. Victims and survivors of sexual violence should be able to access timely, sensitive and appropriate specialist support wherever they live. He is right to raise the gaps on the Isle of Wight, and I would of course be happy to meet him to see how together we can address that.

[John Milne]

Chart Way is a major pedestrian route into central Horsham, but its street lighting is operated by the owner of an adjacent office block that was recently purchased by a venture capital company. Unfortunately, the company in question has refused to turn on the lights or respond to any inquiry from councillors or my office, despite the fear felt by women and girls—and, indeed, the danger it creates—as the nights draw in. What avenues do we have to address this problem; can the Minister offer any assistance? We just do not seem to have any powers.

[Satvir Kaur]

The hon. Member is absolutely right that women and girls need to feel safe in public spaces. We are going further on this, with a cross-Government ministerial board—both the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Transport are part of it—and I would be happy to work with him and other Departments to ensure that we get this right.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee.

[Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)]

Time and again, powerful men are abusing women and then trying to silence them. Every woman must be protected, so will Ministers ban the misuse of non-disclosure agreements for harassment and misconduct—for everyone, not just employees?

[Satvir Kaur]

We are clear that NDAs must never be used to cover up workplace harassment or discrimination. Reports this week have shown how important that is and the horrific consequences of imbalances of power. The Employment Rights Act 2025 will stop employers using NDAs to silence workers about harassment or discrimination in the workplace, and there is a consultation on going further and analysis of which groups will be included. We are also looking at what we can do about injunctions. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for the Future of Work will be happy to write to her on this issue.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Thousands of prisoners are being released early on condition that they wear a security tag. Is the Minister aware of media reports that hundreds of prisoners are currently simply refusing, once released, to wear a tag? That must be deeply disturbing to the victims of their crime. Would she work with the Ministry of Justice to sort this out?

[Satvir Kaur]

We work incredibly closely with the Ministry of Justice. The truth is that we inherited a broken system, which we are fixing. What is important is that serious sexual offences are excluded, and we are supporting victims by introducing the toughest ever range of tools, including world first restriction zones.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

Female genital mutilation is one of the most serious forms of violence against women and girls, yet the Government’s understanding of its prevalence is still based on figures from 2011, estimating that 137,000 women were living with FGM in this country. We cannot tackle what we do not measure, so if Ministers genuinely regard violence against women and girls as a national priority, will they stop relying on 15-year-old estimates and commission an urgent, comprehensive study to establish the true prevalence of FGM in Britain?

[Satvir Kaur]

We are going further than ever before to deal with honour-based abuse. On data, FGM is an under-reported crime and there is definitely work that we can all be doing to ensure that we are raising awareness. A campaign to raise awareness is about to be launched, so that we can get victims to come forward and support them.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

Yesterday, ITV News and The Guardian reported disturbing allegations, only possible thanks to the courage of the women who came forward, of grooming and sexual misconduct made against the celebrity David Walliams. Among the disgusting allegations of sexual advances to girls as young as 15, the years-long investigation also describes how one of the women received a threatening letter from Walliams’s lawyers demanding a written promise that she never speak about her experiences. Will the Minister meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) to discuss, cross-party, how we work to end the manipulation of the justice system by rich and powerful men who try to silence their victims?

[Satvir Kaur]

If this week has shown us anything, it is that no one is above the law. We have heard a lot about rich, powerful men using their positions to use and hurt women and girls, but these are also stories of strong women, both the victims and those in the media who expose perpetrators in positions of power. I pay tribute to their bravery and courage in coming forward to speak about deeply personal experiences so that justice can be served. We all have a responsibility to root out abuse wherever it is found. The Government are working tirelessly to ensure that offenders are held to account and victims are supported. I will, of course, be happy to meet and to work cross-party.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

7. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that disabled people receive appropriate reasonable adjustments to allow them to access public services.

[The Minister for Equalities (Sir Stephen Timms)]

The Equality Act 2010 places an anticipatory duty on service providers to make reasonable adjustments so that disabled people are not placed at a substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled customers.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister very much for that answer, but he will know that in Northern Ireland the disability employment gap remains, at 40.3%, the largest in the whole of the United Kingdom. Persistently low employment rates are particularly concerning following the loss of the European social fund financial support, which previously aided many employment services and disabled people in Northern Ireland. What discussions will the Minister have with the relevant Minister back home in Northern Ireland to secure sustainable replacement funding for those services, and to ensure that disabled people have the support and opportunities they need to access public services in the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point. The disability employment gap has been stuck at the same level across the UK pretty much since 2010. We have committed an extra £3.5 billion over this Parliament to improve employment support for disabled people and others out of work who have complex barriers. We are rolling out Connect to Work across England and Wales. I very much hope that that funding and the Barnett consequentials will enable similar improvements in Northern Ireland.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I recently met a resident in my constituency who is blind and relies on an assistance dog to get about in his local area of Nazeing. One of the biggest challenges we face across Harlow is the problem of pavement parking and how that affects people who are partially sighted. What conversations has the Minister had with the Department for Transport to tackle pavement parking to make it easier for those who are partially sighted or blind to get around?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. There are serious concerns for people who are partially sighted or have a sight impairment. I am in conversation on that and hope we can make some progress.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Minister for Women and Equalities (Bridget Phillipson)]

Women and girls should never have to shrink our lives or ambitions because of outdated misogynistic attitudes. The appalling testimonies we have heard in recent days underline how much further we have to go. I pay tribute to all the women who have shown such bravery in coming forward and sharing their experiences. The misogyny taskforce will help to tackle misogyny in workplaces, communities and online. It is backed by £15 million, which we are working with businesses and philanthropists to grow. The Government are clear that misogyny has no place in our society and it is time to consign those attitudes to history.

[Paula Barker]

A report in July by the Women and Equalities Committee found that black people are four times more likely to experience homelessness than people who are white. In 2025-26, black people made up 2% of households in Liverpool, with 12% of those recorded homeless, or at risk of being so. Despite the Government’s welcome commitment to end rough sleeping, they are still to respond to the Committee’s report. Will the Minister chase that urgently and set out what steps the Office for Equality and Opportunity is taking to ensure that the rough sleeping programme addresses the specific challenges facing black people experiencing homelessness?

[Bridget Phillipson]

The Committee’s report provides important evidence on the experiences of black people facing homelessness, and I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government will respond shortly. Last month, I visited Liverpool with Baroness Lawrence and the race equality engagement group, and we heard about how real efforts are being made to build stronger communities and tackle racism, and how important it is that there is safe and secure housing for ethnic minority communities across our country.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

The Secretary of State has made class a central theme of her equalities agenda, but before she can tackle class-based disadvantage, she must surely be able to define it, so what is her definition of class and how will her Department identify who is and who is not working class?

[Bridget Phillipson]

It is important that we take action on the disadvantage that holds people back by virtue of family background and income. We intend to enact the socioeconomic duty, which will ensure that all public authorities take seriously their responsibility in how they design and deliver public services. I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s interest in this area and look forward to working with her to ensure that we finally take class seriously as a country.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

T3. There is a clear distinction between discussion and disagreement, and harmful conversion practices. The Government’s draft Bill is clear in using the existing definition of abusive conduct in criminal law. Does the Minister agree with me that the protections in the Bill are urgently needed, and that before the end of this Session we should pass the comprehensive, trans-inclusive conversion practices ban that our manifesto called for?

[Bridget Phillipson]

Abusive conversion practices have no place in our country, and no one should face abuse because of who they are or who they love. We have brought forward a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny because we want to get it right. I look forward to the Joint Committee’s recommendations and to working across the House to finally deliver that long-overdue ban.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

T5. Will the Minister set out what steps she is taking to ensure compliance with the legal framework around single-sex spaces for all public bodies?

[Bridget Phillipson]

The Equality and Human Rights Commission is responsible for ensuring that public bodies honour their responsibilities and provide appropriate single-sex spaces, as well as ensuring that we have services available for everyone in our country. Government Departments have also published guidance so that we can be clear about how we will deliver on our responsibilities, but we recognise and will uphold the ruling of the Supreme Court.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

T4. For nearly a decade, Dunfermline Athletic football club has made Samaritans its main charity partner. Through matchday messages, pitch-side advertising and an annual awareness day at East End Park, the Pars tell fans that it is always good to talk, reaching people who might never walk into a GP surgery. Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Pars on the work they do, and will she ensure that the Government’s own work on mental health learns from such community partnerships?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I commend Dunfermline Athletic for a powerful example of what can be achieved in that kind of partnership with Samaritans. It is important that we are all able to seek help when we are experiencing mental health challenges. Suicide is one of the biggest killers of men in our country, which is why the work that the Minister for men and boys, my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), is leading is incredibly important in ensuring that everyone can access timely support, so that we do not see a single person lost to suicide wherever we can prevent it.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

T6. The Prime Minister has said that it is important that rape and sexual assault victims do not feel like they are the ones being put on trial in cases, yet the mother of a rape victim who came to see me last week said that her daughter felt exactly that way when her abuser was put on trial. Does the Minister agree with the Victims’ Commissioner that juries in those cases need to be directed in the myths and misconceptions around rape?

[Bridget Phillipson]

As the Prime Minister has set out, we believe that it is important that that recognition is there. I am very sorry to hear about the experiences of the hon. Lady’s constituent, and if she would like to discuss that further with a Minister, I can certainly ensure that takes place. In recent times we have seen shameful comments that trivialise the experiences of women, and we must all be clear, right across society, that violence against women and girls is abhorrent, there can be no excuses and those who commit acts of violence and sexual violence against women should face the full force of the law.

[Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker—[Interruption.] On behalf of menopausal women around the world, I thank the House for that warm welcome. According to the big Menopause Mandate 2026 survey, 90% of working women say that symptoms affect them at work, yet only 39% of their employers have a menopause policy. How will the Government ensure that the menopause action plans set to be introduced next year will be implemented and monitored to support women through that very important stage of their life?

[Bridget Phillipson]

My hon. Friend has been an incredible campaigner on this issue and has done so much to help women across our country. We are taking action as a Government, ensuring that big employers have to produce action plans to say how they will support women going through the menopause, which many already do, because they know it is an incredible waste of talent to see women leaving brilliant jobs and careers just when they are getting into their stride.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

T7. In November last year, the former Prime Minister pledged to hold a national summit on men and boys by the end of 2026. Could the Government provide an update on exactly where we are with that, given that we are now in November this year?

[Bridget Phillipson]

We will be holding a summit, because we recognise that there is more to do to support men and boys in our country, especially around issues like mental health, as I touched on earlier. I will ensure that the relevant Minister gives the hon. Gentleman an update on the date for that.

[Mr Speaker]

Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I welcome to the Gallery the President of the Massachusetts State Senate and her delegation.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 11 November.

[The Prime Minister (Andy Burnham)]

As we have just done in the past hour, we remember all those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of our country. We honour the courage and bravery of all our armed forces. No one who has served our country should ever sleep rough on our streets. I have today written to all English councils, as part of our drive on rough sleeping, to ask that an offer of accommodation be made to all ex-forces ahead of the winter break. I hope that Members across the House will work with their councils to ensure that happens.

Over the weekend, a British national was sadly killed and another injured in the terrible shooting in Krakow. Our thoughts are with the families, who we will support in whatever way we can. Of course, the UK stands with the people of Poland, as I have assured Prime Minister Tusk.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Claire Hanna]

Humour me for a moment and imagine that one party in this Parliament could, if it did not like the way the political winds were blowing, refuse to take part and bring Westminster to a standstill. That would be unthinkable here, but in Stormont the abnormal has become routine. We have watched parties taking turns at collapsing government for years at a time. We have watched policies blocked not by the strength of an argument, but by vetoes that were designed for inclusion. It seems like dysfunction is easier than actually doing the work, and ordinary people are paying the price. Wherever you want to go constitutionally, the path is through making a fist of things and offering people a decent life. It is worth saying that every poll shows that more people are working towards a new Ireland. Stormont is in its dying days if urgent steps are not taken to make it more productive and stable. Will the Prime Minister commit to working with us and others on a politics for the common good to end the cycle of dysfunction and despair?

[The Prime Minister]

Can I say to my hon. Friend that I know exactly where she is coming from? We all want to see Stormont up and running and delivering for the people of Northern Ireland, particularly as we approach the 30th anniversary of the Good Friday agreement. My right hon. Friend the Northern Ireland Secretary is working hard with colleagues across all parties in Northern Ireland to settle a budget for this year and to consider further ideas for reform of Stormont. We will continue to do whatever we can to bring the parties together. It is incumbent on us all to get Stormont up and running as soon as possible.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

[Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)]

On this Armistice Day, we remember the courage and sacrifice of those who served our country and those who gave their lives for us. We owe them and their families an enduring debt of gratitude.

The Prime Minister entered Downing Street promising a 10-year plan to reverse 40 years of neoliberalism. Is it really true that he has so little vision for this country that he needs the Boston Consulting Group to write it for him?

[The Prime Minister]

I did walk into Downing Street promising a 10-year plan for this country, because I am determined to give this country the stability that the Conservatives failed to provide, and I am determined to give the leadership that this country needs. I can say to the right hon. Lady that we will present our plan for Britain to this House before it rises for the Christmas recess.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I am not surprised that the Prime Minister has asked management consultants to help him write his 10-year plan—he needs all the help he can get. We have heard one thing that will be in it: he is merging the DVLA with the DVSA. [Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] Exciting stuff, Mr Speaker. It is no wonder that Labour MPs are already telling The Guardian that it is a “tragic joke”. This Government are adrift. Two weeks ago we had a “do nothing” Budget. It pushed all the big decisions, like funding our defence, into the spending review, but we have no idea when that will be. He has talked about the 10-year plan. Can he assure the House that the spending review will come before next summer?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Lady mentions the Budget—the most popular Budget for a number of years, I have to say—which helped people with the cost of living crisis. Can she explain why the Conservatives voted against a bank levy that will deliver a council tax cut for 20 million households in January? It was a big decision to oppose that, and she needs to explain why she took that decision.

There will be a proposal for a national care service in the 10-year plan. The covid inquiry recently said that social care was an “afterthought” for the Conservative party. We will also present the Milburn report to this House next week. We will put forward a plan to this House and the country for a safe and sustainable way to bring the welfare bill down and get young people into work.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I think it was popular compared to the former Chancellor’s Budget. I asked the Prime Minister to confirm when the spending review will be, and we did not get an answer. All the waffle he gave us there was kicking everything into the long grass. Meanwhile, the Iranians are threatening our bases today, but he cannot tell us when his Government will properly fund our defence. But he has so much time on his hands that last night he attended a speech by the head of the civil service. He is supposed to be telling her his plan, not sitting in the audience while she tells him hers.

There was one worthwhile thing in the Budget: the Rosebank oilfield. The Chancellor has already banked the tax revenue, but there is just one problem: Rosebank has not been approved. If it is not going to be approved, why was it in the Budget?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Lady knows that the Rosebank decision is a quasi-legal decision and it will be taken in due course. She stood at the Dispatch Box a moment ago and said that this Government are not taking big decisions. We did approve the Jackdaw gasfield. Today £12 billion is going into renewable energy. These are big decisions. Yesterday she put forward what she considers a big decision: £36 billion of cuts. Does she accept that so many of the people affected by what she announced are working people—people whose incomes will be hit hard in a cost of living crisis? I think the right hon. Lady needs to answer why she would make the cost of living crisis harder for people through the cuts she has just announced?

[Mrs Badenoch]

I asked the Prime Minister about Rosebank. He says that it is a quasi-judicial decision. It is a political decision. Why else did it take the Labour Government two years to approve Jackdaw while the Foreign Secretary was in charge, but now he is gone it happened just like that? This is the real reason they did not do it: the Foreign Secretary instructed Government lawyers not to fight the court case. He called Rosebank “climate vandalism”—but then he also thought that cosying up to Russell Brand would make him Prime Minister, so I do not think we need to trust his judgment. [Interruption.] Labour Members are saying “Shame”—they are right, the Foreign Secretary should be ashamed. Meanwhile, the Chancellor is already banking the tax revenue from Rosebank in his calculations. Why will the Prime Minister not just approve Rosebank?

[The Prime Minister]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Jackdaw decision that the last Government tried to take was struck down, because they made it overtly political—that was why they could not take that decision. The right hon. Lady comes to the House handing out lectures week after week, but maybe she needs to look a little closer to home as to why the last Government failed to take that decision. We will take a further decision on Rosebank in due course, as well as building a renewable energy future, which is what we are also announcing today. We are facing the big issues and we will lay that out in the 10-year plan. This country was going backwards under the Conservative party. We are leading it forward. We are bringing people back together. We are giving people hope. She is voting against the help that we just announced in the Budget. When will she directly address the cost of living crisis in this House?

[Mrs Badenoch]

I ask the questions here and I am asking about Rosebank—it was literally in the Budget. The reason why the Prime Minister will not approve it is because Government Members are all squabbling, or maybe he does not want it hanging over his head at COP. It is not just the Foreign Secretary, because 50 of his MPs do not want it either, led by the current Energy Secretary, and she is only in the job because the Culture Secretary turned it down.

Today the Government are in court defending our right to drill oil and gas off the Falklands. At the same time, they are passing legislation to ban drilling off Scotland. This is ludicrous. Why is it acceptable to drill oil and gas in the Falklands but not in the North sea?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Lady has not been paying attention. We recently approved the Jackdaw gasfield in the North sea—something that she failed to do when she was in government—and through the energy wealth fund created by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, we are using the proceeds to accelerate the delivery of renewables. Today we are announcing two offshore wind projects—off the coast of East Anglia and off the east coast of Scotland—in part funded by the National Wealth Fund.

If the right hon. Lady wants to address energy policy, perhaps we can talk about why energy bills went up and up under the Conservatives. Perhaps we can discuss how they lost public control, lost control of people’s bills and left people paying more and more. We are removing standing charges from gas bills, which will bring people’s bills down, and we are going to do the same by looking at reforming standing charges on electricity bills. We have taken VAT off electricity bills. Also, through all those efforts, we will speed up the delinking of gas and electricity prices, getting bills down over the long term. That is an energy policy, and the Conservative party could have done with one when they were in office.

[Mrs Badenoch]

There was a lot of waffle there, but I did not hear why it is all right to allow oil and gas drilling in the Falklands but not in the North sea. The Prime Minister sounds confused: he did not seem to know that he is legislating to ban oil and gas drilling. The Government are totally adrift—they need consultants to tell them what to think and civil servants to tell them what to do—so we are left with a “do nothing” Budget, a spending review delayed and a 10-year plan outsourced. Meanwhile, the whole country is in limbo. Labour MPs want to pretend that Keir Starmer simply walked off into the sunset, but in reality this man knifed him in the back and now does not know what to do. Is not the truth that they are all sat there shaking their heads, wondering whether it was all worth it?

[The Prime Minister]

I have told the right hon. Lady today what I am doing. Whether she was listening or not, people at home will have heard that I am bringing forward a national care service, when the Conservatives ignored social care for years and years. I am acting to get people’s energy bills down, when the Conservatives did not. I listen to her talking at the Dispatch Box as though they got everything right. A quarter of a million young people became NEETs—not in education, employment or training—between 2021 and 2024, when she was in the Cabinet. The welfare bill rose by £33 billion in her last year in office, when she was in the Cabinet. When will she come to this House with real proposals to address those things, rather than repeating more of the same? Next month, she will see our plan for Britain presented to this House. It will lay a new path for this country to go forward, breaking with the failed policies of the Conservative party. She is going to have to come up with better than that if she is going to take on what we are putting forward.

[Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)]

Q4. As the Prime Minister knows, Heywood is the largest town in Greater Manchester without an express bus service to Manchester city centre. I have pushed for such a service since my election, because I know that it would transform the lives of people in my constituency and transform the economy there. What will the Government do to support Transport for Greater Manchester in delivering that service, and to make sure that people in Heywood have the benefits of buses being brought back under public control?

[The Prime Minister]

The Leader of the Opposition began by talking about the biggest changes in 40 years. We all remember when the Conservative party deregulated buses across this country, and the bus fares that left people paying. This is still happening in many parts of the country, because services are still deregulated. People can pay £3 or £4 for a single journey in many Conservative Members’ constituencies. We will put a £2 cap on those bus fares next year. Because we put the buses under public control in Greater Manchester, and because we reversed 40 years of deregulation, we can introduce the service that my hon. Friend is calling for. I used to support that in my previous job; I cannot speak for the current Mayor of Greater Manchester, but I hope she does the same.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

As we mark Armistice Day, may I join the Prime Minister in honouring the incredible sacrifices made by all those who paid the ultimate price as they served our country? We will remember them. May I also welcome the announcement of new offshore wind farms, and remind the Prime Minister that they are coming in through a Liberal Democrat policy that we brought in when in government?

Our politics has been affected by poisonous ideas, such as the idea that people born and raised in England cannot be English because they are not white. Shamefully, even some in this House have argued for that racist ideology. We must reject it, as the Conservative leader, to her great credit, has done. We should start with the census; when it asks about ethnicity, the only English option is “White English”. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), a proud Englishman, introduced a Bill yesterday to change that, and to create new options such as “Black English” and “Asian English”. Will the Prime Minister support his Bill?

[The Prime Minister]

I echo the right hon. Gentleman’s comments at the start. We all pay tribute to our armed forces today. I also echo him in praising the Leader of the Opposition, as I did from this Dispatch Box a few weeks ago. On some issues, we should rise above party politics; we should recognise when things are completely unacceptable and make common cause against them. I have not looked at the detail of the Bill, but I stand here thinking that I would want to support it, to directly take on the poisonous politics that we have seen from some in this House who are seeking to divide us. We must move on from a decade of division and drift in this country. We must bring people back together. I am interested in working with anyone in this House who shares that aim.

[Ed Davey]

I thank the Prime Minister for that reply, and I hope it means that he is inviting my hon. Friend for a meeting to discuss his Bill. Turning to welfare, we cannot leave young people without the dignity of work and the chance to get on, and we need to bring the welfare bill down, but the blame does not lie with young people. It primarily lies with the Conservatives, who tanked the economy and sent the welfare bill soaring—and Labour has made things worse with its jobs tax. Businesses cannot hire young people in the UK while they are battling unfair taxes and tied up in Brexit red tape, so will the Prime Minister do the single biggest thing to cut welfare and help young people into work: grow the economy by joining the single market?

[The Prime Minister]

No is the answer to that, today. We are honouring our manifesto pledge to have deeper ties. There is the prospect of a deal with Europe that could add up to 0.4% to GDP—[Interruption.] The Opposition laugh at growth in our economy. This is the Conservative party! Any growth on that scale is worth taking, and we will take it. We will seek that deal. On young people, I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Young people need support to get into work. To cut their benefits without that support is wrong. I mentioned a statistic a moment ago: a quarter of a million young people were NEET in the last three years of the last Conservative Government. That is because that Government rejected the report from Sir Kevan Collins that would have given young people better mental health support and other support. That is why we saw the huge rise in the number of young people not in education, employment or training. We need to grow our economy. We need to rethink the support we give to our young people. We need an education system that is both academic and technical—that is balanced between the two—and my right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary will set out those reforms as we embark on our response to the Milburn report next week.

[Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)]

Q5. The north-east has a wealth of innovative defence businesses but receives less than 1% of Ministry of Defence industry funding. That is why there is so much interest in the decision on the Skynet satellite programme, which could bring 500 jobs to my constituency and thousands to the supply chain, and help to reindustrialise the north-east. Can the Prime Minister give an update on when we can expect this important decision and, more broadly, will he meet north-east MPs to discuss how we can put north-east industry at the heart of our national defence?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is a champion for the north-east, and particularly for reindustrialisation, which we are completely committed to in his region. The issue he raises is a live process, and I have to say to him that no final decisions have yet been made, but we are determined that our decision will drive good jobs in his region and reindustrialisation across the country, as well as building the defence and the security of the United Kingdom.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Your Party)]

The whole world is appalled and disgusted at what is now happening in Gaza, where people are dying for want of food and medicine and because of the lack of aid and the terrible flood there. Will the Prime Minister ensure that aid gets to Gaza? And if Israel will not deliver that aid, will he ensure that Britain and other countries deliver aid directly, given the desperation of the people of Gaza, 100,000 of whom have already died? Will he also support an inquiry on our participation in the bombardment of Gaza through the supply of weapons and security information to Israel, so that the truth can be told about the horror that the Palestinian people have faced, and continue to face?

[The Prime Minister]

The humanitarian situation in Gaza remains heartbreaking, and we are doing everything that we can to put pressure on the Israeli Government to allow the necessary aid into Gaza and to lift the restrictions on it. We have also taken further steps on sanctions, particularly in relation to the settlements on the west bank, to make sure that we preserve the viability of a two-state solution. We await the outcome of the negotiations following the Israeli general election, but the right hon. Member can be certain that we will continue to pursue the path that we have set out.

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

Q8. University hospital of North Durham has been mired in a number of controversies in recent years, including the ongoing scandal in breast services. The latest disappointment for my constituents is the withdrawal of plans for A&E expansion, which the trust can no longer fund without external capital support. I commend the efforts of the new leadership team to build public confidence, but it is clear that they alone cannot cure the decline of our hospital. Does the Prime Minister agree that everyone should have access to quality healthcare, free at the point of use, in state-of-the-art facilities, and will he meet me to discuss the urgently needed improvement to our hospital provision in the City of Durham?

[The Prime Minister]

I know there are thousands of women in the north-east affected by the breast surgery scandal that my hon. Friend mentions, and I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary provides all the support that they need to get the help and the answers that they must have. I am also prepared to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the situation regarding hospital services in the north-east, and I will make sure that happens soon.

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

Q2. My constituent Maxwell has spinal muscular atrophy, has used a wheelchair since he was two, and relies on carers every single day. He has a first-class degree and a good job, and like many young people, he wants to save a deposit for a home, but under the social care capital limit, every pound he saves above £23,250 goes directly on his care. The Prime Minister has rightly made social care a priority of this Government, so will he meet Maxwell and me to discuss how we can remove the capital limit, and stop placing a limit on the aspirations of young people like Maxwell?

[The Prime Minister]

It is a very powerful case that the hon. Member makes, and it is unfair—there is no other way of putting it. We are not waiting to make improvements; we are increasing the minimum income guarantee for 150,000 disabled adults. I realise that does not answer the question that he has raised on behalf of Maxwell today, but I am sure he is also speaking for many people across the country. Baroness Casey is conducting her review, and I urge him to put that point to the review. We will have cross-party talks on adult social care before the end of the year.

[Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

Q11. My constituents in Glasgow North regularly raise with me the increase in illegally modified e-bikes travelling at dangerous speeds on our roads and pavements. Online marketplaces are selling unsafe e-bikes and conversion kits that take pedal cycles beyond the legal limits, leaving pedestrians, families and vulnerable people worried for their safety when going about their daily life. Will the Prime Minister set out what action the Government are taking to hold online sellers and marketplaces to account for selling these products?

[The Prime Minister]

We are considering tougher regulations for the sale of non-compliant e-bikes and conversion kits across the UK. We will, of course, work with the Scottish Government to ensure that they apply in Scotland, whatever we decide. I agree with my hon. Friend: the safety risks posed by e-bikes that are going at excess speeds need to be stopped.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Q3. The Prime Minister visited Watford general hospital last week, so he must understand the issues caused by the recent closure of the urgent care centre at Mount Vernon, and that his Government’s decision to delay the rebuild of Watford general hospital is an issue. I want to make sure that my constituents can access high-quality healthcare when they need it, so can the Prime Minister confirm that his Government will get on with the rebuild of Watford general hospital without further delay?

[The Prime Minister]

The Health Secretary and I did visit Watford general. We were very impressed with what is happening at the hospital to address corridor care, and with the improvements that it has made. I know Watford has been waiting a long time for its new hospital. I think we need to look both at Watford general and the Mount Vernon site together in considering what change is made, but I do believe Watford has waited long enough, and I will be working with the Health Secretary to make sure we move quickly on a new hospital for Watford as quickly as possible.

[Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

Q12. When my right hon. Friend was the Mayor of Greater Manchester, he and I had many discussions about the state of public transport in Bolton. Now that he is the Prime Minister and spreading the message of hope, what hope and assurance can he give my constituents that we will finally get the tram in Bolton North East?

[The Prime Minister]

This is one for the Mayor of Greater Manchester rather than for me, but I am aware that a proposal was developed that would bring a tram-train service through Bolton North East. As I said before, I did favour that option in my previous job; I favour it in this job. We will see if we can make a business case to bring it forward.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

Q6. Recent small boat crossings in the direction of the Solent have been spectacularly mishandled. The Government’s failure to communicate with Gosport residents bred misinformation and led to violent protests. It also sent a clear message to the gangs that this is a viable new route. What message does the Prime Minister have for Gosport businesses and properties that were damaged, for residents trapped in their homes in fear, for Hampshire police and for taxpayers left with a bill for over £800,000? Recent events have shown that Gosport is not a suitable place to disembark these boats. Can he reassure my constituents that it will not be used again?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady asks me what message I have for her constituents. The message is that we will work with their Member of Parliament to hold to account those who caused the damage to those properties and businesses, but also to provide the support they need in the situation they are in. I understand she is meeting the Border Security Minister later today to discuss those issues further. Because the Government have been successful in stopping small boat crossings, the gangs are changing their tactics, but we will continue to chase them down. As we do, we will ensure that we learn from what happened and improve the arrangements going forward.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

Q13. Four years after the Down Syndrome Act 2022 was passed, we are still awaiting publication of the statutory guidance that will bring the Act to life. This guidance is essential to improve life chances for people with Down’s syndrome and to guarantee they will receive the support they need and deserve so that they can thrive. Can the Prime Minister confirm when the guidance will be published, and will he agree to meet me so that we can deliver on a long overdue promise made to the Down’s syndrome community?

[The Prime Minister]

I understand that there is a legal challenge to the guidance, but notwithstanding that, we will ensure that it is finalised as soon as possible. I will arrange for the relevant Minister to meet my hon. Friend to give him a full update.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Q7. On Armistice Day, I joined the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in paying tribute to all those who laid down their lives in the service of this country. We all wear our poppies with pride, but what is often forgotten is those millions of men and women who came from across the Commonwealth to serve this country, so I wear the marigold to commemorate the 3.2 million Indians who were the largest volunteer army in both the great war and the second world war and who risked their lives in the service of this country. On Sunday, the Association of Jewish Ex-Servicemen and Women will parade at the Cenotaph. I will have the honour of laying a wreath together with a renowned Holocaust survivor, Susan Pollack, remembering those who were murdered by the Nazis. Will the Prime Minister join me in commemorating and praising all those who give their service to this country?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say what he has just said, and we honour the service of everybody who fought alongside British service personnel fighting Nazism in the second world war. It was uplifting to see the representation of all those communities at the Cenotaph on Sunday. I was there with the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition, and it is always the most moving of moments. But we must never forget the contribution, as he rightly says, of people across the Commonwealth supporting and standing alongside Britain and the people in those countries who made the ultimate sacrifice, too.

[Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)]

Q14. The Prime Minister has rightly made it a priority to ensure that children with special educational needs and disabilities can learn alongside their friends and siblings in mainstream schools, so he will be pleased to hear that Suffolks primary, a pioneering school in my constituency, is already delivering the inclusive education model, championing the Government’s White Paper. Will he join me in congratulating Suffolks on its outstanding work? I know the Prime Minister has one or two things in his diary, but will he consider visiting the school to see for himself this excellent example of inclusive education?

[The Prime Minister]

I would love to do so, when my diary allows. SEND reform is coming through. It is part of what we need to do in response to the Milburn report, to rethink how we support young people growing up, and how we have the right experts on site in our schools to give children the speech and language therapy, and other support that they need, so that they do not fall behind and they do not miss out. I would love to come to see the school at some point, as a beacon of best practice in supporting young people with additional needs.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

Q9. The price of heating oil has doubled in the last year, and more than 9,000 households in the Scottish borders rely on it to heat their homes. Many are vulnerable people; many are pensioners, like Kate from Cockburnspath who told me that she will be sitting at home freezing this winter because she cannot afford to heat her home. She says that support from the Government does not go far enough to help her, so what more will the Prime Minister do to help people who are struggling to pay their heating bills because they are relying on heating oil this winter?

[The Prime Minister]

We have provided extra funding to local authorities to help with precisely the situation that the hon. Gentleman’s constituent is in. We have also provided funding through the Barnett consequentials in relation to VAT on electricity—[Interruption.] If I could just finish the point. We have given extra support to the devolved Administrations—sorry, not in relation to VAT, but in relation to the support we have provided in the Budget. There is extra help that the Scottish Government can use alongside what we have already done, and we will ensure everybody is supported this winter.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

There has been a lot of talk recently about immigrants and the need to frame legislation to ensure they make a contribution. My parents were immigrants, and my mother was a nurse. She was one of the wave that helped to build the NHS after the war. To this day, immigrants make a very important contribution to the NHS and the care system. Does the Prime Minister agree that we should never forget to honour the contribution of generations of immigrants to this society?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend speaks very powerfully on this issue from personal experience. I can also share mine as I saw people from around the world caring for my dad. She is absolutely right that we must celebrate their contribution, as I did in my speech at the party conference. We must take on a politics that seeks to say to those people that they have no place here, because they do.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Q10. Whether the level of military threat from Russia faced by the UK is currently as great as that during the cold war years.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman asks about the Russian threat that we face today compared with the cold war. With rapid changes in technology, including AI, cyber-warfare and autonomous systems, we face new complex threats, which is why we are fully funding the defence investment plan and investing in the modern capabilities needed for the future.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I think that answer suggests that the Prime Minister accepts that the threat we face today is comparable in dangerous intensity to that we faced during the cold war years. If that is the case, may I urge him to try to persuade his fellow Ministers to stop using the standard line that the Government have made the greatest increase in defence spending “since the end of the cold war”? At the end of the cold war, the threat largely declined, but we have to look at the level of spending during the cold war, which was regularly at 4.5% to 5% or more during the 1980s. As someone who has criticised successive Governments for cuts I am not trying to make a partisan point, but please stop making a comparison between the post-cold war years and now. The threat we face now is similar to that of the cold war years, and our defence investment has to match that level.

[The Prime Minister]

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no complacency here. I understand the seriousness of the points that he is making, but, in the two years that this Government have been in office, we have seen the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war period. That is important, and that will continue. The Chancellor set out a path to increased defence spending as we go through the next decade to honour our NATO commitments, but we have to recognise that the threat is different; it is multifaceted, and we will address it on every level.

[Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has rightly championed reindustrialisation. That is a powerful vision that resonates in Rossendale and Darwen and across the country; through it, people see the opportunity for good jobs in the places that need them the most. The Budget lay out the framework for reindustrialisation as an engine for growth and national resilience. Does he agree that the next step is to embed a truly ambitious reindustrialisation strategy in his 10-year plan? Will he meet me and members of the 90-strong Reindustrialisation Research Group to discuss how we can achieve that together?

[The Prime Minister]

I will meet the group, and I agree with my hon. Friend. The 10-year plan must lay out a compelling vision for the reindustrialisation of Britain.

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

Q15. The Chancellor has acknowledged that Scotland could have had a £1 trillion wealth fund from oil and gas, but instead we have seen no fund and 1,000 jobs lost every month. Before the Prime Minister jets off to COP31, will he commit to a Scottish wealth fund to ringfence revenues from Scotland’s waters for Scotland’s renewables future, or is he content to continue Labour’s deindustrialisation of Scotland, just like Thatcher in the ’80s?

[The Prime Minister]

That is a very unfair comment, if I may say so, on the very day that the National Wealth Fund has committed £1 billion of funding to support offshore wind off the east coast of Scotland. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would stand up and welcome that announcement.

Bill Presented

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Commons Chamber

Online Platforms (Regulation) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Manuela Perteghella, supported by Caroline Voaden and Sorcha Eastwood, presented a Bill to impose duties on providers of online platforms in relation to the prevention of harm arising from user-generated content and interactions; to make provision about transparency in content moderation, algorithms and advertising practices; to establish a regulator of online platforms; to make provision about the powers and duties of that regulator, including provision relating to complaints, investigations, penalties and redress; to make consequential provision relating to the powers and duties of other regulators; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 March 2027 and to be printed (Bill 180).

Compulsory Purchase (Fees)

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Commons Chamber

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

12:43

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about excluding legal and professional fees from compensation payable by local authorities to persons whose properties are, in certain circumstances, subject to a compulsory purchase order; and for connected purposes.

That is a mouthful, so let me explain what I mean. Across our country, in towns, villages and city centres, there are buildings that tell a story. Some tell a story of success—an old department store brought back into use as housing, a former bank transformed into a community hub or an empty shop becoming a thriving new local business—but too many tell a different story. There are buildings with boarded-up windows, leaking roofs and even trees growing out of them, in a famous case in Stafford town centre. There are buildings left to deteriorate year after year while local people look on in frustration. They are right to be frustrated, because those buildings are not simply an eyesore; they drag down neighbouring businesses and homes, discourage investment, create safety concerns and undermine confidence in the future of our high streets and town centres. In too many cases, those buildings are not victims of circumstance, but of neglect—neglect by owners who have allowed their properties to fall into serious disrepair while communities bear the consequences.

In my own constituency, the former jobcentre in Greyfriars has become a notorious example of what happens when responsibility is abandoned. Left to rot by its owners, it has been vandalised, it has become overgrown, and it is now a magnet for antisocial behaviour. It is also a danger, with fires that have put other local buildings at risk. However, this Bill was originally inspired by a much-loved country pub in the village of Sutton in my constituency. It was bought six years ago by someone who wished to develop the site, but planning permission was refused. In the six years it has lain empty, it has deteriorated beyond recognition. It has been stripped of its period features by criminals, and not only is it now a blight on the village, but it is dangerous, attracting antisocial behaviour.

My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) has shared with me the ongoing saga of Northgate House in her constituency—despite years of effort, that eyesore still dominates the Darlington landscape. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge), one rogue landlord is blighting entire town centre streets such as Boulevard and Waterloo Street. He is refusing to bring his properties back into use and is allowing them to rot, bringing the local area down with them. People cannot understand why communities are expected to live with the consequences of landlord neglect while local authorities are left carrying the burden of putting things right.

Councils do have the power to act—where necessary, they can use compulsory purchase orders to acquire neglected properties and bring them back into productive use. Those powers are an important tool, but there is a problem. Under the current system, when a council has exhausted all other avenues and is forced to pursue a compulsory purchase order, it is generally expected not only to pay the owner for the property, but to cover that owner’s legal and professional fees. In other words, a council can find itself paying the bills of the very person whose neglect has created the problem in the first place. That is not fairness, it is not accountability, and it is certainly not conducive to the regeneration of our towns.

The principle behind my Bill is simple: there should be no reward for neglect. That is why I launched my “no reward for neglect” campaign; it is why people up and down the country have signed petitions, written to me and shared examples of neglected buildings at the heart of their communities; and it is why I am bringing this Bill before the House today. The Bill would remove the automatic entitlement to recover legal and professional fees where an owner has deliberately allowed a building to fall into disrepair and that neglect has contributed to the need for compulsory purchase.

To be clear, this is not a blanket removal of rights, nor is it aimed at the vast majority of property owners and landowners who work hard, meet their obligations and contribute positively to their communities. It is directed at a specific problem: those who allow properties to deteriorate year after year, ignore opportunities to improve or sell them, and then profit from their inaction while the public purse bears the cost. In those circumstances, the public purse should not fund those owners’ legal and professional costs as well. Indeed, a similar principle already exists in our heritage system. For listed buildings, we recognise that owners should not benefit from creating the circumstances that require public intervention. This Bill applies the same common-sense principle to compulsory purchase.

If we are serious about revitalising our towns and high streets and delivering growth in every postcode that people can feel and see, we have to be honest about the barriers that councils face. Many local authorities are reluctant to pursue compulsory purchase, even when the public interest is clear. Partly that is because of complexity, and partly it is because of capacity—our councils have been starved of resources—but very often, it is because of cost and risk. Council leaders know that every pound they spend on enforcement is a pound that is not being spent on frontline services. They know that legal costs can escalate and that they are likely to end up paying not just their own advisers, but those acting for the neglectful owner. That creates hesitation, and hesitation allows the decline to continue.

If we want councils to use the powers that Parliament has given them, those powers need to be practical, not just theoretical. This reform would remove one important barrier, and at a crucial moment. The Government have rightly renewed their focus on high streets, regeneration and tackling dereliction, but successful regeneration is about more than just bricks and mortar. What matters is not simply taking neglected buildings out of the hands of absentee landlords, but what we choose to do with them next. Organisations such as Power to Change have highlighted the enormous potential of vacant high street space, and we know that the high street of the future will include homes, public services, cultural spaces, workspaces and community hubs alongside traditional businesses.

Councils hold powers that community organisations, local charities and residents just do not have. Where appropriate, councils should use them to unlock opportunities for community businesses, social enterprises and local organisations with the commitment and knowledge to keep those buildings productive for the long term. Indeed, I would love to see compulsory purchase used more often as a route into community ownership, because when local people have a stake in a building’s future, they have a stake in its success, and the rewards of regeneration are felt by the people who live there, rather than extracted elsewhere.

This Bill will not solve every challenge facing our high streets. It will not bring every neglected building back into use overnight, but it does address a clear unfairness and strengthen accountability. It sends a message about where responsibility should lie. Those who own buildings have responsibilities as well as rights. Communities should not have to live with the consequences of landlord neglect, and councils should certainly not have to pay for it. The people of Stafford know exactly what that looks like when they walk past our former jobcentre. Communities across Britain know exactly what it looks like, too. This Bill is ultimately about fairness, accountability and a simple principle: those who neglect buildings should not be rewarded, while those committed to the future of their communities should be empowered. There should be no reward for neglect. I commend this Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Leigh Ingham, Dan Aldridge, Chris Bloore, Dr Beccy Cooper, Maya Ellis, Tom Hayes, Adam Jogee, Lola McEvoy, Melanie Onn, Sarah Smith, Gareth Snell and Alan Strickland present the Bill.

Leigh Ingham accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 February 2027, and to be printed (Bill 179).

Point of Order

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Commons Chamber

12:53

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to utilise a rare device, which is a point of order that I believe is genuinely a matter for the Chair. Some weeks ago, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero issued a determination on a development consent order based upon what I believe to be false figures supplied by the National Grid to the Planning Inspectorate. I raised that as a named day question, to be answered on the fourth of this month. That answer was finally provided on Monday of this week, many days late. There usually is a very good reason that Members table named day questions, as in this case, and it is that they want an answer on that named day. Mr Speaker, can you use your good offices to ensure that when Members table named day questions, they receive the courtesy of a proper and timely response?

[Mr Speaker]

I know how important this matter is to the right hon. Member, his constituents and other constituencies around his, so I am very disappointed. I hope the Treasury Bench have heard the comments, and I will be taking this up with the Leader of the House. It is not acceptable. MPs are elected to serve their constituents. When they put in or ask a question, it should be answered in good time. With a named day question, it should be answered, as in its title, by that named day.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

We are not going to continue the argument. That is not the best thing to do at this stage.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker—

[Mr Speaker]

No, I don’t think so. Take the first hint; don’t require a second.

Opposition Day

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Commons Chamber

5th Allotted Day

Welfare

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I call the shadow Secretary of State.

12:49

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House calls on the Government to commit to bringing working-age welfare spending down in this Parliament.

The day after the Budget, we heard the Chancellor on the radio telling the country some good news: the welfare bill would come down in this Parliament. But hold your horses, Treasury spinners hit the phones just minutes later to say that they could not commit to that. Even No. 10 intervened to say that it has never set an arbitrary target or timetable. By 5 pm, the Chancellor had done a remarkably rapid reverse ferret. He popped up on Channel 4 to tell us that the Government will not bring down welfare this Parliament after all. What a mess. It was, “Oh yes, we will,” then, “Oh no, we won’t.” It is a bit early for pantomime season. Seriously, what is going on over on the Government Benches?

The bill for working-age welfare is £183 billion a year, and it is set to rise to more than £200 billion. Taxes are up, borrowing is up, the cost of borrowing is up, and the Government cannot tell us how they will fund 3% of GDP on defence, on today of all days. They said that they would not put up taxes on working people, but paying for all that welfare will cost working households £50,000 in taxes over this Parliament. The country cannot afford this Labour Government, but it is what we have come to expect from them—no plan, no conviction and no backbone, just ducking tough choices and leaving working families to pay the price.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

My hon. Friend mentions that the Government have no plan, and that includes not having a plan to fund defence. Does she agree that there is no social security without national security, and that threats to the UK are real, present, multiple and serious? Putting off increasing defence spending until later on in the autumn or perhaps even later is a dereliction of duty. The first duty of any Government is to protect our constituents and this nation, and putting off defence spending increases is putting our nation at risk.

[Helen Whately]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The first duty of Government is national security. We will not even have social security if we do not have national security. We have to find a way to fund defence. There is no time to waste. As I will set out in my speech, there are plenty of opportunities to make substantial welfare savings, to cut taxes, to bring down the deficit and to fund defence.

To be fair, some Government Members understand the situation that the country is in. Some of them know that their constituents understand it, too. That is why they sometimes go through the motions, as with their amendment today, albeit they hid it at the very end, with some wording that they want to “bring down the benefits bill”. I wonder whether Labour Whips were hoping that their leftie Back Benchers would not read that far. Though Labour talks about bringing down the bill, there is no date. It is the same thing when the Prime Minister says that he wants to bring welfare spending down

“as soon as we possibly can.”

It is nonsense. Without a date or plan, it is just empty words. No one trusts this Government on welfare. Apparently there will not even be any savings in the Prime Minister’s 10-year plan.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

The hon. Member says that we do not have a plan to bring down welfare spending. We are putting £3.5 billion into getting young people back into work. Can the hon. Member tell me how the Opposition arrived at their £36 billion figure—the Institute for Fiscal Studies does not know—and, indeed, how much they will put into getting young people back into work?

[Helen Whately]

I will set out how we will achieve our £36 billion in savings, if the hon. Gentleman will just sit back and listen. All we have heard from him and his party are plans to spend more money, and he simply reiterated that just now. We do not bring the benefits bill down by spending more money.

This is not just about the welfare bill. Let us talk about what is happening to our country. A total of 6.7 million people of working age are not working and are on out-of-work benefits, and 700,000 of them are under the age of 25. This is a disaster. All those young people are sitting at home whiling away the day instead of going out to work and getting on with their lives. One in four adults now identify as disabled. Claims for personal independence payment have doubled since 2019, but the country is not twice as sick. Hundreds of thousands of households claimed more than £32,000 in benefits last year, and some of them claimed more than £60,000. That is almost twice the average take-home pay of a British worker. People who are working are asking, “Why do I bother?” We cannot expect taxpayers to keep funding a welfare system that is clearly so broken and so unfair.

[Mark Pritchard]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her generosity in giving way. I am sure she would like to see the details at some point, but is she aware that some people are actually getting mortgages to buy houses on the basis of the benefits they receive, and that those on benefits who can save a little are actually using benefits to save for a deposit? I am in favour of cutting benefits as long as we protect the most vulnerable, but it is fundamentally unfair that people in my constituency who are working in factories, on farms and in offices and are struggling to save for their first property or pay their mortgage should be outdone by those who are being paid by the taxpayer to sit at home. They can have benefits, but they should not take advantage.

[Helen Whately]

That is an important point. Most people want to see a welfare system that supports those who really need help. They want to see a welfare system that is a safety net, not a lifestyle choice.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

Following the scenario that we have just heard, my understanding is that the Conservatives believe that someone can pay their mortgage for 20 years, be retired on grounds of ill health or disability and then not pay the remainder of the mortgage, because it should not be possible for those who do not work to conclude their mortgages. Is that the position of the Conservative party?

[Helen Whately]

It sounds to me as if the hon. Member has wilfully misunderstood and misrepresented what my right hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) said a moment ago.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Can we please be a little bit careful about the use of words such as “misrepresented”?

[Helen Whately]

My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that that was not the intention of the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis).

Reforming welfare is not cruel to people on benefits—quite the opposite. What is cruel is failing to reform welfare, parking young people on benefits while taxing and regulating jobs out of existence, and telling people that a handout is the answer to their problems rather than going out to work. Truly what is cruel is what the Government are doing to hard-working families: squeezing them with tax rises, higher inflation and higher bills so that there is less to go round at the end of the month, all to fund the lifestyle of “Benefits Street”.

[The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)]

I agree with the shadow Secretary of State that failing to reform welfare is a very serious failure indeed. Her party was in government for 14 years. Will she tell us in which years spending on welfare fell?

[Helen Whately]

The right hon. Gentleman’s intervention is extremely timely, as that is literally the next bit of my speech. I thank him for taking me on.

The Government like to say that all this happened on our watch. Let me remind them what actually happened. Last time Labour left power—no surprises—we inherited high unemployment, a rising welfare bill and more than a million young people not in education, employment or training. During the 2010s we brought down unemployment, brought down the number of NEETs and brought down the welfare bill. In the 2020s, as we all know, covid and lockdowns accelerated the rise in claims for mild mental health conditions and neurodiversity, and the number of NEETs did go up, although it did not reach the level it is at today under Labour. When this Government showed up, they had no plan, and in fact they have only made things worse.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

rose—

[Daniel Francis]

rose—

[Helen Whately]

I will not give way again. They will have their opportunity to speak in due course.

Let me remind the House of the things that the Labour Government have done—of which, no doubt, they are proud—to make benefits easier to claim and more generous. As soon as they entered office they cancelled our sicknote reforms, our PIP reforms, and our plans to update the work capability assessment to reflect the option to work from home. Then, one year in, they cobbled together some poorly thought through changes to save just £5 billion from the benefits bill. Even that was too much for Labour Back Benchers. In a moment of utter shambles—we have never seen anything like it—on the Floor of the House, in the middle of a debate, amid a flurry of concessions, they ripped up their own legislation. In true Labour fashion, the Bill ended up costing money instead of saving any.

One of those concessions was the Timms review of personal independence payment. I have a great deal of respect for the Disability Minister, but what hope is there for his review, given that it started out as a bargaining chip to buy off angry Back Benchers? No wonder it has ruled out making any savings. In fact, its recommendations so far will actually increase the benefits bill. It says that PIP is not generous enough and too hard to claim, although we know that one in six people on PIP admit that they face no extra cost for their condition, and “sickfluencers” sell scripts and model answers so that people can game the system.

Desperate to make his MPs like him again after his savings fiasco, Keir Starmer scrapped the two-child benefit cap despite promising that he would keep it. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Labour Members are cheering again. I remember that they cheered at the time, but they got rid of him anyway. Let me remind them that nearly half a million households received an extra £5,000 in benefits, and about 75,000 received between £10,000 and £21,000 more. That is more than the income of someone working full time, just in extra money. People can see that this is a benefits bonanza.

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

More than half the households to have benefited from the lifting of the two-child limit have somebody who is in work. I wonder what the hon. Lady would say to those people, given that she is talking as if they do not work or contribute. The lifting of the limit will have helped their household, kept them in work and helped their children to not be in poverty.

[Helen Whately]

What would the hon. Lady say to people who are not on benefits, who ask, “Can we afford to have another child?”, and decide that they cannot? The fact is that someone who is in work and decides to have another child will not be given a pay rise.

None of what I am saying should come as a surprise, given that 204 Labour Members have more PIP claimants in their constituencies than the size of their majorities. No wonder the Welfare Secretary has said that all his MPs ask him is, who can they tax more in order to pay more benefits? Most Labour Members see no problem with the size of the welfare bill. The Disability Minister himself said that

“the current level of spending is not a great concern”,

but some of them know that the anger is building out there. People who work are getting tired of being taxed to the hilt to pay for people who do not. Some Labour MPs will desperately want to reassure their constituents. They will be hoping that the Timms and Milburn reviews will give them some succour, but they will not face the facts, and neither will they bring down the benefits bill. Labour spin doctors may try to say otherwise, but nobody is buying it.

The Conservatives are the only ones with a plan that backs welfare savings—no ifs, no buts. Our reforms will save £36 billion.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

How?

[Helen Whately]

The hon. Member asks “How?” from a sedentary position. I have our plan with me here and, if he will just listen, I will set it out.

As I said, our reforms will save £36 billion. When the Prime Minister was asked about them, he said that they were just a number. He could not be more wrong. Savings are important, but reforming the welfare system is a good thing to do in its own right. We have not just plucked a big round number out of thin air; it takes hard graft to work out who should get support and what help they should get. It also involves saying who will not get benefits any more, which is not something that welfare party Members will ever have the courage to do.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Lady knows that I always try to find cross-party consensus where possible. [Interruption.] I know—sometimes it is difficult, right? She referred to the Timms review. I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Minister is leading that review, because he is absolutely the right man for the job. Does she recognise that one of the things that the Timms review is looking at is the importance of bringing back in-person assessments for PIP? Those were scrapped by the previous Government. I am sure that she will come up with reasons for why that happened, but does she not recognise that it is good to bring them back? In-person assessments mean that we can get PIP to the people who need it, and fraudulent claims will go down. I did not mention Harlow—sorry!

[Helen Whately]

The hon. Member—for Harlow—has indeed found an opportunity for consensus across the House. We do want to see face-to-face assessments brought back. In fact, we want to see the Government get on with it—the sooner, the better.

If the Government are asking people to fund our welfare system, that system needs to do what the public want it to do. Our plan is grounded in five clear and widely held principles: fairness; contribution; responsibility; welfare as a safety net, not a lifestyle choice; and living within our means. Unlike the Timms review, we will not shy away from reforming sickness and disability benefits. We should not be telling millions of people that they need handouts from the state for milder conditions, neurodiversity and anxiety. The state is telling people that what matters is what they cannot do or what they find difficult, not what they can do. We will stop giving PIP for mild mental health conditions and routine back and joint pain, and shift from cash handouts to support, backed by an extra £1 billion of funding. This will save £13.7 billion a year.

The same tragedy is unfolding in children’s benefits. The number of child disability living allowance claims for behavioural conditions, learning difficulties and ADHD has doubled since 2020, as Policy Exchange’s recent excellent paper has highlighted. Even the Government’s own adviser, Professor Fonagy, has said that the actual prevalence is not going up at the same rate, yet half a million more children will be signed on under this Government. That is half a million children being told that they have something wrong with them, that they cannot succeed and that they need handouts, which can be up to £20,000 a year. I have heard stories of children saying that they do not want these labels foisted on them, but they are not being given a choice. Child disability living allowance is a conveyor belt on to PIP and then a clear path to becoming another of the 1 million NEETs, so we will reform DLA. Yes, cash should go to the families of seriously disabled children, and we will provide £1 billion of extra support for those with milder conditions. After that, we will save £2.8 billion from these reforms.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is not often that I disagree with the hon. Lady, but I have to put this on the record. In my constituency, a large number of children are assessed by specialists, be it privately or through the NHS, and the number is rising greatly. They are assessed by professionals, who agree that they have ADHD, dyslexia or another challenging disability. The figures in my constituency tell me that things are getting worse, and the medical evidence proves it. Does the hon. Lady not agree?

[Helen Whately]

I did refer to the Government’s own review and the work of Professor Fonagy, because that review says that the prevalence is not rising at the same rate as the claims. Clearly, something must be done to make sure that assessments are being done properly. That is very serious and it requires further work.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

The broader question is not so much whether the rates are going up, but whether having any of these diagnoses should preclude people from working.

[Helen Whately]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point, and—

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Helen Whately]

I am responding to an intervention, if the hon. Lady will give me a moment.

There is a really important point to be made. Following this debate, I will no doubt receive a lot of criticism about some of the things I say from people who are neurodiverse. However, many people who have an ADHD diagnosis who are in work will respond by talking about the strengths that they believe their ADHD gives them. In fact, if he does not mind my mentioning it, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), who is sitting beside me, has recently received an ADHD diagnosis and has had the courage to talk about what that means for him. We should talk about what people can do, not what they cannot.

[Marsha De Cordova]

rose—

[Mark Pritchard]

rose—

[Helen Whately]

I will make a little progress.

Britain cannot be a cash machine for the world. Migrants come here believing that we will give them money, free healthcare and a house. This has to change. We will stop giving benefits and social housing to foreign nationals with indefinite or limited leave to remain, because being British has to count for something. That will save £9.5 billion and free up 230,000 social homes for British families who are stuck waiting. Labour Members should think about how much that will help British families facing homelessness.

We will save £1 billion by fixing loopholes in the household benefit cap and stopping households on benefits claiming endless cash, and a further £1 billion by rooting out fraud and error. Working families do not get a pay rise when they have another child, and families on welfare should not do so either, so we will bring back the two-child cap and save £3 billion. We will save an extra £4.5 billion by reforming housing benefit, which will include reforms that both Onward and the IFS have argued for. There will be no more asking taxpayers to pay for people on benefits to live in places where working people cannot afford to live, and we will save another half a billion pounds by tackling long-term unemployment. People who could be working but choose not to do so will have their benefits cut by a third after six months and be put on to a card, instead of receiving cash. Some people call this a nanny state measure, but it is not. It is not their money; it is taxpayers’ money.

Labour Members could show today that they understand the anger out there. They could show that they have found their moral compass—or are they going to keep on backing “Benefits Street”? We know where we stand. The Conservatives are on the side of people who get up, go to work and pay their taxes. They are the ones who fund our welfare system to support the seriously sick and disabled, and people who fall on hard times. Most people think our approach is the right thing to do. What they will not accept is being taken for a ride. We do not take their hard graft for granted, and it is time for Labour Members to decide where they stand.

13:19

[The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:

“notes that the previous Government left over one million young people not in education, employment or training, while overseeing a £33 billion rise in the welfare bill in its final year alone; recognises that since the General Election one million more people are in work and 397,000 more people are economically active; welcomes the imminent publication of the Milburn and Timms reviews; and supports the Government’s commitment to deliver welfare reforms that break down barriers to employment, support more people into good, secure work and bring down the benefits bill.”

The welfare system that the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) has just been criticising is the one that her party designed and built, and then failed to reform when the Conservatives were in office. They failed abjectly on its financial cost and on its human cost. Over 14 years, they utterly failed to reform the system. She said at one stage that they had cut the welfare bill. I asked her in how many of those 14 years the bill fell, and she did not answer the question—not surprisingly—because the answer is none: it never fell in that 14-year period.

On the Conservatives’ watch, 2.8 million people were out of work due to long-term sickness. Progress on the disability employment gap stalled. It fell steadily under the last Labour Government, but it barely shifted during their 14 years in office. The number of young people not in education, employment or training went up by a quarter of a million just in their last few years in power. The number of children in poverty went up by hundreds of thousands, setting back their life chances and making them much more likely to be not in education, employment or training as young adults. Welfare spending rose by £33 billion in their final year in government alone.

[Dr Mullan]

The Minister is berating us on the question of spending during our time in government, arguing that we did not bring it down, but can he name a single one of those years in which the Labour Opposition asked us to bring it down?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent claimed that spending had been reduced; it never was. That never happened, and it would not happen under the proposals she talked about, as I will come to in a moment.

These latest ill thought through proposals show that the Conservatives have learned nothing from their time in government. They are making exactly the same mistakes all over again in opposition: crude cuts to put more people into poverty; more people pushed on to disability benefits; 1 million young people not in education, employment or training; and an explosion in the welfare bill. Those are crude cuts, with no thought for the human costs, which means that savings will never materialise. How much would their proposals increase child poverty? How much would they increase homelessness? How much would they add to their costs of failure?

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I have a great deal of time for the Minister, and we have worked together on many welfare and other issues in the past, but does he not recognise that in the five-year period between 2010 and 2015, the number of workless households fell by 600,000? Can he please explain to the House, including his hon. Friends, why his party when in opposition—after the financial crisis and the former Labour Government had let unemployment go up—voted against every single welfare reform measure put forward by that Conservative Government?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Let me tell the right hon. Lady about one of the welfare reform measures in that period. As she will well remember, disability living allowance was replaced by the personal independence payment in 2013. We were told by the Conservatives that that would save £2 billion a year. That saving never, ever materialised: it was never delivered. In 2017, they said they would save hundreds of millions a year by scrapping the higher benefit, on top of the universal credit standard allowance, payable to people in the intermediate category with limited capability to work. What happened was that large numbers moved instead on to the highest rate—up to the limited capability for work-related activity category. In that case, it was not simply that the saving did not materialise, which it certainly did not, but that they ended up spending a lot more. Even worse, once people had LCWRA status, the system no longer offered them help to find work. Those people were completely abandoned, which was a big part of the reason why this Government inherited 2.8 million people who were economically inactive on health grounds.

[Mark Pritchard]

The Minister has been in this place a very long time, and the whole House knows his experience on pensions and welfare reform. Can I just encourage him not to overextend his response today ahead of the Milburn report? There may be some contradictions between what he says today and what Lord Milburn says in his report about the importance of getting people into work and how that is compassionate. The most compassionate thing is getting people off benefits and into work, not topping up their benefits endlessly. He may find that the Milburn report takes a different view from some of the—forgive me—ideological points he has been making.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I have not been ideological at all; I am just telling the House what the previous Government did. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I am looking forward to the publication of the Milburn report, which, as the Prime Minister has just told us, will take place next week.

[Daniel Francis]

I have been a member of the Labour party for 32 years, and I believe that being a member of the Labour party means supporting people in work. However, I have heard Conservative Members and the shadow Secretary of State repeat the claim today that everything was the fault of covid. Yet the statistics, both the absolute numbers and in percentage terms, from my borough—the London borough of Bexley—rose more from spring 2022 to spring 2024 than they did from spring 2020 to spring 2022, so the fault was not covid. The fault was that the Conservatives lost control of the system. Why, therefore, do they have any credibility in arguing this case?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the increase in the number of NEETs at the end of the Conservatives’ term in office was particularly staggering.

Just setting out a list that adds up to a big number does not solve the problem. The Conservatives should have realised that by now. Theirs was a catastrophic record—waste, lost potential, moral failure—and we are not going to leave that unchanged. Too often, their system was writing people off instead of giving people the help and support they need. We are absolutely determined to fix the system we inherited, in the interests both of those who depend on benefits and of taxpayers who pay for them.

We have already narrowed the gap between what people get on the health element and the standard allowance in universal credit. That feature of the system, which the Conservatives left behind, was forcing people to aspire to be classed as too sick to work. The social security system simply should not force people to do that. The system should be encouraging people to look for work and providing the support to make work feasible. That is what we are reforming the system to do.

We are restoring face-to-face assessments for health benefits, and I am glad the shadow Secretary of State supports that. The number collapsed under the Tories, as they were never reinstated after the pandemic. We have also started to change the equation under which the last Government spent £25 on benefits for every £1 spent on opportunity, because the best way to bring benefits spending down is to put opportunity at the heart of the system and get people into work.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for setting out a very distinct way forward. None of us in this House on either side of this Chamber is against sensible savings in benefits, which are welcome, but that can never, ever be at the cost of the genuinely disabled or the terminally ill. I always try to be helpful to the Minister in these debates. Gordon Lyons, the Minister for Communities in the Northern Ireland Assembly, has taken a zero-tolerance approach to benefit fraud. By ramping up investigations, and tackling and catching benefit fraudsters, he has saved £60 million in the last year. Does the Minister agree that tackling fraud and getting those who can work into jobs has to be the way forward?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the importance of tackling fraud—my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment took the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery Bill) through this House—and about ensuring there is always support for those who have no alternative but to depend on the social security system, and we will always do so.

Since the general election, 1 million more people are in work and the rate of increase in welfare spending as a share of GDP over the new Office for Budget Responsibility forecast is expected to be half what it was in the previous Parliament. That is very positive progress, but there is a great deal more to do, and turning that inactivity-opportunity equation around is key for young people, because the longer they are left on benefits or out of work at the start of what should be their working lives, the harder it is to come off those benefits, and the worse and longer lasting are the consequences. That is why we are making a £2.5 billion additional investment in the youth guarantee to get more young people earning or learning.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

The Minister is outlining the progress he wants to make in getting people back into work, and I know he has put a lot of hard work into that, but the reality, as we know from talking to businesses, is that they do not want to employ younger people now, because of the decisions taken by the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer: lowering the threshold for national insurance and increasing employer national insurance; increasing the minimum wage at a higher rate than for older people; and passing the Employment Rights Act 2025. Businesses perceive it to be too great a risk to be worth hiring somebody who does not have the experience others may have. I say openly to the Minister that those issues must be addressed if he is to open up the market and get young people back into work.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

We are taking initiatives to do exactly that. Contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I would say that employers want very much to give opportunities to young people, because they know that their future depends on that.

[Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I will make a little more headway and then will gladly give way to the hon. Lady.

We are increasing, for example, the number of youth apprenticeships to reverse the 40% decline in starts in a decade that kicked away a vital first step in the career ladder for many. I can remember, as I think will others, Tory Ministers year after year announcing apprenticeship targets that never got anywhere near being achieved. On more work experience places, the right hon. Gentleman may have heard the recent announcement from the British Retail Consortium. Employers want to give young people a chance to break the “no experience, no job” cycle. There is a £3,000 hiring incentive to help employers who take a chance on young people, on top of the existing employer national insurance contributions relief.

I will give way to the hon. Lady and then I will need to make some headway.

[Alison Griffiths]

I thank the Minister for giving way. He will know that employers across all our constituencies, and particularly those in hospitality, who are typically among the most prolific employers of youngsters, are telling all of us on both sides of the House that the Government’s jobs tax, the Employment Rights Act 2025 and the increase in the national minimum wage for youngsters is pricing them out of the market. Will he reconsider?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I have told the hon. Lady about the announcement that the British Retail Consortium has made. Hospitality employers also want young people to have opportunities in their businesses, and I think we will be hearing more about that before too long.

We have youth hubs being set up in every community to offer wraparound health, housing and employment support. I visited mine in Newham last week, hosted by West Ham United Community Foundation at the Foundry in Beckton. It was full of activity and optimism for the young people who were there. For long-term unemployed young people, there is a guaranteed job fully subsidised by the Government for six months, which from next April we will fast-track for young disabled people after just three months.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Can I just say to him very politely—he knows the House respects the work he has done on this issue and his understanding of the broad picture—that none of those interventions would be required were it not as a direct result of Treasury policy? Change Treasury policy and employers will employ people of all abilities and all ages across the country. He is destroying job creation and then expecting plaudits for providing additional taxpayer money to subsidise people to create jobs that his Government are destroying.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his politeness, but the NEETs figure rocketed in the last three years of the Tory Government and that was not caused by a national insurance change. We are increasing the employment rate, making progress and tackling the terrible problems left behind by the previous Government. I will give way one final time and then I really must make progress.

[Chris Vince]

I thank the Minister for giving way, and I will make sure I mention Harlow in this intervention. One of the things that I think the previous Government got wrong—I say this as a former teacher—is that they narrowed the curriculum. That meant young people who would have benefited from more vocational, practical courses were missing out on the opportunity to train. That is something Harlow College has done very well. I invite the Minister to see the courses it provides to get the long-term unemployed into training and employment. Will he confirm that he is working with the Department for Education to ensure that we have a broader curriculum to cater for everybody’s needs?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Yes, I will. My hon. Friend will know that we have a joint Minister between the Department for Education and the Department for Work and Pensions to help us to make progress in exactly the way he describes.

It was disappointing to hear the shadow Secretary of State and other Opposition Members dismiss the support that we are providing. She would hear quite different views if she spoke to the young people hired under our jobs guarantee. Getting their first experience of a real paid job is a life-changing boost for a young person. It means an enormous amount to them and it is the crucial first break that they need, which we are determined they should have. They were not getting that under the previous Government. The truth is that people do want to work. Conservatives sometimes talk about strivers versus shirkers, and people making a mockery of the system—there was something of that in the hon. Lady’s remarks earlier. Deriding the efforts of people who may well be up against tough odds but who want to make a go of things is not the right way forward. This Government will stand alongside those people.

[Alison Griffiths]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

No, I am going to make some progress.

Anyone can find themselves in need of support at different times in their life. It will not be divisive rhetoric or public shaming that helps them to get on to the right track to make their contribution; it will be giving them a chance. That is what we are determined to do.

We have made a very important start not just with the changes to universal credit, the Right to Try scheme and the youth guarantee, but with more investment in employment support for long-term unemployed disabled people through Pathways to Work. We have 1,000 Pathways to Work advisers reaching out to people who the Tories just gave up on. They wrote them off as too sick to work and did nothing at all to help them. We know that many of those people want to work and they know they can if they have the right support. That is what we are providing for them.

We are encouraged by the early results coming out of our Connect to Work programme, providing tailored support for disabled people and others faced with complex barriers to work. The commissioning of that programme has been devolved to local government across England and Wales, because we know that councils are best placed to know in their local area who can provide the support that is needed, bringing together employment support, education, colleges, skills providers and the NHS to deliver the help that people need. We are publishing the results for each area every quarter, so that everybody can see how things are going and extra help can be provided in places where it is needed.

Sir Charlie Mayfield’s “Keep Britain Working” review has been looking at what more employers can do to make workplaces more welcoming to jobseekers with health impairments, and more accommodating to people who experience a health problem in the course of their employment. There is a great deal of employer enthusiasm for this, because employers recognise the benefits they can get from retaining their employees, with their skills and experience, and ensuring that they are supported to thrive in work.

[Alison Griffiths]

I thank the Minister for being so generous with his time. I would like to share the feedback I received from a business group in my constituency just before the Budget. What they tell me is that they would love to be enthusiastic about hiring and bringing on more young people, but they are feeling absolutely shackled by the taxes and regulations that are being imposed on them, layer upon layer.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The British Retail Consortium recently announced a programme of 100,000 work experience opportunities and jobs for young people. There is a lot of employer enthusiasm here. Sir Charlie Mayfield, who I was talking about, started working up his ideas with 60 vanguard employers, after publishing his report a year ago. The vanguard group is now up to 230. With regional leadership across the UK, Keep Britain Working is working with another 400 employers, mostly small and medium-sized enterprises, to test and develop better approaches to managing health and disability in the workplace. We are looking at the reform of Disability Confident and we are recruiting an extra 480 staff to turn around Access to Work applications more quickly.

[Alison Griffiths]

rose—

[Sir Stephen Timms]

No, I am not giving way again.

Like the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), I am looking forward to Alan Milburn’s report. His interim report on young people and work was a powerful rallying cry for change and a powerful indictment of the system left behind by the previous Tory Government. The steering group working on PIP, which I co-chair, will also be coming forward with our recommendations later this month. The final reports of both reviews will be published in the next couple of months. The Government will then consider the recommendations and bring forward a White Paper in the new year.

The social security system should always provide security for those who cannot work, but for those who can work the system needs to be a bridge to provide a way into greater participation. That means going beyond the approach we inherited that provides an assessment, writes a cheque and after that says goodbye, with no offer of skills or training and no opportunity to get a job. We do not just owe young people an income; we owe them a future. Young people were starting to doubt whether they had a future. We need to show them that a way is being opened up, as it is. It means ending the Tories’ “signed off, written off” culture, changing the question the system asks from, “What benefit are you entitled to?” to “How do we help you to live the fullest life, to fulfil your aspirations?”

[Helen Whately]

rose—

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I will give way one final time.

[Helen Whately]

I object to the way the Minister is describing our approach to welfare, which I do not agree with. I have talked about how the Conservatives brought down the working-age welfare bill during our time in government. The Minister appears to disagree with that statement. Can he tell me whether he is disagreeing because he includes rises in the state pension during that time—so he is considering the full bill including the state pension—or is it because he is looking at figures in nominal terms?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The hon. Lady has perhaps taken some advice and is conceding that the bill never fell under their 14 years in government.

We need to learn the lessons from the success of what has happened in other countries, such as Denmark, which the Secretary of State visited last week to see how a focus on asking what people can do, not just what they cannot do, has given it one of the highest disability employment rates in Europe.

The Tory party signed people off, wrote them off and then blamed them. Our approach is very different: we want to invest in people’s success and give them the chance of education, training, a decent job and a full life—not a life constrained by the limitations of benefit income. That is the way to bring hope for the future and bring the benefits bill down. In the next few weeks, the House will see the two major reports that we are bringing forward. The Government’s response to them will set out the details of how we will set about that task, and I am looking forward immensely to the debates ahead.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

13:41

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

I am sure that all of us in this House agree that we need to manage the benefits system, but that we need to manage it appropriately. The Liberal Democrats fear that the official Opposition are playing the man rather than the ball. It is systems that are broken and need amending, and that is where the focus should be, rather than on demonising individuals.

As a Liberal Democrat, I am extremely proud that the architect of our welfare state was Beveridge, who issued his report in 1942, which was then taken on by the Labour Government of 1945 and has built the bedrock of our society since. It is something that we need to ensure evolves appropriately, rather than the slashing and burning that we have seen.

From my two years on the Work and Pensions Committee, I reflect on how extending the pension age has significantly impacted a lot of manual workers, who are unable to continue in those roles for year upon year until their retirement age, and thus have to fall back on the benefits system. That is a pressure that has not been there historically. Closer to home, I am aware of the individuals who 50 years ago would have died very early as premature babies, but who now often live through to adulthood because of the marvels of health services around the world. There is therefore an added pressure on our benefits system.

I also reflect—I am sure that other Members will agree— that I will not take lectures from His Majesty’s Opposition, given that they saw a £33 billion increase in the benefits bill during their last year in power. Another element that I am alive to about those years of Conservative Government is the lack of investment in our national health service. Capital money was used on revenue spending, which has left a gaping hole that will be a challenge for years to come—that money could have been used ensuring that we were getting people back into work.

On the Conservative proposals before us today, it is not so much about seeing that there is a mask, but that the mask has been completely removed. The Child Poverty Action Group suggests that the proposals would see the biggest plunge of children into child poverty that we have ever had as a nation. It is often suggested that it is all about people who work and people who do not, but one third of people who are on universal credit are in work.

A few weeks ago, I met in the Lobby a lady who had come up from Torbay hospital, where she worked. She puts a fair amount of time into the hospital, supporting some of the most vulnerable in our society, yet she is still in receipt of universal credit. That is a significant challenge that we need to be alive to: one third of people on universal credit are in work. Similarly, there is the suggestion that people on personal independence payments are out of work, but an awful lot of people use PIP to get themselves into work.

There is a significant pressure relating to local housing allowance. In London, only 2.3% of rents are affordable using that measure. In my constituency, the average rent for a studio flat is £577, yet the amount paid by local housing allowance is £503. There is a massive gap between rents and what the state supports people with; they will have to subsidise their rent with other benefits that they may receive.

The Liberal Democrats strongly believe that the best way to get people out of the benefits system is to grow our economy. The botched Brexit deal has seen a 32% reduction in job vacancies in the United Kingdom, and that pressure continues to build. Sadly, it has been exacerbated by the Labour Government’s NIC hike, which has seen 100,000 jobs lost in the hospitality industry—jobs that are often a first step on the employment ladder.

We need to be alive to how to fix the system. Only last week, the Work and Pensions Committee heard that the system that supports people on carer’s allowance is older than the data officer at the Department for Work and Pensions. Significant systems need renewing in the DWP if it is to be fit for purpose. Cliff edges in the benefits system for NEETs need to be tackled, so that people are encouraged to go into work. Access to Work needs to be ungummed up; it too has an old system that has problems getting people into employment. The Minister spoke about Disability Confident employers, but the scheme feels to me like a tick-box exercise. We need to ensure that disabled people and employers work together, so that the scheme becomes a lot more meaningful as a driver of people into employment.

I will say it again: we need to play the ball and not the man. The Conservatives are behaving like the Argentinian football team at the last world cup; they played the man, rather than the ball. We need a fair deal for those most in need.

13:48

[Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)]

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate, not least because it gives this House an opportunity to remind the Conservative party of a rather inconvenient truth. The welfare crisis facing our country did not begin on 4 July 2024; it was inherited on that day from a Conservative party that had 14 years to fix our welfare system, tackle economic inactivity, improve employment opportunities for disabled people and build a health service capable of getting people back into work. What did the Conservatives leave behind? They left millions of people economically inactive because of long-term sickness; a welfare system that too often wrote people off, rather than helping them back into employment; NHS waiting lists at record levels; and a generation of young people facing barriers to opportunity.

The welfare bill rose by £33 billion in the final year in which the Leader of the Opposition was in the Cabinet, and there was an increase of a quarter of a million young people not in education, employment or training in the final three years of the Conservative Government. That is not a record to boast about, but a record to apologise for, yet here we are, listening to Conservative Members—the very few who are present for this Opposition day debate—lecturing this Labour Government about the very problems that they created. They have apparently now discovered the answer to those problems: £36 billion of welfare cuts, and all during a cost of living crisis.

The ink is barely dry on the Conservatives’ proposals, and already the highly respected Institute for Fiscal Studies has raised serious questions about the credibility of their numbers—serious questions, by the way, that the shadow Secretary of State did nothing to address in her opening remarks. The Conservatives claim that they can save £14 billion by restricting health-related benefits for people with certain mental health conditions and with back and joint problems, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies points out that disability benefits are assessed according to the impact of a person’s condition, not simply the name of their diagnosis. The IFS also highlights that two thirds of personal independence payment recipients with a mental health diagnosis also have a physical health diagnosis.

I ask Conservative Members a very simple question: how exactly will they distinguish between somebody who is genuinely unable to work and somebody whose illness they have decided is not serious enough? Will it be a Conservative politician making that judgment, a Treasury spreadsheet, perhaps, or an arbitrary list of conditions drawn up to make their sums add up? Illness does not become less debilitating simply because a politician decides it is too expensive, nor does disability disappear because the Treasury wants to save money.

Then there is the Conservatives’ proposal to save £9.5 billion by restricting benefits for foreign nationals. Again, the IFS questions the certainty of these savings, pointing to the possibility that eligible individuals will seek to obtain British citizenship. There is a further problem with their figures, because the Department does not routinely publish a breakdown of benefit expenditure by nationality.

The Opposition need to explain precisely how they have calculated that £9.5 billion figure, what assumptions they have made about eligibility and future behaviour, and how much of that money they genuinely expect to save. Identifying a group of people and attaching a multibillion-pound saving to them is not the same as demonstrating that the saving can actually be delivered. A credible fiscal proposal needs to account for the people who acquire citizenship, those whose immigration status changes, and those who would remain eligible for support under existing rules. The IFS has already raised questions about the assumptions underpinning the Conservatives’ figures, so before Conservative Members start banking £9.5 billion in savings, perhaps they could explain how they intend to achieve them. A headline figure is not a costed policy, and a projected saving is not a saving until they can demonstrate where it will actually come from.

Perhaps the most extraordinary criticism of this approach comes from within the Conservative party. We have been here before: in 2016, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)—I notified him that I would mention him in this debate—resigned from David Cameron’s Cabinet over its approach to welfare cuts. He warned that the reductions in welfare for working people had “gone too far”, and criticised an approach to balancing the books that placed an unfair burden on the poor and vulnerable. These are the words not of a Labour politician, but of the man who designed the Conservative welfare programme and championed universal credit. I seriously think that Conservative Members should reflect on that. If even the architect of their own welfare reforms when they were last in government recognised that there was a point at which welfare cuts went too far, what exactly makes them think that another £36 billion of ill-thought-through cuts is the answer now?

I have to say that the use of the phrase “foreign nationals” intrigues me. Let me be clear: foreign nationals, in the main, are not entitled to benefits. They have no recourse to public funds. A look under the bonnet exposes the groups of people the Conservatives propose taking support from: 50,000 people who came here on humanitarian visas—half of whom, by the way, are in work. And who is entitled to a humanitarian visa? Ukrainian refugees, people who came here because they worked alongside our troops in Afghanistan, and British national overseas visa holders, particularly those from Hong Kong who are living in our constituencies.

There used to be consensus in this place that supporting the people I have just listed was virtuous, and that our commitment to our allies was unshakeable. Do the Opposition really think that the British public support cutting support for Ukrainian refugees, former soldiers and translators who worked with us in Afghanistan, and those fleeing oppression in Hong Kong? That is why they rely on such broad and politically convenient labels as “foreign nationals.” Examine the actual groups of people who would be affected, and the Conservatives’ proposals become much harder for them to defend. That is precisely why we should look beyond the headline figures and examine who would pay the price of these cuts. The next category the Conservatives talk about is refugees—people who came to this country fleeing war, persecution and famine; people who were vetted extensively and awarded refugee status by our country. The Opposition propose cutting off their access to benefits entirely. That is who they are referring to.

[Helen Whately]

What the hon. Member is saying about our policies is not correct.

[Michael Payne]

It would be really interesting to hear why it is not correct, because I have read the proposals referred to in the speech in detail. It is absolutely clear that that is who the Opposition are referring to when they use the phrase “foreign nationals”. If they want to bank made-up savings on the backs of refugees, they should come out and say so.

The next category is people with indefinite or limited leave to remain; the shadow Secretary of State mentioned them in her speech. As mentioned earlier, many of these people will simply seek British citizenship, meaning the Opposition’s claimed savings are illusory at best. It is also worth pointing out that 110,000 of these people are in work, so their benefits will likely be lower than the Opposition’s figures imply. That fact also completely blows a hole in their argument that contribution should be the basis of our welfare system. Those people contribute. They are our care workers, our nurses, and our NHS staff.

This is where the Conservatives’ argument becomes particularly difficult to understand. They tell us that welfare should reward contribution, and that people who work hard, pay taxes and contribute to our country should be recognised, yet they propose restrictions that could penalise people who are already doing precisely that. They cannot stand at the Dispatch Box championing contribution on Monday, and then propose taking away support from the people who contribute on Tuesday. Surely the test of a welfare system is not simply where somebody was born, but whether the rules are fair, whether a person is contributing where they can, and whether they receive the support to which they are entitled.

Finally, the remaining categories are “other” and “no immigration status recorded”. According to the Department’s spreadsheets, to which the Opposition have linked in their report, the “other” category includes “individuals no longer receiving UC payments”, so any savings attributed to that category are highly questionable. As for the “no immigration status recorded” category, there is as much chance that these are British nationals as not.

So what does that all mean for the £9.5 billion identified in savings? After accounting for the fact that the figure is likely to be inaccurate, accounting for those who seek British citizenship and accounting for the fact that the final two categories either contain no one claiming benefits or may not even contain foreign nationals, any remaining savings come from cuts to support for refugees, Ukrainians we have found homes for, Afghan interpreters we have an obligation to, and care workers, nurses and NHS staff we rely on.

Let us be clear about what we have established: the Conservatives have announced £9.5 billion in savings, but their own assumptions need rigorous scrutiny. Some of the people affected are refugees, some have supported our armed forces, and some are already working in our public services. Some may not even fall within the category that the Conservatives claim to be targeting. This is a very long way from the Conservative party of old, which used to be credible when delivering savings.

Let me turn to their proposal to move disabled people from the personal independence payment on to attendance allowance when they hit pension age. My word—a disabled person who worked their entire life, having assiduously saved, will finally reach the age at which they can retire, only to find that the Conservative party has ripped their personal independence payment away. I wonder how many Conservative Members have explained that proposal to the older disabled people in their constituencies. This is the problem with the Conservative welfare policy. The savings are announced in billions, but, as the Minister said earlier, the consequences are felt in individuals and families. The nasty party is truly back.

Let me be clear and unequivocal. I believe in welfare reform. I believe that those who can work should be supported and expected to work. I believe that taxpayers deserve a system that is fair, sustainable and protects public money, and I believe that fraud and abuse should be tackled robustly. Ministers should be commended for the work that they are already doing in that regard.

I also believe something equally important—that people who are genuinely sick, disabled or unable to work deserve dignity, security and compassion. Those principles are not contradictory; they are the foundations of a decent welfare state built by William Beveridge and people whose shoulders we in this House sit on. They are precisely why I support the approach of this Labour Government under the leadership of this Prime Minister. Rather than simply announcing make-believe cuts and hoping for the best, this Government are reforming the incentives within universal credit and investing £3.5 billion in employment support by the end of the decade.

We are providing personalised help to people who have too often been abandoned by the system. We are increasing the standard universal credit allowance above inflation while protecting existing recipients of the health element and those with the most severe lifelong conditions. We are supporting people into employment, not simply pushing them into poverty, and we are recognising that welfare reform cannot be separated from fixing the NHS, improving mental health services, investing in skills and creating decent jobs.

In Gedling, I meet constituents who want nothing more than the opportunity to work, contribute and build better lives for themselves and their families. They include people living with disabilities who face enormous barriers to employment, people with long-term health conditions who desperately want treatment so that they can return to the jobs that they love, and parents who work hard, pay their taxes and still struggle to make ends meet. They do not need another round of political finger-pointing or simplistic slogans like those we heard today from the shadow Secretary of State. They need a Government prepared to do the difficult work of reform. That is what this Labour Government are doing.

The Conservatives had 14 years to build a welfare system that works. Instead, they left behind a system that too often trapped people in inactivity, failed to provide the support that they needed and left taxpayers facing an increasingly unsustainable bill, as the Minister set out earlier. Now, from the comfort of opposition, out of office, they have produced a plan built around £36 billion of cuts, with serious unanswered questions about whether their figures add up.

Perhaps the most revealing part is that even their own former Work and Pensions Secretary warned nearly a decade ago that welfare cuts had gone too far. The lesson seems to be one that the Conservatives have chosen to forget. Welfare reform is not simply about how much money can be taken out of the system or somebody else’s pockets. It is about whether we can help people into work, protect those who cannot work and build a system that is sustainable for the long term.

They failed to fix the system when they had the power to do so. Now they want the country to believe that they have all the answers. Well, the British public have seen the Conservatives’ record, and this Labour Government will take absolutely no lectures from the architects of the very crisis that Ministers are now clearing up.

We will vote for welfare reform. We will protect those who need protecting. We will support those who can work into good, secure employment, and we will build a welfare state that is fair to taxpayers, compassionate to those in need and worthy of the country that we all aspire to be. That is the Labour difference, and it is one I am proud to defend.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. After the next speaker, there will be a five-minute limit. Dame Priti Patel.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate and to have heard speeches from both Front Benches. It is also good to be debating again with the Minister for Social Security and Disability, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), with whom I have had similar debates on welfare reform, from the opposite side of the House, a few times in the past.

I am intrigued by what I have heard so far, although Back-Bench contributions have been limited. I think everyone in the House will agree that we have a moral duty and responsibility to ensure the welfare system in this country is functional and does what it says on the tin. It should be a safety net for those who are in need of support, and we should all work together to find ways to get more people back into work. There is no dispute on that whatever.

The hon. Member for Gedling (Michael Payne) just quoted my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) when he was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. I was his Minister of State, and at that time we were undertaking regression analysis to ensure there were the right taper levels so that work paid and there were the right incentives for people on universal credit. There is a lot of technicality behind this, and with regard to those circumstances, I am afraid that the hon. Member’s quotation of my right hon. Friend was not totally accurate. I was proud to serve with my right hon. Friend in that Government and of the work we undertook.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

The right hon. Lady talks about incentivising people to get back into work. In the £36 billion of savings, can she point to where the investment in getting people back into work is?

[Priti Patel]

There is plenty of investment, starting with the work that needs to take place at the Treasury to stop putting burdens on businesses. We can have the same conversation in the other debate later this afternoon.

Back in 2010, we inherited a fiscal position in which £1 in every £4 spent was borrowed. When up against a weak fiscal position, the Government of the day have a duty to ensure they incentivise work, get more people off welfare and back into work—particularly at a time when unemployment had been rising. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member listens and goes back and looks at how the last Conservative Government did, he will know that is the case.

We saw around 1 million young people who were not in education, employment or training. Within five years, as I said in my intervention on the Minister, the number of workless households had fallen by 600,000. Over 370,000 fewer children were growing up in households where no one had a job. That is really important, because employment levels for single parents and those with disabilities and barriers to employment had also increased. Of course, it was the combination of the Work programme—all colleagues in the House should give some time to look at this—universal credit and welfare reforms that encouraged more people into work and gave them something we should all care about: the security and dignity that comes with having a job.

None of this is easy. This afternoon, we will hear lots of point scoring, but I stood at the Government Dispatch Box along with my hon. Friends to do the heavy lifting on welfare reform. In fact, it was prior to 2010, during the Government in which the Minister served—I think he was in the Treasury; he may correct me if I am wrong—that the Work programme first came into the public domain. We all heard about how the Work programme was all about working with employers and giving them incentives to do much more to get people into work. That also led to young people getting into work and more apprenticeships.

Apprenticeship starts are not straightforward; we have to incentivise them. People with disabilities had been written off—that was why we had Disability Confident, and I am pleased to hear that more work is being done to look at that scheme to get more people into work. All those people had been written off under previous Governments.

In the past, it was easier to sign people off than to create pathways to meaningful employment. We all have a duty to work with businesses in our constituencies to help people get into work. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure you saw in your constituency that employment rates increased for those signed off and on benefits. We also saw a halving of youth unemployment. Those are the things that had been achieved under previous Governments. Then, of course, we had the pandemic—we have heard about that—which absolutely changed the situation.

Under previous Conservative Governments, in every debate, every question time and every Budget—this is why I made the point I did to the Minister—our welfare reforms were not supported universally in the House, including by Labour Members. As the Minister does now, I fielded endless questions, urgent questions and Westminster Hall debates from Labour Members who simply could not accept that supporting people into employment and reducing welfare dependency was the right thing to do for those who had become trapped on welfare.

Nothing is worse than seeing families trapped on welfare, with the intergenerational welfare dependency that creates. All credit to colleagues, including former Secretaries of State, who worked hard to tackle that. We have a duty to find ways to reduce the costs for taxpayers and to do more to create pathways to work.

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

The right hon. Lady says that there is nothing worse than seeing a family on benefits, but there was something worse between 2010 and 2015. In 2010, the Trussell Trust had 35 food banks in this country, but by 2015, it had 1,375 handing out 1.1 million food parcels a year. Does she agree that seeing a family not able to feed themselves and their kids, despite being in work and perhaps receiving some welfare, might be worse than having a welfare state supporting them?

[Priti Patel]

I remember what that time was like, and I remember the arguments about food banks—there were endless debates in the House about that. Is the hon. Member telling me that food bank usage has declined? It simply has not, and that is a stain on our society. [Hon. Members: “It has!”] I am afraid that is not correct. Why are we having this debate? It is because the welfare state is growing, and it is unsustainable. There are more people out of work now.

Labour Members cannot say hand on heart that their employment policies are helping the employment market. They should come to the Witham constituency, or go to any constituency, where they will see employers—family-run businesses—struggling to recruit and employ people because of Labour’s regressive taxation policies. Higher levels of employment tax mean more unemployment, which means more people going on to welfare. These are the basic policies—[Interruption.] There is no point in trying to point score; these are basic policies that the House has to get right.

There has to be recognition right now that the current policies are not helping people get into work. It is too easy to write off people on welfare, but all credit to Opposition Front-Bench Members who are saying things that people do not want to hear. Too many labels are being attributed to people out there in society that write them off. That is a stain on society. We should be helping them and working with employers to incentivise them back into work, not just have them trapped in welfare and benefit dependency.

[Dr Mullan]

On employers, there are various, complex ways in which the Government are trying to unpick the damage they did with their tax rises. Big businesses will engage with such projects—they can look at them for use across their entire workforce—but smaller businesses cannot as they do not have the mental thinking space or the time to go through them. We have seen the biggest drop in employment among those smaller businesses—the people who speak to me and tell me how bad things are—but the Government seem to be completely ignoring that.

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is right. The Minister mentioned the British Retail Consortium in relation to young people. Yes, the BRC is a nationwide organisation, but across parts of the country—the east of England, and I am sure Sussex as well—family-run businesses do not have the ability to work at that level. It is the same in the hospitality trade. We are seeing this again and again.

We see it with first jobs. For many of us, our first ever jobs were behind tills, washing up or in the service sector. As everybody knows, in my family I grew up under the till, because my family ran small shops, but while employability skills are so valuable, those experiences have gone and it is harder to get a job. That is what we are lacking right now.

I commend my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench for doing the hard yards in looking at how we can be better and proposing solutions and alternatives. They might not fit everybody—it is right that we debate and discuss them—but the House must recognise that the current situation is totally unsustainable. We need to do better by those trapped in welfare and give young people in particular opportunities and hope and create pathways for good future employment.

14:16

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

Yesterday, the Conservative party told young people in my constituency that they are not showing up. I want to talk about the young people in Gloucester, who are ready to show up, and about what it will take to ensure that, when they do, somebody opens the door for them.

Let us start with the Conservatives’ record. The welfare bill did not appear from nowhere; it grew on their watch in a system they designed. In the last five years of the previous Government, the number of young people not in employment, education or training rose by more than 250,000, and welfare went up by £33 billion in that Government’s last year alone. Their plan to chase after Reform, to talk down to people on benefits, to pit neighbour against neighbour and simply to shout at people that they need to go back to work is not new, either. It is the exact same playbook we saw under 14 years of Conservative Government. What happened? More young people were left behind, there were queues round the corner for food banks, and almost one in three children—many of whom had parents in work—were growing up in poverty. We also had a special educational needs and disabilities system that failed to deliver for young people in my constituency, setting so many of them off on the wrong path and writing off their life chances at the earliest stage.

Now, the Conservatives want £36 billion more in cuts, and the shadow Work and Pensions secretary has confirmed that there will be no extra money for employment support. Same plan, no new support and expecting different results is not actually a plan—it is the definition of insanity.

Of course, we all want a lower welfare bill, but the question is how we get there. Alan Milburn’s interim report is clear about the scale of the challenge: nearly 1 million young people aged 16 to 24—one in eight young people—are not in education, employment or training. The review estimates the annual cost of that to our country at £125 billion, which is more than we spend on education each year, yet only about one in five NEET young people in England is getting meaningful employment support, and less than half of the £8.1 billion spent on key benefits for young people has any participation support attached to it. That is the real scandal of the system the Government inherited: it spent billions of pounds on benefits for young people but far too little on helping them into work.

In Gloucester, more than 2,500 young people are not in employment, education or training. When I speak to them, I hear the same thing time and again: they have applied for job after job, only to be ghosted. They are not lazy. They want to work. I am pleased that this Government are acting. The £3,000 youth jobs grant supports any employer that takes on a young person who has been claiming universal credit for six months, in a genuine job of at least 25 hours per week. The Budget delivered a jobs guarantee for eligible 18 to 24-year-olds on universal credit and £100 million for local apprenticeship services. Because the Government are getting people into work rather than writing them off, like the Conservative party, we will bring the welfare bill down for good—not by slamming doors in people’s faces but by opening them.

National action must be matched by local leadership. That is why on the 30 November, I will host the Gloucestershire Futures summit at Kingsholm stadium with Gloucestershire county council. We will bring together schools and colleges, employers, health services, local government and the voluntary sector in one room, with one shared goal that no young person in Gloucestershire is left behind. I am delighted that the Skills Minister will join us. The summit builds on our Gloucester Futures programme from this summer, from which 20 young people graduated after a week with local employers and partners from Fasthosts and the University of Gloucestershire to The Music Works and the Gloucester Rugby Foundation.

In Gloucestershire, we have to make sure that support sits in the communities that need it most, that growth and opportunity are our ambition for Gloucester and not just for Cheltenham, and that national initiatives are run by trusted community partners with a stake in our city. I have two asks of the Minister. First, will he meet me after our summit on 30 November, so that the solutions that Gloucestershire’s employers and partners come up with can feed into the Government’s response to the Milburn review? Secondly, will the Minister ensure that support reaches young people where they are and not where local government sit?

The Conservatives want to talk down Gloucester’s young people but, in fact, they are already showing up. Our job and this Government’s job is to make sure that when they do, the door is open, the support is there and we get them back into work.

14:19

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Welfare can be, and is, a lifeline for so many. Yet among those who want to work—I am pleased that the Minister mentioned that there are lots of young people who do want to work—many cannot get on to the employment ladder, and there is a real danger that welfare then becomes a trap that can burden them for the rest of their life.

When I have travelled across my constituency over the last two years, since I was elected, I have heard a pretty universal message from young people and employers. I will start with the young people. I routinely have constituents email me expressing their despair at the fact that they cannot get a job. Often they are not even offered an interview after applying for hundreds of jobs. I have met a few of those young people, and it is really tough to listen to them because I see the despair and the despondency. They wonder what they can do to cut through. Is it them? Is it the fact that they have gone and got a degree that they feel might be worthless?

Conversely, when I speak with employers in my constituency, the theme is pretty universal, particularly among businesses in the hospitality sector—I mention hospitality because it is often the first rung on the employment ladder for so many young people. I have heard the same thing from so many of them: that ever since the Government increased the cost of employment, particularly the increase in national insurance contributions for young people, they have ceased recruiting. That is damning, because it does not mean that young people cannot get their foot on the ladder; it means that the first rung on the ladder has been cut out completely. The focus from Government has to be on how that step on the ladder can be re-established. That only comes from creating a thriving, fertile environment in which employers—those who create the jobs—are incentivised to provide those opportunities for young people.

There are young people out there who take risks, but they are few and far between because the cost of establishing a business is profound. I will mention two of those young people in my constituency, Sophie and Matt, who run a business called Toploaf, which I went to on Sunday after attending remembrance services. They are in their mid-20s and have established a thriving hospitality business in Bromsgrove. However, I know that they are worried about the increasing cost of doing business and terrified about the increasing cost of energy bills, and I was told that what the Government claimed was support in the Budget will not even provide any relief for them. Indeed, UK Hospitality cited a statistic when the Budget was released that only one in 10 businesses will benefit from the relief that the Government said they are providing.

If the Government want to provide people with the very best opportunities that do not restrict them to a lifetime on welfare, they have to support the wealth creators. Those wealth creators are not just the big corporates—every large business starts as a small business. All our constituencies contain hundreds and, in some cases, thousands of small businesses where people get up each day and do the right thing to create prosperity for themselves, the community and the young people they want to recruit.

The statistics are clear. We have 10.8 million working-age people not in work and 60,000 additional NEETs since 2024. According to the official statistics, between 2024, when the Government was elected, and 2032, the welfare bill is projected to grow by a staggering £57.7 billion. What does that do? If the welfare bill is growing but opportunities for economic prosperity are not, things go only in one direction, as the burden bears down even more heavily and increasingly on those who try to create the jobs for young people. In turn, that compounds the problem and further curtails the opportunities, and we see welfare dependency grow further and further.

The Government need to reverse the increase in employers national insurance and stop leaning into councils and local government as the sole arbiters of local economic prosperity. It is not that councils do not have a role to play, but the Government must, in the first instance, get off the backs of the businesses that create the jobs that allow our young people to get on in life.

14:19

[Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)]

I am a progressive. I believe in a social safety net to help people in their moment of need. That might be to manage a health condition or to deal with a moment of crisis, or it could be to support people through the natural ebbs and flows of employment, which I think we will see more of with the advent of AI. There is a challenge, however, in getting that support to work for people. It requires a safety net, which needs to be the right size. It needs to be wide enough to catch people when they fall, but not so wide that people cannot escape it. The modern safety net should not simply break someone’s fall; it should support them to get back into work.

The benefits of work are many, and those benefits can bring so much to an individual: self-esteem, money, mental health, physical health, resilience, routine, friendship, socialising and demonstrating to yourself and others that you can make a difference. I believe that the benefits are endless, which is why it is so heartbreaking when we see just how many young people do not have them.

One million young people are not benefiting from a job or not expanding their opportunities through education or training. Why? The Conservatives created the broken system that led to the outcomes we see today. They do not like to hear it, but it is true. Their system pushed people further away from the job market. They scrapped the Work and Health Programme, shut down Work Choice and left Access to Work in chaos. They made support so difficult that people were pushed towards the health component of universal credit to simply deal with the cost of living crisis.

What was the consequence of that? There was no requirement for those people to look for work, apply for jobs or do any work-related activity. The Conservatives’ system both cost more and pushed people further away from work. Their system told people that they cannot. We need a system that helps people see that they can. Members will forgive me if I do not look to the Tory party for a route to achieving that.

[Simon Hoare]

Does the hon. Member not kick himself that, in the 14 years that Labour sat quietly on the Opposition Benches, with think-tanks and everything else, it did zero planning for welfare reform? We are two-and-a-bit years into this Government. We await the Timms review; we await the Milburn review. Labour should have had a plan ready to go from day one, should it not? That is a missed opportunity, is it not?

[Matthew Patrick]

I regret the results of the Conservatives’ failure; I sincerely do. I will come on to talk about how some of the benefits of the system we are introducing now will bear fruit.

The Conservatives say they have a plan, and as Members can imagine, it is pretty thin on detail. There is something that they are clear on, however, and there is something that they have a plan for: they can save money in the here and now. I do not think it is a long-term plan, but it saves some money now and that requires us to accept putting half a million children into poverty. That is not what I got into politics for. Let us say that a Member sits on the Conservative Benches and they can stomach that. Let me ask them: what is the long-term cost to society of plunging half a million children into poverty? That, for me, is not the route to reducing welfare.

There is a better way—a sustainable way—and we have already started. It starts with sorting out the very foundations that people rely on: mental health support in our schools, waiting lists falling in our NHS and quality homes that give people security. We are building on that by creating a new jobs and careers service that brings employment skills and career support together. There is a jobs guarantee that will help support over 90,000 young people into work over the next three years. We are personalising job support for disabled people to tackle the unacceptable disability employment gap of 28%. We are taking action with £3.5 billion of support for people who are too sick or disabled to work, but who want to work. We are rewarding employers who take a chance on a young person. If they hire a young person who has been out of the jobs market for too long, they will be backed with £3,000.

I do not pretend that this will solve everything overnight, but I think it makes a big difference. It helps now, and it is a down payment on the future of our young people. When the Milburn review comes out, we will have a plan to go further still. That is how we will do this for the long term. It is about finding solutions, not scoring points. A country that is hopeful and optimistic cannot go back to the failure that leaves young people on the scrapheap. The country has seen the Tory way, and it hears what the Tories are saying now. I do not think the country likes their politics of, “Do as I say, not as I do.” It wants a new approach grounded in problem solving. That is the Labour way that we are charting, whereby we will bring down the bill by helping people get back into work. It is the long-term solution: believing in the potential of our young people, and knowing that a good job gives them so much more than simply money at the end of the month. Our constituents deserve that, our country deserves that, and I am proud to support that.

14:31

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Gedling (Michael Payne) made a passing reference to William Beveridge in his speech. He is not often mentioned in the Chamber these days, but it was Beveridge’s decision to nationalise and bring into the political domain what was already the most evolved and most comprehensive welfare system of any country in the world, inherited from the Conservative Government that came before, that arguably put our welfare state on to the path of unsustainability that we see today.

A statistic that should chill us all is that today, 46.7% of our people live in households that are net contributors to the United Kingdom, while 53.3%—more than half—of our population live in households that receive more from the state than they contribute. That is not just about welfare—it is also about education, healthcare and other things—but it shows is a trajectory by which a greater and greater share of national resources is consumed by things broadly badged as welfare. Those people who come here, work hard, start businesses and contribute, about whom many have spoken warmly, and those born in the United Kingdom and whose families have lived here for generations see that they are able to gain less and less through their own efforts, because more and more of the available resources are consumed by those who are not currently contributing.

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman makes the point that roughly half of the people in this country give more to the state and roughly half give less than they take. If, on average, a large majority of people are giving more to the state than they are taking out, where would that money be going?

[David Simmonds]

Clearly, the benefit for people of keeping more of the money that they make is that they spend that money on the quality of life of their families from the wealth that they have personally created by their own efforts. What we are seeing is that a greater and greater share of the wealth that they are creating and more and more of the money they are earning through their jobs, or of the profits being generated by the businesses they run, is going into a central pot for the benefit of other people and, in many cases, delivering less and less benefit to those other people.

In the recent Budget, the announcement of £100 to help with heating bills was more than offset by the cost impact of the Government’s policies on household energy bills. The Government say that housing is really important, despite the fact that their own policies in the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 have massively driven up the cost of renting a home. They have made it harder for landlords to place a home on the market, and made it harder for developers to build, resulting in accelerating insolvencies in a sector that is crucial to our national economy. In many areas, the cost of state interventions has become grossly disproportionate to the benefit that accrues to the individual, and we as a party need to accept that we have had some responsibility in some of those areas.

This is a debate about working-age welfare. We have always accepted that we protect pensioners, because once people have retired it becomes much more difficult for them to increase their income by finding another job, but we need to find a better way of ensuring that work pays and enterprise pays if we are to address the long-term conundrum of growth in this country. So many of concerns that we all share—rough sleeping is often cited by Labour Members—have surged since this Government took office. More and more people are living on the streets of this country every day because of this Government’s policies. It is welcome that they talk about introducing policies to address that, but they are trying to fix with a sticking plaster a wound that they have created by their own actions.

The same is true of housing policy. It is also true of VAT on school fees, which has left our state schools net worse off than they were before. It is particularly true of national insurance, which has driven up the cost of employing people in this country, and the so-called Employment Rights Act 2025, which has, as we have all heard, made businesses more and more wary of hiring people and giving them the opportunity to get on the ladder to a job and prosperity.

Let us not forget that this is not just about money. This is not an arid debate that is solely about balancing the books. Having a job is good for mental health, for physical health and for family wellbeing. It is the one solution that we know makes the biggest difference to people’s opportunities in life. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) described, one of the things that we should be proud to have done in office was to massively increase the share of working-age households earning their own living by their own efforts, rather than increasing the number who are dependent on welfare and benefits from the state.

This is a time of missed opportunity. The proposal that our Front Benchers have set out is about a subset of that issue. It is about how we deal with welfare, but it is also about how we get this country back on to a path where prosperity is something that all our people have a realistic prospect of enjoying. It is worth remembering that when the previous Chancellor set out this Government’s first Budget, it provided flat cash for every single Government Department except the NHS, and that was entirely dependent on welfare reform, which Labour Back Benchers immediately overturned. I say gently to Labour Members: please make sure that welfare reform is something you are willing to drive through, so that we can make the difference we need for this country.

14:37

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

The Conservatives are sat here today criticising welfare spending when we all know it was their Government that created the very system they are now complaining about. Universal credit was dreamed up by the Conservatives, and it created a system where people were better off on welfare than in a job. For under-25s, the choice was a poverty-level standard rate of £317 a month or a far higher disability rate of £747 a month—more than double. This of course created a massive incentive for young people to go on the higher rate, and because they got zero support, they were effectively consigned to never getting a job.

Since being elected, Labour has already changed this. We have cut the disability rate from £747 to £556 for those young people who may be able to work with the right support. We have made the higher rate only for those with a severe health condition or disability that is unlikely to change. This is the Labour way to reform welfare: looking after those who will never work and helping them, while encouraging those who can work to get into a good job by removing the perverse incentives that were created by the Conservatives.

The Conservatives also came up with the personal independence payment, although from the way they talk about it in this place, anyone would think it had nothing to do with them. It is a benefit that helps with the additional cost of being disabled, so it is supposed to be paid to those in work as well as to those who are not. In fact, over 80% of recipients are not working. A Unison report found that assessors routinely used the fact that a claimant was employed as justification to reduce or entirely withdraw their PIP award. As a result, disabled people left jobs or went part time to keep their PIP. This was yet another perverse incentive created by the Conservative benefits system, which made people better off not working.

Those perverse incentives are why, in the Tories’ final year in government, the welfare bill rose by £33 billion and almost 3 million people were not working because of long-term sickness. For over a decade, the Conservatives presided over a system that meant people were better off on benefits, and it is only now that they have been kicked out that they have decided it needs to change, but their answer is to slash benefits crudely in a way that would only see massive increases in child poverty and homelessness. It is a false economy, as the money will only have to be spent again on other public services.

[Dr Mullan]

Is the hon. Member’s position that, prior to 2010, under the Labour Government, someone was never better off on welfare than working?

[Deirdre Costigan]

Under the last Labour Government, work was the cornerstone of everything that we did, and we will continue with that under this Labour Government.

As I said, the Opposition’s approach to welfare is a false economy, and we will end up spending the money again on public services. It would just move the cost from the welfare bill to the NHS and local authorities. Their plan to bring back the two-child limit would see 3,660 children in Ealing Southall fall into poverty. That is not just a statistic; it is 3,660 children in Ealing Southall going hungry and cold, and it is the taxpayer who would still end up picking up the tab. The Conservatives’ claim to be able to cut £13 billion from disabled people’s benefits seems like a random number they plucked from the sky with no real plan.

The Leader of the Opposition says she can cut this £13 billion because

“Double amputees run marathons… People with autism”

have set up “tech companies”. She may be right about a very small number of people, but she should tell that to the parents in my constituency with non-verbal and developmentally disabled autistic children—parents who spend every single day of their lives fearing what will happen to their grown-up child when they die. I can only imagine how utterly crass and insensitive the Leader of the Opposition’s comments must sound to those parents.

Instead of scaring those parents, Labour is taking a measured approach to changing the system. We have commissioned the Timms report to look at making PIP fit for the modern world, where we know so much more about the impact of mental health and fluctuating conditions than we did a decade ago, and we have commissioned the Milburn review, which will radically change how we support young people to get into work.

Already Labour is spending £3.5 billion on employment support for sick and disabled people with personalised support through Connect to Work. We have invested in new apprenticeships and introduced a jobs guarantee, with paid work for six months, backed by mentoring and tailored support. Those reforms are part of our work to address the broken welfare system inherited from the previous Government and to ensure that the system supports those who can work while protecting those who cannot.

The Conservatives’ approach to welfare spending is to let it run out of control when they are in government and then come up with crude and financially illiterate cuts when they are out of government and will not have to deliver them. Instead of making families and their children sick, homeless and dependent on food banks, Labour’s choice is to bring down welfare spending in a safe and sustainable way by doing one simple thing: making people better off in work. That is the Labour way and that is the way that we will deliver.

14:43

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

I am going to take a slightly different tack in this debate because as the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), said, one of the reasons why welfare reform is needed is to cut the bill because we have to invest more in defence. That is being pushed down the road—the Government say that we may get to 3% of GDP by the end of the decade and 3.5% by 2035, but we know that what was asked for in the strategic defence review would not even get close to funding that.

I am going to say something that makes it feel like it is the 1930s: war is coming. How are we going to fund that? It is vital that we reduce welfare spending, because as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent said, we cannot have welfare security without security. That lies at the heart of this question. As the Leader of the Opposition said, it is not just that we have to fund defence; we have to be able to fund defence, and we are not able to do that now.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Here is some crude maths: if we want to get to 3.5% on defence, it will cost about £30 billion extra a year, so where will that money come from? Furthermore, why are the Conservatives not supporting the Government on restricting the triple lock, because that would help with funding the future defence budget?

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

The first thing I will say to the comment about the triple lock is that the Prime Minister has done what the Prime Minister usually does: he said he is going to reform the triple lock but then said nothing else. It is very difficult to comment, given that we do not have a clue what he might be talking about. My second point is that it is not about how much the defence review would cost; it is about the fact that it has to be done. We have threats coming towards us—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman, as an experienced Member of the House, will know that the debate is about welfare, not defence. I can see where he is going, but he needs to tie it more closely to the motion.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

Well, the reality is that the motion is about welfare reform, which is about saving money. Members on the Opposition Front Bench have outlined the savings that we could make, and there has been much comment from the Government Benches, not least the accusation that people with mental health conditions are being stigmatised. There have also been accusations concerning people’s inability to work if they have an ADHD diagnosis. I would counter those accusations by arguing that when someone is told that, because they have a certain condition, they should not have to go into the workplace, that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Many statistics have been thrown about in this debate on the increase in welfare from 2022, but in reality that period covers a time when a group of people left the school system and went straight on to welfare. It is all very well dismissing what happened during the pandemic, but it is crass, quite frankly, to say, “Well, it had no impact later on; that was all down to you.” The Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that, yes, welfare was not properly reformed, and the adjustments that needed to be made to universal credit did not happen during our time in power. That is a fact. It changed because people felt they needed more support and said, “Well, if you were going to give it on those grounds, you can give it to me on these grounds.” Of course, the other side of it is that an adjustment has not been made for the fact that there are now plenty of social media instructions on how to cheat the system. We have to address those issues, and we have to be able to understand what is being said.

To the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), who said that welfare was running out of control, I say that it was his leader who said back in March 2022, at the start of the war in Ukraine, when people’s mortgage rates started to rise, that the Government should be paying for those increases. That is a ridiculous policy, and it speaks to this whole idea that the Government should step in for every aspect of life that people find a bit hard. Life is hard. When we talk about people having anxiety, it is called being an adult, in a lot of ways. We all have anxiety. Most people in this building could lose their job tomorrow and would find that hard. That is anxiety. [Interruption.] There is a bit of chuntering from Members on the Government Benches; I know they are probably all nervous because they do not know whether the Prime Minister is going to go to the country. There has been plenty of speculation about that—bring it on, I say.

The reality of the situation is that if we carry on telling people that they do not have to go into the workplace because they have been diagnosed with something, and if we put more and more labels on them, it will become impossible to get them back into work, because they keep being told that they have a reason not to want to work, and to a certain extent they have been led down that path over quite a long period of time.

Welfare reform is necessary, but the things being said in this debate are all about future ideas. Nothing solid is coming across. There is a lot of theory coming across, but without savings we will not be able to invest in the defence and security we need to ensure that people have a secure nation and welfare security.

11:30

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

I start by declaring my interests. I chair the all-party parliamentary groups for wheelchair users and for access to disability equipment. I am also the parent of 13-year-old twins, one of whom I hope will work every day of her working life, and one of whom is on disability living allowance and, I know, will never work a single day of her life. I will refer to that lived experience later in my speech.

That is the lived reality for many people in this debate, and we need to listen to that. We need to listen to people like the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) and his lived experience. Some 75% of blind and partially sighted people in this country are not in work—a legacy of the last Government and something that this Government must get right. Again, while the Conservatives lecture us, that is the inheritance they left us. He is not currently in his place, but I thank the Minister for Social Security and Disability, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), who visited my constituency last year to meet my disability charities, to hear their lived experience and to hear their good ideas for how things could work better.

This is not just a DWP issue. We will not get this right unless we look at what is going on in other Departments, such as the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education. This morning I was with the Public Service Ombudsman as it launched its report into complaints about wheelchair contracts in the NHS. The report was clear that if we do not get those contracts right, wheelchair users will not return to work. On education, my goodness, we have inherited a hell of a mess in the SEND system, and a system that looked at excellence but not necessarily inclusion. Why are we therefore surprised that we have this crisis of people not being in education, employment or training? It is because we did not think about or plan for the long-term opportunities for those people.

We have left lots of young people on education, health and care plans post-16 in courses that are totally unsuitable for them, just as a way of extending the EHCP, and then we wonder why they do not have the skills needed for work. Sometimes they drop out of the system and become NEETs. The SEND reforms that this Government will bring forward will start to plan those matters so we work with those young people at that transition to understand their long-term prospects.

When I worked in retail it was not just a student job; I spent 11 years with Marks and Spencer—some of that time as a recruitment and HR manager, but most of it on the shop floor. A lot of my time was spent on these kinds of programmes with disabled people. A lot of that has gone by the way over the years, but this Government are bringing some of those schemes back. I go into the Bexleyheath store in my constituency and there are two people with learning disabilities who I worked with over 30 years ago who are still there in those jobs—jobs they are proud to have for their whole working lives. It is those schemes, which this Government are reinstating, that will bring that back.

As I said earlier, the real crisis with costs was not covid; it was 2022 to 2024, and the stats show that. My wife and I both had to give up full-time work in 2016, the year my child had 100 medical appointments, because it was unsustainable. I know from my lived experience of the impact on a family when they are drawn into that cycle of disability and carers and the problems that brings. It was a Conservative council that sent a social worker to my house and told us we would be better going on universal credit than trying to carry on part-time jobs and support our family in the best way we could. That kind of information, at the back end of the last Conservative Government, was given to families like mine, who were put on the scrapheap. This Labour Government will turn that around in the announcements we will make in the coming weeks, in the Milburn and Timms reviews, to finally reinstate that working support for disabled people in this country.

I will take no lectures on savings from the Conservatives. One of the first things I did with the previous Secretary of State, when I became an MP in 2024, was bring her the four-page letter my daughter had received every Christmas for eight years, telling her that she was going to get a £10 Christmas bonus—the money they were wasting sending people four-page letters every year, for eight years in my case, to tell them they were going to get a £10 bonus. They had no idea what was going on in their Department. The previous Secretary of State in our Government scrapped that letter at my request. The Conservatives have no room at all to start talking to us about waste in the Department.

Yes, there are reforms we need to make. Yes, there is more we will need to do to get disabled people back to work. I will support the savings, and there will be difficult conversations about the disabilities that people have, but I will never take lectures from the people who left us this mess.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I will reduce the time limit to four minutes after the next speaker.

11:30

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), who speaks with real personal experience in this area. Although we may not agree on the treatment for the diagnosis, I have huge respect for the insights he brings to the Chamber on this issue.

I do not think this particular motion should be controversial. I think it should be welcomed across the House that there is a desire to bring down the welfare bill among working-age people, because that is a compassionate position to take, and I will set out why I think that is compassionate. The opposite position lacks the compassion we should be showing those people who want to be establishing their working lives, who want to be contributing, and who want to have that independence and that ownership, because this all comes as part of the social contract that forms part of our society.

General taxation is there for the benefit of the whole of society, whether that is funding our police forces, our defence and the NHS, or supporting those who are vulnerable through the welfare state, but it is essential that the process is fair. The welfare system should be seen as a form of societal insurance and not a form of charity. It does not benefit anyone if we make them dependent upon a system opposed to enabling them to participate as fully as they can in our wider society. The fact that the Office for Budget Responsibility predicts that the total expenditure for working-age benefits will breach £220 billion by 2030-31 should be a matter of great concern to us all, as is the fact that the number of people not in education, employment or training has broken the 1 million barrier and has increased by some 60,000 since the start of this Parliament.

The Fonagy report, which has been referred to, provided some interesting statistics, particularly the fact that the population prevalence of conditions such as ADHD and other neurodiverse conditions has not increased in the last few years. What has happened, however, is there has been a much greater administrative prevalence of those conditions, and we have to ask questions about why that is the case.

There is also a legitimate conversation to be had about medicalising or over-medicalising neurodiversity. There are, of course, those individuals who suffer neurodiverse disorders to such an extent that they are unable to work and will be unable to work throughout their lives, but neurodiversity is actually a variance of human nature. We are not all built the same; we vary in our skillsets and our personalities. Neurodiversity is part of that picture, and we should be harnessing it to enable those young people to get into the workplace.

There is also an argument of fairness, because those who pay into the system want to know that it is being spent in a fair and equitable way—it is taxpayers’ money after all. Nobody begrudges those who genuinely need support from having it, but what they do begrudge is a situation—I have encountered this when speaking to young people in my constituency—in which young people have gone out and worked, and they have friends who were on the same university course, for example, who have then gone on to benefits and are financially in a better position than them.

That is not the way we should be supporting our young people. It does not allow them to grow or establish the full lives that we all want them to have. It also deeply damages that social contract with the wider public, because if an increasing number of people feel that the system no longer adequately distributes wealth and does not represent the importance of paying in and supporting those who belong in it, we will find that there will be a growing resentment—not against those who are unable to work, but against those who can work but choose not to do so. That fundamentally damages the reciprocity of the social contract of this country.

14:59

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

May life grant me the confidence, conviction, and lack of shame of a Conservative MP who is enraged by problems that they either helped to create or did nothing about when they had the chance. I do not think there has been a Conservative Government in my lifetime who have not said that they would cut welfare spending, and then attempted to blame their failure to do so on the sick, the poor and the young, and what we hear from the Opposition today is the same old approach, which would lead to the same old failures from the same old Tories.

I am old enough to remember when George Osborne promised us a high-wage, low-tax, low-welfare country. Instead, we saw child poverty skyrocket, food banks open in every community, young people written off, and a welfare bill that went up by a record £33 billion in the Conservatives’ last year in power alone. Opposition Members cannot be trusted to fix the welfare system, because they are unwilling to be honest about how the money would be spent, or to simply address the question of why people need support. They know full well that most of the welfare bill is spent on pensions, and that in the future, to protect pensions, decisions will have to be taken, such as on whether to adjust the triple lock. Instead, what we get from the Opposition is a bogus petition designed to stoke fear and division, proposals to push children back into poverty, and an open attack on the working poor. The Opposition’s proposals fail to acknowledge that 3.1 million people receiving universal credit this year are in work, that one in five working-age people receiving personal independence payments are in employment, and that 58% of households helped by the removal of the two-child benefit cap have at least one parent in work.

If we are genuinely to reduce dependency on welfare, we must tackle the things that make people need that support in the first place: low pay, poor health, the cost of housing and, perhaps most importantly, child poverty. As research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation shows, young people who experience persistent childhood poverty are 3.4 times more likely to be out of education and employment by the time they turn 23. That should concern every Member of this House, because poverty does not simply disappear when a child turns 18; it can shape their education, health and opportunities for the rest of their life. If we fail to address those barriers today, we risk creating greater costs for our welfare system tomorrow.

The sad thing is that everyone in this House agrees that the system can and should be fixed, because a system that spends £1 on support for every £25 on benefits is not right. Is it time to do this differently, and to work across the House to design a system that is about lifting people up, instead of writing them off? I am proud that this Labour Government have removed the two-child benefit cap and lifted half a million children out of poverty. I welcome the £3.5 billion investment in employment support for the sick and disabled. Reducing welfare dependency cannot simply mean reducing the support that people need; it should mean reducing the need for that support in the first place, and that cannot be achieved by the same old approach that leads to the same old failures from the same old Tories.

15:03

[Lara Bird (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

It is heartbreaking that we still have a such a large proportion of working poor in our society, and that so many people across my constituency, and the constituencies of others Members, are working hard, making sacrifices and doing their best, yet are still being punished by increasingly oppressive policies that take one look at the reality of hardship faced by folk, and decide to look the other way. One thing that is clear, and has always been clear, is that we cannot cut our way to prosperity—the Tories’ own record shows that to be true. The way to get the welfare bill down is not to arbitrarily pick targets and experiment with people’s lives to score political points, and it is genuinely insulting that Conservative Members can come here today and try to offer half-baked solutions to problems that they created.

This is largely a problem of the Conservative party’s own making. Conservative Members are trying to blame those in our society who rely on support because they cannot accept responsibility for their own actions. We must make it clear how misguided at best, or intentionally reckless at worst, the Conservative party is when it comes to welfare, because its austerity-fuelled cuts were linked directly to rising levels of poverty, and they have exacerbated the overall cost, long term. Anyone minded to listen to the Conservative party on their arbitrary welfare targets might need to seriously check themselves.

Of course we do not want people to rely on welfare long term, but there is a trend over past years—largely instigated by Conservative Members, but it is increasingly found wider afield—to blame those who rely on additional support for Government mismanagement, instead of recognising that many who receive such support are already valuable, contributing members of our society. This trend completely fails to address why so many working-age, motivated and skilled individuals still have no choice but to rely on additional support. Indeed, many people are able to contribute to our society and economy only because they receive additional support. Rather than blame those people, there must be more intense scrutiny of why so many people have to rely on that support, why so many are dependent on universal credit despite being in full-time employment, and why so many young people are relying on jobseeker’s allowance. It is not because they do not want to work and are not looking for work; it is because the Labour Government have priced them out of employment by creating such a hostile hiring environment. So many parents and families rely on the Scottish child payment because life is just so unaffordable.

I am especially concerned about young people who are coming of age today. A young person in my constituency who graduated from a university in England or Wales might have over £60,000 of debt, which they will likely be paying off for their entire life, and that amount will rise year on year because of interest. They have started paying that debt back earlier because Labour refused to amend the threshold freeze. A young person might not be able to find a job because the employer national insurance contribution hike is pricing young people out of work, or because of the refusal to cut VAT on hospitality, or because of the total mismanagement of minimum wage reforms. A young person could be paying more than £1,000 in energy bills; they are due to rise again in January, because of Labour’s choices. A young person who cannot afford to save knows that they will likely never buy a house, might never receive a state pension, and faces unaffordable monthly living costs.

As one of the youngest Members in this House, it is so frustrating to come here and hear others speaking about the reality for young people without actually understanding what they are facing, and to see the discrepancy between apparent support from the Government and the reality for young people in my constituency. Yes, I want the welfare bill to come down, but the way to reduce it is to introduce effective employment support. The SNP will not support the Opposition motion this afternoon, and it is laughable to think that anyone would take their lead when it comes to addressing the welfare budget.

15:07

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

I start by disappointing Conservative Members: I agree with some of what they are saying. The welfare bill is too high, and too many young people are not in education, employment or training; it is morally indefensible. The problem is that Conservative Members seem to have forgotten who was in charge when those trends first took hold. In their final year in office, the welfare bill rose by a record £33 billion. Listening to some of the speeches this afternoon, one might think that Conservative Members had spent 14 years campaigning against Conservative Governments. They are right to highlight the growing number of young people who are not in education, employment or training, but it is not a new problem. It did not begin last year, or in July 2024; it grew on their watch, and yes, it has continued since. Frankly, that should prompt some humility, not self-righteousness from Conservative Members.

I also agree with Conservative Members when they say that we need to spend much more on defence. What puzzles me, however, is the argument that all we need to do is cut welfare, and the defence budget will somehow take care of itself. If it is that easy, why did they not do it? They had 14 years in government, and over those 14 years, welfare spending rose while, in the words of a former Defence Secretary, our armed forces were “hollowed out”. What exactly are Conservative Members asking us to learn from their example—that it is entirely possible to end up with a growing welfare bill and shrinking military capability at the same time? Anyone on the Opposition Benches can demand cuts, but it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that reform actually works.

Earlier this year, I brought together a group of young people from my constituency who were not in education, employment or training. Not one of them told me that welfare was the reason that they were out of work. They talked about poor or non-existent careers advice; artificial intelligence and the rapidly changing labour market; and struggling to get employers to give them a chance, because they lacked confidence or soft skills, in some cases. In other words, they talked about barriers. We can ignore those barriers and make speeches about random, crude cuts to welfare, or we can try to deal with them. I would much rather do the latter. Real welfare reform is not measured by how much money leaves the Treasury; it is measured by how many people can enter and remain in work.

The Opposition are right to demand welfare reform and stronger defence, but they have no right to pretend that they bear no responsibility for the position in which this country finds itself on either score. After their 14 years in government, the welfare bill had risen and our military was hollowed out. The country needs welfare reform and stronger defence, but demanding change is not the same as delivering it. The real test is whether more people find work, whether barriers are removed, and whether our armed forces are genuinely stronger. None of those challenges will be solved by that lot on the Opposition Benches pretending that the previous 14 years did not happen.

15:09

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I have a solemn duty to talk about an incredibly difficult and challenging statistic in relation to the prosperity of this country: the size and scale of worklessness in our country right now. Some 6.7 million working-age people are claiming benefits and are not in work. That is one in six of our working-age population. I do not know how anyone can hear that statistic and not be horrified by what it represents for the prosperity of a country that seeks to do well. Historically, that figure has been around one in 10. It causes me particular concern, for a number of reasons, that today’s figure is related to an increase in claims for mental health challenges and disabilities.

We have talked about the challenges of ensuring that people do not feel stigmatised or labelled in a way that will not be conducive to their finding work. When it comes to mental health conditions such as depression, we have to recognise that getting in work and getting a job is advantageous to someone’s mental health, and that not working is a disadvantage to their mental health. I am afraid that there is also the challenge of fraud in the benefits system. We all have to accept that the benign view of human nature that we have heard expressed by Government Members, in which no one is ever induced or encouraged to make a claim that might not reflect their reality, is naive in the extreme.

[Daniel Francis]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Mullan]

Let me finish my point.

The fact is that mental health conditions are almost entirely self-reported. People are asked questions that relate to how they feel, what their mood is and what they can or cannot do, and we must accept that that inevitably has a risk of inducing or encouraging people to exaggerate their claims. The hon. Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) is not in her place any more, but she inadvertently accepted that point when she talked about the disability living allowance, and how the changes that were made encouraged people to put in higher claims. That in itself is admitting that people say or do different things depending on the available incentives.

We must not forget that a welfare system does not exist in isolation; it is part of a wider society. All of us face a complex mixture of incentives and disincentives to do the right thing. There will be people at either end of the spectrum, but a lot of people are at a point in between. That is why I support our policies, which make it very clear that when it comes to access to cash, being on benefits is not the same thing as being in work, and it should not be the same thing. I support our plans to make the welfare state more about helping and supporting people with the things that they need, rather than just giving them money. That is also why I support our plans on the two-child benefit cap. We should never create a situation in which people who are working have to make tough decisions that those on benefits are excluded from having to make.

Government Members like to say that benefits are claimed by people in work, which is true, but the claimant numbers do not reflect how the money is spent. More than 80% of the money spent is spent on people who are not in work. A much smaller proportion of expenditure is on people who are in work. That is why I support the idea that the system should have two tracks: a track for people who have put into the system, who can then fairly ask more of it when they are in need, versus a track for people who have never put into the system. These are the incentives and disincentives that we all interact with in society. When I meet and speak to people on the frontline who work with people who are in poverty and claiming the support of charities and other sectors, they are very clear about that. They will freely talk about the people who come to see them—the people who they think are legitimate and really in need, and the people who they think are not. That is why I find it so extraordinary that Government Members never seem to want to acknowledge what we all know is a real pressure in society.

[Daniel Francis]

We heard from the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) that 20 or 30 years ago, a person born with a brain injury would be unlikely to survive. Today, such people survive and live with a disability for the rest of their life—people like my daughter. Is the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) really saying that because those people have never paid in or contributed, they are not entitled to any help from the state?

[Dr Mullan]

That is not the system that we propose. We are talking about people who have had an opportunity to contribute and have not done so; the system should take that into account. That is a fair and reasonable point to make.

[Natasha Irons]

The hon. Member is talking about contributions and people who have contributed. Does that include foreign nationals?

[Dr Mullan]

I do not think that foreign nationals should be entitled to benefits, because of the basis on which they are allowed into our country. The only reason they are allowed into our country is that they are net contributors. Why would we undermine that by allowing them to be net recipients of benefits? They are only here because they have signed up to the idea that they will come and be net contributors, so I do not think that that entitles them.

[Natasha Irons]

Just so that I am clear, if somebody is born in another country, comes here and gets citizenship or indefinite leave to remain, and has contributed to the system because they have been working, should they be able to claim from the system? That was my question. They may well have been a high earner, but they may have fallen on hard times and fallen back on the system that we all rely on, and they may have contributed to that system.

[Dr Mullan]

They are citizens, are they not? They have signed a deeper contract with the country that they are in, and they are here under a different set of circumstances. The hon. Member needs to be clearer when she asks her questions in relation to two different groups of people, because we treat them very differently in our proposals. There is a distinction.

Let me make a final point that is often not talked about enough. We are all incredibly focused on what the Government should do to help people and how taxpayers should help people. We know that for very many people in poverty, a big factor in that is having absent parents who give them absolutely no money or pitiful amounts of money for very many years. We also know that a large proportion of families with children who are in absolute poverty would not be in poverty if an absent parent who is not paying was paying.

I wish that there was as much focus on the dereliction of duty that parents too often show to their children and the complete failure for decades to tackle that issue, across all parties, as there is on what taxpayers and the state should deliver. That is a significant moral failing that we are too shy to talk about in this country, and it does not get the attention that it needs. If all parents, whether they have split up or are together, contributed to the upkeep of their children, we would see a lot less child poverty; I wish that MPs on all sides of the House were as invested in that issue as they are in deciding how much the state should pay in their place.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With an immediate three-minute limit, I call Chris Curtis.

15:09

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

Let me start on that last point. I am the proud son of a single mother, and I am probably standing here today only because of the support that she got from the last Labour Government.

There are three things that we as Members can agree on. First, the welfare bill is too high, and the trajectory is unsustainable. Spending on disability benefits alone has risen from £45 billion last year and is forecast to reach almost £70 billion by 2031-32. If we want to protect the welfare state, we must make it more sustainable. Secondly, we have a duty to protect those who cannot work and provide a safety net for those who work but have fallen on hard times. That is what the welfare state is for.

Thirdly, helping more people into work is good not only for the Treasury, but, as many people have said, for those individuals. Good work brings dignity, purpose, independence and often better health. That matters, because this debate is presented as a contrast between those who are willing to reform the welfare system and those who want the status quo, but I reject that. I believe in reforming the welfare state because I am a Labour politician, not despite it. The disagreement is on how we do that and the determination with which we push through changes.

We have seen that just announcing spending cuts does not achieve them. The Conservatives announced £11 billion of welfare cuts in 2010. In 2015, they promised another £12 billion. When they introduced PIP, they expected it to reduce spending by 20% compared with the system that it replaced; instead, the OBR said that it increased spending. Even before the pandemic, working-age disability benefits spending was rising by more than 5% a year in real terms. Announcing savings does not always lead to delivering them.

There are two reasons for that, both of which are relevant to the Opposition’s proposals. First, cutting one benefit can simply move the cost elsewhere. Take local housing allowance; the Opposition have announced that they are going to add extra limits to that, as well as reinstate the two-child benefit limit. Imagine a family with three young children who are already struggling to pay the rent. They could lose support for their third child while their housing allowance is pegged to a level that covers only the cheapest tenth of local properties. What happens is that they can now no longer afford their home. Quite rightly, I think there is consensus across the Chamber that we do not leave children sleeping on the pavement, and I do not believe the Opposition are arguing against that.

[David Simmonds]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about local housing allowance. The Prime Minister said that he felt a freeze in local housing allowance was simply a cost-shunt on to local authorities, but the Chancellor went ahead and did it anyway. Does the hon. Gentleman think the Chancellor was right, or was the Prime Minister right to criticise him?

[Chris Curtis]

I sit on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and we have discussed raising LHA a lot. However, the Conservatives’ proposal goes even further, and would ultimately have a real effect on the temporary housing bill. Last year, councils in England spent £2.9 billion on temporary accommodation. In London, the number of homeless children in such accommodation is equivalent to at least one in every classroom—if you cut in one place, it whacks the cost up somewhere else. That is before we get on to the wider costs, including disrupting schooling, parents being forced out of work, and pressure on the NHS.

Most horrifically of all, in the six years since 2019, 104 children died with temporary accommodation recorded as contributing to their vulnerability, ill health or death. Seventy-six of those children were under the age of one. We all accept that policies involve trade-offs, but that is probably one that we should all find pretty difficult to stomach. For the Conservatives to put forward such a policy without even having modelled its impact on temporary accommodation and wider impact on the welfare bill, shows that those proposals have not been well thought through.

Yes, we need to come up with sustainable ways to address the welfare bill. We will see more from the reviews that are coming forward, and I will be proud to support them.

15:22

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

From 2010 to 2024, every reform was opposed and every initiative was rebuffed by people who sat on the Opposition Benches. Labour Members remind me of St Augustine, because they try to tell us that they are now serious about welfare reform. Their prayer is “Make me a welfare reformer, but not yet”, because when they had the opportunity to introduce some reform, they rebelled. Keir Starmer blinked, the rebels got their way, and the reform agenda was kiboshed. The Prime Minister lost his authority, and the rest, as they say, is history. Do not take my word for it; the current Secretary of State for Work and Pensions told the whole world. He said that “Every meeting I have” with Labour MPs—not some, not the majority, but every meeting—

“is ‘Who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others?’”.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

Going back to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), when she was the Minister of State for Employment, I was her Parliamentary Private Secretary. We would sit through many a Westminster Hall debate secured by the Opposition, who are now the Government, complaining that we just were not spending enough. They said about every reform we brought forward, “Not good enough. You need to spend more.” There was never any attempt to reduce the welfare bill.

[Simon Hoare]

My right hon. Friend is right. As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick), the Government had 14 years to plan for this great reform and modernisation of welfare, and they did nothing with it. They arrive in government, and precious little happens.

[Sean Woodcock]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Hoare]

It gives me another minute, so why not?

[Sean Woodcock]

Is the hon. Gentleman’s position seriously that it is Labour’s fault that the welfare bill went up under the Conservatives?

[Simon Hoare]

No, that would be an asinine interpretation of what I have just said. The point I am making is that every time the Conservative party came up with a reform or a modernisation when in government, the gut reaction of the Labour party was to oppose it.

I happen to think that the welfare state is one of our crowning glories. It was brought in to address a number of deeply systemic societal problems, and it has been a tremendous force for good and transformation in our country. However, it is always intended to be a safety net, a permanent safety net for those who—as a result of disability, for example—find themselves unable to enter the workplace. It removes pressure and anxiety, and it gives people the dignity to live that they quite legitimately deserve, but it should never have been allowed under successive Administrations to become a cocoon. It has ceased to be a safety net; it has become a trap with perverse, Kafkaesque incentives, where the cumulative benefits an individual can receive are greater than anything they could hope to aspire to when getting into a job for the first time. I hope the House can agree that there is nothing kind or caring about trapping people in that sort of environment.

We all know—as various right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned in their speech—the fundamental importance and transformative nature of work for individuals, their families and their communities. It promotes a sense of self-respect, self-reliance, and being able to do things for yourself.

[Dr Mullan]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Simon Hoare]

I will not. The benefits of work are clear and unquestionable, yet we are trapping people through perverse incentives; if they earn an extra pound here or there, they suddenly lose a great slew of benefits. Surely—I say this to Members on the Treasury Bench—we will have to be far more imaginative and far more bespoke in how we approach welfare. We should be using digital and the raft of opportunities it offers to provide a far more bespoke, personally tailored network of support to get people back into work, rather than trapping them.

I want to say one thing about disability, as I had the honour of chairing the all-party parliamentary group for multiple sclerosis in the last Parliament. We will get more disabled people back into work because they want to stay in work—for all the reasons I have set out—if they have the confidence that they can ask their employer for reasonable adjustments, and if their employer has the confidence to ask what the employee might need in order to stay in work. Let us not have a slanging match across the two Dispatch Boxes; let us try to work cross-party. It will be good for the economy and good for our people up and down the land, and it will generate greater tax receipts to pay for the social services, defence and other areas that we want to see expenditure in. However, the status quo cannot be defended.

15:27

[Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)]

What we should be talking about in this debate is root-and-branch reform of our welfare system, providing more opportunities for work for those who can work while protecting those who cannot. We should be talking about innovation and investment in employability to tackle the scourge of youth unemployment in our communities. What we should not have is the weaponisation of this debate and point scoring by a party whose record on this issue does not stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

On the Conservatives’ watch, spending on incapacity and disability benefits for working-age adults rose by £20 billion between 2019 and 2024, while progress on closing the disability employment gap stalled. When they left office, nearly 900,000 young people were not in education, employment or training and the disability employment gap stood at nearly 30%. The legacy in my constituency is that Fife has the fourth-lowest rate of 16 to 19-year-olds in education, training or work of Scotland’s 32 council areas. In Buckhaven and Methil in my constituency, one in eight of those aged 16 to 19 is a NEET, putting the area among the five worst wards in the whole of Scotland.

It is not rocket science to work out how that happened. We had a Conservative Government at Westminster failing to take the action required to provide more opportunities for our young people and to close the disability employment gap. Regrettably, we had an SNP Scottish Government cutting budgets for skills and training. I hope that Scottish Ministers will respond positively to the Prime Minister’s invitation to work with the UK Government to devolve powers and resources on employment to Scotland’s regions, as we are doing in England and Wales.

Importantly, this Government are not waiting for the final conclusions of the Milburn review, but are instead heeding the important call for change made in his interim report. We have the youth guarantee, backed by £1.5 billion of funding. We are introducing the youth jobs grant to incentivise employers to hire young people who have been on universal credit for six months. The Secretary of State recently had the opportunity to visit the youth hub in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister). Young people who had never worked before are already finding jobs as a result of the support they are receiving from the youth hub.

There is plenty of evidence of what works with employability support. The community trade hub in Buckhaven in my constituency is reaching young people who were non-attenders at school, but are now getting the skills they need for the work of the future. The brilliant Enable Works scheme, where I used to work, is bringing third sector organisations together with expertise in employability. Could the work of the third sector make an even greater contribution with this vital change for disabled people, for young people and for our country?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

15:30

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

No welfare system stands the test of time in perpetuity. Loopholes appear in all well-intentioned systems. People test the system, and the world does not stand still. That is why the last Conservative Government came into office with a plan to tackle the welfare bill that had ballooned under Labour, and they did tackle welfare.

The right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) asked earlier in this debate, “In which years under the last Conservative Government did the welfare bill come down?” I am happy to be able to assist him. Under the last Conservative Government, the working welfare bill came down in 2012. It came down in 2013. It came down in 2014. It came down in 2015. It came down in 2016. It came down in 2017. It came down in 2018. It came down in 2019. Between 2010 and 2019, the working welfare bill came down by a fifth. That is the legacy of the last Conservative Government’s reforms.

I live in the real world, and I accept that covid changed everything. It changed the relationship between the individual and the state. From that time, the welfare bill started to climb. Those were the conditions that Labour knew it would have to deal with as it came into government, and it failed to deliver. Labour did not even have a plan to tackle the welfare bill, which it knew had been climbing year on year since covid.

At least the last Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, cobbled together some form of plan. It was a pretty rubbish plan, but a year and a half ago he tried to get some crude cuts through the House of only £5 billion-worth of savings. He failed, though, because the same MPs sitting opposite me now on the Government Benches stopped him. The current Prime Minister came into office a few months ago and flirted with the idea of bringing down the welfare bill, but he has given up entirely and he is proud of it. He is so proud that he will not bring the welfare bill down that he has ruled it out for the remainder of this Parliament.

The right hon. Member for East Ham has been tasked with finding savings, and he is about to publish his review into PIP. We know what will be in that review when it comes to savings: absolutely nothing, because the Prime Minister has already ruled it out. The Labour party is the welfare party. Its Members are proud of welfare spending going up and up. Just a few hours ago, at the Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister criticised our party’s plan to save £36 billion because it will hit incomes during a cost of living crisis. The system of benefits and personal independence payments is not intended to be an income top-up. It is not even means-tested. It is there to help people with a genuine need to meet the daily cost of a disability. I am afraid that the Prime Minister’s mask has slipped if he thinks it is there to serve as an income top-up during a cost of living crisis of his own making.

Let me now deal with some of the contributions from Labour Members. The hon. Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick) brought up the subject of child poverty. The best way to help hard-working families tackle child poverty is to make sure that they have well-paid jobs—to get off the backs of wealth creators, get off the backs of business and reverse the harmful job tax, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) has asked.

[Daniel Francis]

The hon. Member has accepted from the Dispatch Box that the Conservatives did completely lose control of the budget, but will he also accept that, contrary to what they keep saying on the airwaves and in the House, the numbers increased more between spring 2022 and spring 2024 than they did between spring 2020 and spring 2022? Moreover, covid was not the cause; the cause was the fact that, at the back end of their Government, they lost control of the economy, they lost control of our borders, they lost control of the SEND system, and they lost control of DWP budgets.

[Joe Robertson]

I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Member’s claim that covid and its legacy had no effect. I think he should go back and think again about what life was like during covid and in the aftermath.

I turn now to our plan. We will not make the mistake that the Labour party made in opposition. We will not sit by and let a system become more and more unfair without doing the hard graft. As my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) pointed out, it is not fair to leave the system as it is. Our plan includes £36.1 billion of welfare savings to help get Britain working. Ensuring support for people with genuine need is at the heart of it, and we will provide £1 billion for people with lower-level mental health conditions. That is new money to help them and ensure that we can make savings of £16.5 billion by removing them from the cash handout system, giving them the therapeutic support that they need instead.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Joe Robertson]

My time is short, so let me finish by addressing the critics head-on: those who say that we do not understand—that we do not understand mental health, and that I do not understand what it is like to live with a neurodevelopmental disorder. Well, I do know what it is like. I have an ADHD diagnosis, but I have never been told that I cannot do something, and I have never been told that I need more help to do it. My condition was undiagnosed for 30 years. People with ADHD do not need a disabled persons railcard, they do not need a Motability car, and most of them do not need a cash payment every month to meet the cost of a disability for ADHD alone.

The Government need to stop thinking of new ways to give more people more things. Instead, we need to ensure that people have access to therapeutic community support to help them to live, learn, train, work, and get on in life. That is good for the economy, it is good for society and, most of all, it is good for the individuals involved. That is not the Labour way; it is the Conservative way.

15:37

[The Minister for Employment (Andrew Western)]

Given that time is short, I hope that my hon. Friends will forgive me for not being able to respond at length and reflect on the excellent contributions that we have heard. However, I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre)—whom, of course, I will meet, as he requested—and my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick), for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), for Croydon East (Natasha Irons), for Banbury (Sean Woodcock), for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) and for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) for their passionate speeches. In particular, I want to highlight the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Michael Payne), whose demolition job on the Opposition’s proposals was truly something to behold.

In her opening speech, the shadow Secretary of State suggested that it was a little early for the panto season. However, people could be forgiven for their confusion, given that the Tories have rushed out their Christmas wish list of cuts somewhat early this year. Before turning to those particular proposals, however, I want to comment on some of the other points made by the shadow Secretary of State.

We agree that the number of unemployed young people is unacceptable. The number of young people not in education, employment or training was, of course, up by 250,000 in their final three years in office. We commissioned the Milburn review, the youth guarantee and the youth jobs grant because we are determined to right their wrong.

The hon. Lady said that reforming welfare is not cruel. Again, I agree with her, but the Conservatives’ plans are not welfare reform; they are cruel cuts. She said that we cancelled their reforms, but it is worth remembering that their 2023 consultation on reforming the work capability assessment was ruled unlawful.

Let us turn to some of the specific proposals in the plans that the hon. Lady spoke to, which would push hundreds of thousands of children into poverty. Half a million young people would be impacted by the Conservatives’ proposal to reinstate the two-child limit, with well over half the children affected in families that are in work. The Child Poverty Action Group has said that the Tories’ measures, including the reinstatement of the two-child limit, would cause

“the biggest overnight increase in child poverty since records began.”

It is absolutely shameful.

The Conservatives’ changes to housing benefit would exacerbate homelessness and add costs. They have proposed to reduce local housing allowance to the 10th percentile of local rent, instead of the current 30th percentile. Expert organisations have said that this would dramatically increase homelessness, as well as displacing costs to local authorities, the NHS and other public services. The director of the Chartered Institute of Housing says:

“At a time when record numbers of households are already struggling with housing costs, this would almost certainly increase financial hardship and homelessness. Any short-term savings to the welfare bill could quickly be outweighed by higher costs to councils, the NHS and other public services”.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on welfare bill savings. Can he confirm that the Labour party’s 10-year plan will contain detailed plans for reducing the bill?

[Andrew Western]

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we have been clear that we will set out our proposals for welfare reform next year. They will be scored by the OBR in the usual way.

Turning back to the Conservatives’ proposed changes to local housing allowance, I have already quoted the Chartered Institute of Housing. I rather prefer the slightly snappier comments of the chief executive of Shelter, who said:

“Making more families homeless does not save the government money.”

It is not rocket science, but it needs explaining to some Members of this House.

The Conservatives have not said what would happen to British people, including children in households that contain foreign nationals. They have not set out how a household with a foreign national and a British citizen partner would be treated. Universal credit is, of course, a household benefit. Would that household be treated as a single person claim, instead of a couple claim? Would the household lose all eligibility? What about households containing foreign national adults living with British citizen children? Would the Tories’ policy on foreign nationals hit the income and living standards of British people? From the information available to us at present, it certainly seems that that would be the case.

Let us turn to the laughably ambitious £13.7 billion that the Conservatives claim they can save by reforming disability and sickness benefit. They say that this would be achieved by introducing more detailed and holistic assessments with tighter eligibility criteria, but the current contracts, which they signed us up to, run until 2029. They say that they can deliver all this by 2030, yet those contracts include a target for face-to-face assessments of just 20%. It is undeliverable.

Of course, that is before one considers that the Conservatives’ costings are predicated on claimants’ primary condition only. The shadow Secretary of State quoted the IFS, which has been very clear that most people in the cohorts that the Conservative party hopes to take benefits away from actually have multiple conditions, and often three or four. The Tories have no idea what those people’s conditions are, so the numbers are just total fantasy. Overall, they refuse to say how many households or individuals would lose out.

The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) said that the Conservatives were protecting pensioners. That is not the case, because the transition from PIP to attendance allowance that they will force on people reaching pension age could cost somebody up to £4,160 a year. That would be someone on the higher rate of PIP for both daily living and mobility moving on to the higher rate of attendance allowance, so it could in some cases be more. I suspect that the Conservatives do not know how many people would be affected, I suspect they do not have a precise figure for how much it will save, and I fully expect—now I have pointed out that they are not, in fact, protecting pensioners—that that proposal will disappear, because many of these things do not stand up to scrutiny.

The challenge with the proposals the Conservatives have put forward is that they are not worth the paper they are written on. A serious Opposition would have done their homework properly, but what do we have instead? They claim to have a plan for welfare that works, but who exactly does it work for? Not for the children plunged into poverty, not for the taxpayers who have to foot the cost, not for the pensioners who face a £4,000 cliff edge and not for the households facing homelessness. We know how punitive policies turn out: more hardship, less opportunity and more pressure on the welfare state. This Government will not repeat the Conservatives’ mistakes. We are fixing the broken welfare system they left in their wake, and ensuring that everyone gets the support they need so that they can fulfil their potential and truly have a better future.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.

15:45

Division 119

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 92

Noes: 279

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.

15:59

Division 120

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ayes: 268

Noes: 93

The Deputy Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).

Resolved,

That this House notes that the previous Government left over one million young people not in education, employment or training, while overseeing a £33 billion rise in the welfare bill in its final year alone; recognises that since the General Election one million more people are in work and 397,000 more people are economically active; welcomes the imminent publication of the Milburn and Timms reviews; and supports the Government’s commitment to deliver welfare reforms that break down barriers to employment, support more people into good, secure work and bring down the benefits bill.

Employers

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected the amendment.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

16:10

[Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that employers are working people and therefore condemns the Government for breaking the Labour Party manifesto commitment not to increase National Insurance by increasing employers’ National Insurance contributions; and calls on the Government to halve employers’ National Insurance contributions for under-25s.

Today, we debate a simple proposition: that employers are working people. One might have assumed it a blindingly obvious proposition, but it is one that Labour contorts itself to deny. But, then, Labour is not very good at answering obvious questions, like, “What is a woman?” or “Should someone identifying as a llama be taken seriously?”—remember that one?

Yes, the “working people” definition has really been flummoxing Labour Members. For two years, they have been bending themselves into funny shapes. The right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) said that a working person is

“anyone that gets a payslip, basically”.

The Secretary of State for Transport said that working people were “people on modest incomes”. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirmed that employers are not working people. Last week, the First Secretary cleared it all up by saying that working people

“do not have savings…and…rely on good public services.”—[Official Report, 4 November 2026; Vol. 792, c. 910.]

That might explain why the Budget hiked taxes on savers. It is a Cirque du Soleil of mental gymnastics—but why? Because in 2024 Labour decided, albeit briefly, that it would rather get elected to govern the country than continue its audition to lead the student union of Islington ring road university, so it made everyone a promise in its manifesto: no tax increases for working people. It got specific: there was to be no VAT hike and no extra rates of income tax, and Labour would not increase national insurance—no way. Just months later, up shoots national insurance to the tune of £25 billion a year. Suddenly, working people across the country are asking, “What the hell happened?”.

Labour told working people, “No, no, it’s all perfectly legit—it’s an increase in national insurance for employers, not employees.” I think that is what Labour MPs might normally call gaslighting, but since it is being done to people who contribute, work themselves silly and generally want the country to succeed, their feelings are of no concern to the Government.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I am afraid that I must disagree with my hon. Friend. I do not think the Labour Government were gaslighting the nation. So little is their understanding of business and their ability to read an Office for Budget Responsibility analysis that they did not realise that the nearly £27 billion hit on the nation’s economy would lead to a nearly £20 billion reduction in the money that ordinary people get in their pay packets, and that the net receipt to the Treasury would be about half that—about £10 billion. They cannot add up. Perhaps my hon. Friend needs to acknowledge that they have that disability.

[Julia Lopez]

I ask for my right hon. Friend’s forgiveness. I buy into his theory more than mine; I have overestimated the Government’s capabilities.

The Conservatives’ motion says that the House believes that employers are working people, and that increasing national insurance broke Labour’s manifesto. If this was just a debate about semantics, maybe we could all move on, but the 2024 Budget has cast a shadow over every employer in every postcode, driving up unemployment and pushing up costs for everyone. It is time to start unravelling that damage, and in particular the damage that this tax increase has done to young people.

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

For what it is worth, I accept that employers are working people and they are an important part of our labour market and our economy. However, though I lament the increase to national insurance, it was necessary to get money back into the NHS, which was on its knees following the end of the last Government, and that was breaking the economy too.

[Julia Lopez]

The hon. Gentleman has no doubt been to his constituency and been denied access to pubs, salons and all the rest of it, and that has suddenly changed his mind about what constitutes “a working person”. I should ask: are his constituents seeing those better public services? Certainly, mine are not, and they wonder where all that money has gone because it has not gone on more stable public finances or better public services.

Let us start by acknowledging what it takes to be an employer. It takes someone who saved money to start a business of their own and who took a risk to expand it gradually to take on that first member of staff, then over time building a team. It takes long hours, personal sacrifice, financial peril, time away from their family.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

My hon. Friend characterises a picture that might be seen in every constituency among small and medium-sized enterprises. Sometimes, people imagine business as consisting wholly of globalist corporate plutocrats, but the backbone of our economy is made up of those small and medium-sized firms of exactly the kind that she describes. On the issue of public services, why does the Labour party not focus on productivity? It is not wholly about what we spend; it is what we get for what we spend.

[Julia Lopez]

I agree with what my right hon. Friend says. That characterisation of employers is why Labour gets itself into such problems in the first place. He talks about the issues relating to national insurance and public services. The NHS also has to pay a higher national insurance bill because of the changes that the Labour Government have made, and that has caused all kinds of challenges across the public sector.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. One of the biggest problems when national insurance went up was that places such as hospices, pharmacies and care homes were not excluded. It is one thing to say that we are putting more money in, but all that money and more was taken elsewhere to pay for the staffing. Is that not part of the problem?

[Julia Lopez]

It is absolutely part of the problem. Labour did not think that through, and I have an example of that same phenomenon with the hospice in my constituency, as well as with a number of public sector organisations and charities.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

To build on that point, the same applies to the education setting. I met some of my headteachers just last week. Despite employer national insurance going up, central Government grant covers only about 70% of the cost, so the additional 30% must come out of the existing school budget. That has led to teaching assistants being let go and made redundant in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend not agree that that detrimental increase in tax has hit everybody across every constituency?

[Julia Lopez]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It has been seen in my constituency and across Whitehall. It is an absolute dog’s dinner of a policy that has created problems for not just the private sector but the public sector.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The shadow Minister makes a point about the increases to national insurance—absolutely fine; that is a political point that she is entitled to make. Will she tell me, using the exact same logic that she has applied to the criticism of this levy, why in 2021 she voted for the hypothecated health and social care levy, which was a 1.25% increase on national insurance for both employees and employers? Why was that an acceptable increase, but this was not?

[Julia Lopez]

That was a policy that was put forward. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) decided to change it because the economy was in a challenging state after the pandemic and we needed to think again about whether it was the right thing to put that pressure on employers, so we went back on that policy.

To return to what employers have been going through, they have the ongoing stress and responsibility of employing people and wanting so desperately to continue to provide opportunity for them. They have to think about the other families who are relying on them as small business founders who are pushing to provide a community with a great service and a happy experience. They are pub landlords, builders, restaurateurs, service firms, salon owners, café owners, shop owners. Work, work, work, work, work.

Employers are not just working people; they are uber-taxpayers. They made it through covid, they made it through an energy crisis, but many are now saying that they cannot make it through Labour. When Labour broke its manifesto commitment in its first Budget by increasing national insurance, it did so in a highly destructive way. Not only did it increase the rate, but it lowered the point at which employers start paying NI on an employee’s salary. Lowering that threshold hit part-time, entry-level and lower-wage jobs the hardest, making employees so much more expensive to retain. I do not know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but suddenly, countless businesses in my constituency started sounding the alarm, especially those employing people who need flexible, part-time hours because of caring responsibilities.

[Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

I thank the shadow Minister for highlighting the impact on part-time workers. My constituency is a very seasonal area on the coast, but we also have students and OAPs, all of whom want part-time work, yet under this Government they are finding that so much harder to achieve.

[Julia Lopez]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that challenge in seasonal working, which creates an extra burden for employers, many of whom have to work to fill the shifts they would otherwise have used temporary staff for, creating enormous pressure.

People are writing to me in despair because their adult child simply cannot get a first break in the workplace, and it is not for want of trying. Businesses warned the Government that this would happen. The hospitality, retail and care sectors all raised the alarm about the impact of higher employer national insurance. What was Labour’s response? The unemployment Act, which makes it riskier to employ people as well as more expensive. The national insurance increase came into effect in April 2025. By April this year, there were 210,000 fewer payrolled employees than a year earlier. There are now 1 million young people not in education, employment or training, and the Government are in denial about the reasons why.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

The shadow Minister talks about businesses having warned the Labour Government about the impact that Labour’s jobs tax was going to have. Does she, like me, think it is inconceivable that Treasury officials would not similarly have advised the Government that this would be a consequence of the jobs tax? Is it not particularly pernicious of Labour to have put the biggest barricade in front of younger workers, possibly accessing their first job in hospitality, which will have a lifelong damaging effect on their careers?

[Julia Lopez]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point that out. It is inconceivable that the Government would not have been told about the impact that this policy was likely to have.

Labour likes to point out that employers do not pay national insurance on workers under 21, but that misses the point. Employers are making decisions about their entire workforce, and when the cost of employing people rises and the risks associated with taking on a new starter increase, the first opportunity to disappear is the one that will no longer be created. Rather than take on an extra employee at junior level, employers are squeezing the staffing resource they have, but they are shedding younger workers, too. By 2027, employing a full-time minimum wage worker over the age of 21 will cost a business 20% more than it did when Labour entered office. For an 18 to 20-year-old, it is 31%.

Labour knows that there is a problem, but rather than tackle it at source, it offers up the youth guarantee, a bung to employers to take on a young person for six months. How about making it cheaper and easier to employ that young person in the first place? Soon we will get details of an unlimited youth mobility scheme with the EU to add to this mix, which will see young Britons competing for available work with peers from 27 other nations.

The cost of all this must be absorbed somewhere. Higher national insurance, soaring energy bills and a growing burden of regulation all feed through into the price of doing business and, ultimately, the price we all pay. The weekly shop costs more, a meal out costs more, getting your hair done costs more, activities with the kids cost more, as does going away for a few days. This is just one of the reasons that household finances are going backwards. Whether Labour is talking about employer national insurance or employee national insurance, everybody pays at the end of the day.

We Conservatives want more working people, because work is dignity, contribution, resilience and confidence, and we want that opportunity for as many young people as possible. We want to end the waste of a generation unable to showcase its talents, and we want to reduce the cost on a generation of workers that can bear no more tax on its shoulders. That means returning to some of the policies that are driving this destruction. Not only would we repeal the job-destroying provisions of the unemployment Act; we Conservatives would halve employer national insurance for under-25s. Our policy would permanently reduce the cost of employing young people and give businesses a real incentive to take them on. For an employer, it would be a saving of around £1,500.

This is part of a wider plan to tackle Labour’s youth jobs emergency. Our “Get to Work” scheme would stop young people leaving education and drifting straight on to welfare. It would create 100,000 new apprenticeships, cut red tape to save the Saturday job and reduce high street business rates to support the businesses that give young people their first step on the jobs ladder—a policy that would benefit not 70,000 high street businesses, as Labour’s policy would, but 250,000.

Aside from old prejudices about employers as the oppressors of workers, the reason that Labour contorts itself on the definition of working people is that it knows it has taxed them silly. In doing so, it has not just broken its manifesto commitment but completely undermined what Keir Starmer and his sparkling new Chancellor used to say was Labour’s No. 1 priority: growth. The consequences are there for all to see in the unemployment figures and the living despair of young people unable to secure a good job.

[Sir John Hayes]

My hon. Friend is making a fundamental point about the structural effects of this policy: of course, it affects profitability year by year, but it also undermines the capacity of businesses to reinvest and ensure structurally that they are fit for the future. A butcher in my constituency, Andrew Parsons of Bennetts Butchers, is closing the shop in a couple of weeks after more than 100 years of trading, because, as a result of the costs lumped on him by successive Governments but particularly by this one, he does not have the money to reinvest.

[Julia Lopez]

My right hon. Friend tells us a terrible story that is unfortunately being played out in constituencies across this country. People are having their buffer eroded and then they are simply not able to invest in their businesses in the way that they would have hoped. It was all so predictable.

Let me close by reading out what I said to my constituents immediately after the 2024 Budget:

“Labour said in the election they did not need to hike taxes to pay for their plans, beyond those they had already announced. We now know this was not true—they have gone on a borrowing and spending spree that makes a mockery of the idea that they are concerned about the state of public finances they inherited. 

Many of the taxes on ordinary working people have been disguised by heaping pain on business. Labour may think it’s clever politics. But the result will be job losses, higher prices and closures…this approach is all wrong, warping the incentive structure in our economy. It won’t work and as they come back for more taxes, the number of people willing to take the risk of starting a business or save for their families will simply get smaller and smaller.”

We are now living that future. Have these tax rises given us robust public finances? Have they delivered better public services? Do people feel better off? On all counts, the answer is no, yet this new Prime Minister believes that the solution to the resulting welfare crisis is to give Labour more taxes to spend. It does not work. Employers are the funders of services, the drivers of growth and the engines of opportunity. Many are not just working people themselves but working people on steroids, and they are fed up of being the cash machine for Labour’s faux benevolence. Their requests are simple: give us the chance to grow our businesses and build a future pipeline of young people to whom one day we might well pass our life’s work. It is time for this Government to start undoing the damage they have wreaked and halve the jobs tax on the young people whose aspirations Labour is burying right now.

16:27

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster General (James Murray)]

The Budget of two weeks ago was a Budget to steer Britain through the economic storms we are facing. It provided breathing space now on the cost of living and the cost of business with fresh hope for the future, and it was built on fiscal discipline, which underwrites every promise this Government make. When the Chancellor stood at this Dispatch Box two weeks ago, he faced a choice: he could have followed the route of the Conservatives—sacrifice stability, borrow irresponsibly and make unfunded promises straight out of Liz Truss’s playbook—but instead he chose a responsible route to keep the public finances under control, protect working people, back businesses and invest in Britain’s future.

[Dr Evans]

I have asked this question a number of times over the past couple of years: could the right hon. Gentleman define “working people” for the House?

[James Murray]

Working people are those millions of people across the country who put so much in every day but have not been getting back what they deserve. Those are the people this Government are backing, and that is why, at this Budget, the Chancellor chose to prioritise breathing space for families and businesses, including on the cost of energy. He set out how we will tackle the long-term challenges facing our country. For families, that will mean a £100 household energy payment to support 20 million households—80% of households in England—along with an extension of the VAT cut for electricity bills and a further extension to the fuel duty freeze.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

I am grateful for the Minister giving way—I have a huge amount of respect for him. He is always the brave Minister who has to pad up and go out to bat to defend the indefensible, such as the jobs tax, the family farm tax or the family business tax. I wonder if the Minister could enlighten me: if there is a pub landlord hiring local people and serving beer to customers—who may or may not own black Labradors—are they a working person?

[James Murray]

Of course they are. If the hon. Member wants to talk about defending the indefensible, I wonder how he ever stands up in this place to talk about the previous Conservative Government because that must be an insurmountable challenge. I hope that he would welcome what the Chancellor announced at the Budget to give breathing space to businesses because it will mean that more than 70,000 small retail, hospitality and leisure properties are taken out of paying business rates altogether, that pubs will have a 20% cut in their business rates from next April and that business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure premises of all sizes will either fall or be frozen in real terms. In addition to business rates, many firms will benefit from our freeze on red diesel duty and from the reduction in energy bills by up to 25% for more than 10,000 eligible businesses from next April through the British industrial competitiveness scheme. That is what breathing space for businesses looks like, alongside the breathing space for families.

As I said earlier, the bedrock of our approach—our lodestar—to the public finances is fiscal discipline. That is why the Budget set out how we will fully fund all new policy and breathing space measures for families and businesses. In deciding his approach, the Chancellor rejected broad-based tax rises, instead taking decisions about tax changes that are fair, proportionate and targeted. That included having banks help pay for the energy help for households this winter through a temporary increase to the bank surcharge and an increase in machine games duty for higher-stakes machines to help fund cuts for business rates.

[Graham Stuart]

Could the Minister confirm that, under the current regulatory regime, the £1.5 billion that will be taken over 15 months in this doubled bank tax could be lent out to a maximum of £25 billion? There is a risk that having withdrawn £1.5 billion from the banks’ equity, £25 billion—it is the maximum—in lending to the UK businesses we are talking about could be lost?

[James Murray]

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will have been interested in our measures in the Budget for the British Business Bank, for instance, to increase access to finance, particularly for many of those businesses that are trying to scale up and increase. But I come back to this central point—I know what his position will be because he is a loyal member of the Opposition Benches and will follow what the Leader of the Opposition said on Budget day itself—which is that the Conservative party does not support our decision to require banks to pay a little more for a temporary period of time to fund household support across the country. We know that banks are coming from a strong position. It is a temporary increase. It is one that we believe is fair, targeted and proportionate. We are asking banks—requiring banks—to pay that extra amount, and they are therefore contributing towards the important support for households. What I think is sad about this debate is that the Opposition do not support that breathing space for households. I thought the right hon. Gentleman was loyal to his party leader, but if he would like to break ranks and intervene on me again to confirm that he supports our £100 household energy payment, that would be helpful.

[Graham Stuart]

The slavish loyalty of the Minister has already been remarked upon, along with the courage that goes with defending the indefensible quite as often as he has done—always with wit and good humour. Could he address this particular point? The truth is that banks are a popular target to hit with the public and with Labour Members, but if there is actually less money to go to the pubs, restaurants and small businesses in my constituency and elsewhere, can he not accept that that multiple should give people pause for thought before they go for the easy, popular target and take it out of the big, fat, rich banks, if it turns out the small business in trouble will actually lose the credit it desperately needs?

[James Murray]

I was listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, as I always do whenever he speaks in this Chamber, and I did not hear a response to the question I asked of him, which is whether he supports the household energy payment, which the Leader of the Opposition so clearly opposes. I invited him to intervene to clarify his position given there seems to be some confusion on the Opposition Benches around the household energy payment and whether they support it or not. I would have thought that given the Leader of the Opposition was so clear in not supporting the household energy payment, the hon. Gentleman—

[Graham Stuart]

Right hon. Gentleman.

[James Murray]

I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman—excuse me—would have no difficulty in rowing in behind her, but he seems to be struggling with that somewhat, so I will make some progress.

I was speaking about the fiscal discipline that underwrites everything we are doing as a Government. Through the approach that we took in the Budget, we have maintained our fiscal rules while making no changes to rates of income tax or national insurance on income from employment or self-employment, or to the rate of national insurance that employers pay on wages or salaries for their staff.

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

The Minister is giving us lots of opportunity to intervene on him, and we are grateful for that. We keep hearing about the “difficult decisions” that Ministers are making to increase taxes. I do not think that is a difficult decision; it is a very easy decision to make—the laziest decision for a Government. I noticed that his list did not include the new tax on tourism. Will he please explain how Labour believes that we can help an industry by taxing it more?

[James Murray]

As the hon. Gentleman may know, the overnight visitor levy is a power that we are giving to strategic authorities across the country. It will be a decision for mayors or foundational strategic authorities to take about whether to introduce that levy, and if they do so, at what percentage to introduce it. Any proceeds will be reinvested in the local visitor economy and other infrastructure in the local area, and will support that area to get more visitors in future, thereby supporting economic growth—I hope that is something the hon. Gentleman would support.

Let me turn directly to the role of employers in our country, given the title of the motion. As I said in response to an earlier intervention, employers are working people and they are the backbone of our economy. As I also said, that is why the Budget gives businesses breathing space, with 70,000 retail, hospitality and leisure properties taken out of business rates altogether, and bills for others cut or frozen in real terms.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

I thank the right hon. Member for giving way yet again. He is helpfully listing things from the Budget that are supposed to help businesses, but I wonder whether he has come across anyone in his constituency, or in his work at the Treasury who, like businesses I am aware of, have seen the standing charge for their business electricity double. We are talking four figures in the first place, so that is a significant increase. In one case a business invested in solar panels, which the Government would no doubt welcome, but ultimately the investment that it made will be completely wiped out by increased standing charges. Will the Minister address that specific point?

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Lady for mentioning energy bills, because as MPs and Ministers we all recognise that energy costs are one of the primary concerns for households and businesses across the country. In the Budget two weeks ago, we offered breathing space for families and businesses, including with energy bills. Crucially, we also set out the work we will be doing in the years ahead to get those energy bills down for good, and ensure that we can invest in home-grown, renewable cleaner sources of energy, break the link between electricity and gas prices, and remove standing charges from gas bills and then electricity bills. All that is about reforming the way the energy market works, because while breathing space is what households and businesses need now, we know that longer-term reform is needed over time.

I was explaining the breathing space for businesses, and I mentioned the cuts to business rates announced in the Budget. I remind hon. Members that we are backing people who want to start and grow businesses by cutting red tape and unlocking billions of pounds of investment. We also introduced our new founders’ relief for founders of high-growth companies, and a new young entrepreneurs allowance to cover a year of living costs for young founders while they bring ideas alive. Employers and businesses drive growth, offer job opportunities and create wealth across our country.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

I am sure the Minister will agree that the Conservatives left the high street on life support, but unfortunately I feel that Labour has failed to resuscitate it. Epsom and Ewell has a coffee shop called Brew Forty Two. The staff work really hard, but rising costs mean it is difficult to employ young people, and the Saturday job is pretty much now extinct. Does the Minister agree that we need to reinstate lower national insurance contributions?

[James Murray]

I will come to that later in my remarks. Employers do not pay national insurance contributions for under-21s, because of the relief that already exists, or for apprentices under the age of 25. That goes some way towards supporting the objective that the hon. Lady mentions, which is to ensure that employers are supporting young people into work. I agree with her comments about the state in which the Conservatives left high streets across the country, having not done what was necessary to support them over 14 years.

Businesses across the country are the ones who drive economic growth, and every employer across the country knows the importance of fiscal discipline. It is crucial in enabling them to succeed, just as it is the crucial bedrock of economic stability for the country and the foundation that we need to support confidence and long-term growth.

[Sir John Hayes]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Murray]

I will give way one more time, then I will make a bit of progress.

[Sir John Hayes]

The Minister is being immensely generous in taking interventions. Employers in my constituency include many farmers and growers and related food firms and hauliers, yet much of the land in my constituency is threatened with immense solar developments, which will take that land out of production. That threatens the country’s food security, and we risk making energy security the enemy of food security. That is bound to undermine our economy in the long term, as we import more and more of what we need to feed the nation. Will he take a look at that, discuss it with colleagues across Government and see how we can reverse that trend? It puts our national economic resilience at risk.

[James Murray]

While I agree with the right hon. Gentleman drawing attention to the importance of food security as part of our national security, he and I take a different approach to energy security. The reforms that we are implementing as a Government, including through investment in home-grown, independent sources of energy to increase our energy security and make us more independent from fossil fuel prices around the world, are crucial to bringing bills down over time and ensuring greater energy independence and energy security. That is what the Government are doing, and that is how we see ourselves responding to one of the greatest pressures that many households and businesses face: the immediate and long-term costs of energy.

I was talking about employers recognising the importance of fiscal discipline in their own businesses, just as the Government recognise the importance of fiscal discipline for the country. We know that this Government inherited a crisis in our public services, our public finances and the cost of living. NHS waiting lists were at record levels, children worked in portacabins as school roofs crumbled, and rivers were filled with polluted waste. Billions of pounds of spending commitments had not been funded or even properly disclosed to the Office for Budget Responsibility. Faced with that reality, any responsible Government would have to act. We kept our manifesto commitment to working people not to increase their income tax, their national insurance or VAT, and we went further by freezing fuel duty and raising the national minimum wage.

[Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Murray]

I will make some progress, as I have taken a few interventions. Maybe I will address the hon. Gentleman’s point in a moment.

After taking office, we had to take decisions on tax, welfare and spending to fix the public finances and repair our broken public services. It was to restore stability in the public finances and to get our NHS and other essential services back on their feet that we increased national insurance contributions from employers. In making that change, we also more than doubled the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500 so that around 900,000 employers—around 40% of employers—have no employer national insurance liability at all.

As I mentioned earlier in response to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), we maintained reliefs for those employing younger workers, with businesses able to claim employer national insurance contribution reliefs, including for those aged under 21 and apprentices under the age of 25. That means that employers pay no employer national insurance contributions for employees under the age of 21 or apprentices under the age of 25 on earnings up to £50,270, which saves up to £6,750 a year for each eligible employee.

We know that the decision to increase employer national insurance contributions had an impact on businesses, but we recognise that because of that choice and others, we have been able to put the NHS back on its feet, with waiting lists down by more than 250,000 since the Government came into power. As well as getting the NHS back on its feet, our fiscal rules and the discipline of meeting them mean that we are boosting investment in Britain’s future—the investment that families and businesses want and need. Across this Parliament, we will invest an additional £120 billion in Britain’s roads, rail, energy and other infrastructure, which is so important for driving growth, and last year we delivered the highest number of affordable homes in a decade.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this Government’s investment in our infrastructure and our NHS, which is significantly higher than the risible amount of investment delivered under the previous Government, is pro-business and pro-economic growth, and that that is why the Budget measures will help our country and help businesses across this land?

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that businesses want to make sure that the population—their employees or future employees—are healthy, are able to get to work and are able to access the support they need to get a job. That is as important for businesses as it is for the people themselves, and of course businesses want to see the investment in infrastructure that our adherence to our fiscal rules enables. That investment in rail, road and energy is so important to businesses, as it is to families across the country.

In their motion, the Conservatives propose halving employer national insurance contributions for under-25s. Apart from a brief mention in the shadow Secretary of State’s speech, they appear to have forgotten that employers already pay no employer national insurance on any earnings up to £50,270 for every employee under 21, and for all apprentices under 25. However, the bigger problem—one that goes to the very heart of why the Conservatives failed in government and why it is clear that they have learned nothing—is that they are very good at announcing tax cuts, yet always entirely fail to credibly say how they would pay for them. If they want a reduction in employer national insurance, what is the cost? Where does the money come from? Is it from higher borrowing, higher taxes on someone else or cuts to the NHS and other public services that working people rely on?

Just look at the Conservatives’ announcements on tax more widely. They have promised billions of pounds-worth of unfunded and poorly targeted tax cuts for the very wealthiest—exactly the same irresponsibility that led to the disastrous Liz Truss mini-Budget that crashed the economy and sent mortgages skyrocketing. That is the difference between us as a responsible Government and them as a discredited Opposition.

[Dave Doogan]

There is a constant tension in that those who criticise Government fiscal policy must say where they would get the money from. On that basis, could the Minister advise the House what progress the Government have made over the past two years on closing the tax gap, and say what size it currently is?

[James Murray]

If the hon. Gentleman wants to have a conversation about the tax gap, I am very happy to pick that up. When we came into office in 2024, one of our first priorities was to close the tax gap before asking for any further tax contributions from any other sources. That was an essential part of our wider plan to restore public services and the public finances and to create the conditions for economic growth. That work continues, and I am very pleased to be playing a role in the Treasury, continuing that work to close the tax gap and modernise the service His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs provides, so that more people pay the right tax first time and can pay it automatically without mistakes or errors creeping into the system.

Because of the decisions we have taken as a Government—including closing the tax gap, as the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) mentioned— we are providing certainty and stability. Meanwhile, the Conservative party cannot resist playing games with the public finances, irrespective of the fact that whenever it has done so in the past, it is working people who have suffered the most. Britain is a country of entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, manufacturers, publicans, start-ups, family firms and growing businesses, and I am proud of the people across our country who take on risk and put in every hour they can to start and grow businesses. Above all, they need—and they have—a Government who are prepared to do the hard work of building a stable economy in which businesses can prosper. Employers need stability in order to plan for the future, create good jobs, invest and innovate, and providing that foundation is our responsibility as a Government. That is why, in the face of global storms, fiscal discipline will always underwrite every promise this Government make. The opposite is true of the Conservative party.

Government is about making choices, not pretending that choices do not exist. We in this Government are choosing to back working people. We are choosing to back the employers who create jobs. We are choosing to back young people into work, and we will always choose, with fiscal discipline as our lodestar, to maintain the economic stability on which our success as a country depends. For all those reasons, I urge Members to reject the motion.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

16:49

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

It has been a tough decade for businesses. It all started with Brexit, which unleashed uncertainty, red tape and form-filling, pushing up prices for all of us. Following that was the covid pandemic. Notwithstanding the furlough scheme, it unleashed on business a boom and bust cycle of lockdowns and opening back up, all because the then Conservative Government did not buy an off-the-shelf app that might have prevented that boom and bust cycle by tracking the impact.

[Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)]

I recall that when I was sat on the Government Benches, the Liberal Democrats were calling for more stringent measures.

[Daisy Cooper]

The right hon. Gentleman will perhaps remember more correctly that during that time we called for a lockdown initially, but the public had already decided to go into lockdown. He will also remember that the then Prime Minister announced that pubs, high streets and a whole load of businesses should be closing down, without covering their insurance. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that.

Following covid, we had the mini-Budget, which I am sure the Conservatives will deny, too. The mini-Budget was incredibly painful and unleashed huge panic in the financial markets. It drove up the cost of living and the cost of commercial loans. On top of all that, we then had two anti-growth Budgets from the Labour Government that have pushed up costs on businesses. For many, it is too much to bear. Small businesses, the backbone of our high streets and our communities, have borne the brunt. It is the cumulative impact that small businesses have expressed concern about. They tell me that if it had been just one tax, they might just have been able to manage it, but they have had the national insurance contributions rise, the business rates changes and the Employment Rights Act 2025, which got the balance wrong between protections for workers and the burden on business. Businesses that have put in blood, sweat and tears and financial investment are now struggling and do not know whether they can survive.

[Dave Doogan]

The hon. Lady has given a comprehensive list of the impediments that this Government have put the way of business in just 24 months, but I hope she will not forget that we have the highest commercial energy prices anywhere in the developed world under this Labour Government. Those are similarly threatening to put businesses under.

[Daisy Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the fact that we have some of the highest energy costs for business. We have called on the Government to extend their scheme for energy-intensive businesses. We have made it clear that we want to see further action on decoupling the link between gas and electricity. I have had meetings with Ofgem about making sure that there is better regulation for small businesses, particularly when they are looking to brokers for their energy deals. There needs to be far more action, not just for energy-intensive businesses, but for the small businesses on our high streets.

As I was saying, the impact on businesses of all these higher taxes has exacerbated the youth unemployment problem. That is why we now see vacancies at a five-year low. It is wrong to blame young people for not applying for or getting jobs when there simply are not jobs for them to apply for. That is why we Liberal Democrats have talked about growing our economy and pulling the biggest single growth lever that we can by joining the single market, which would reduce costs for businesses.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Have the Liberal Democrats done any modelling of what the impact would be on those young people who are not employed if we rejoined the European Union and had free movement or if we had a youth mobility approach and there was an influx of young people into this country?

[Daisy Cooper]

If there are no jobs in the UK, there will not be people coming to the UK to take jobs that do not exist. If we could join the single market, it would reduce red tape, reduce form-filling, and make it cheaper for businesses in the UK to grow. They would create more jobs, and there would be more jobs for young people. I simply cannot believe that the Conservative party, despite all the evidence and all the studies, will still not accept that having a stronger relationship with Europe is the single biggest way in which we can grow our economy—and it is only if we grow our economy that we can cut taxes and cut bills. For as long as the Conservatives refuse to acknowledge the damage of their Brexit deal, they will remain an out-of-touch, anti-growth, anti-business party.

[Gareth Snell]

The hon. Lady has made the argument here eloquently, many times, about joining the single market and the customs union. However, on 1 April 2019, the House came within three votes of a Brexit deal that would have allowed the retention of membership of the customs union. I voted for it, and others who were Labour Members at the time voted for it. Six Liberal Democrats, including the current leader of the hon. Lady’s party, voted against it. They walked into the Lobby with the Conservatives—with those of the right—to veto a Brexit deal that included membership of the customs union. Why did they do that?

[Daisy Cooper]

I will not apologise for the fact that we fought tooth and nail—we were the only large party that fought tooth and nail—to stop the damage of the Brexit deal in any shape or form.

[Dave Doogan]

In the last Parliament, the SNP was a substantially bigger party than the Liberal Democrats, and we fought tooth and nail to maintain membership of the EU as well. I am sure the hon. Lady will acknowledge that.

[Daisy Cooper]

I do indeed acknowledge that. It was a slip of the tongue. Many parties were fighting tooth and nail to stop the damage of the Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal. I hope very much that at the EU summit, the Labour Government will move a great deal further than the timid approach they appear to be taking now.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Daisy Cooper]

I will happily give way, all day long.

[Paul Holmes]

Will the hon. Lady acknowledge that economic growth in Europe is lower than the economic growth in this country? Perhaps she could also tell the House how much her party, under its policy proposal, would be willing to pay to join the single market. Would that not take money out of the economy that we could be using to increase growth domestically?

[Daisy Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman will, I hope, accept that growth in one country is not equivalent to growth in another country. When we tear down barriers between countries, we increase growth. Plenty of modelling has been done by the national economic social research unit in America, and by other bodies in this country. I am not sure, but I believe it is PwC that has talked about the amount of growth we would gain from the single market. We believe that joining the single market and the customs union would bring in about £29 billion and that the cost would probably be about £2 billion, so the growth that we would gain would massively exceed the cost of joining.

[Graham Stuart]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the Liberal Democrats are a singularly special party in this place, because they can believe passionately in something and then not vote for it?

[Daisy Cooper]

I am sure that if I had more time to speak in this debate, I could point to a number of examples of the Conservative party saying one thing and doing another. It is, of course, a party that is trying to claim, after the mini-Budget, that it is reclaiming the brand of fiscal responsibility, but even in the Conservatives’ recent spending plans there is, according to my calculation, a £33 billion hole between their funding pledges—or the things they want to fund—and the tax cuts that they want to make. It looks like Trussonomics 2.0.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

May I bring the hon. Lady back to the point about the opportunity presented by opening up greater access to the European single market? She has cited various reports suggesting that that would be good. Is she aware of the winners of the Nobel prize for economics last year, who demonstrated that what has driven growth across the world, but particularly in the United Kingdom, has not been access to wider markets, but innovation and technology? That is about the growth that we receive from supporting businesses to develop new products and services. It is not access to global markets that does that; it is our own industry and services economy here in the UK. Will the hon. Lady please return to the original liberal principles that helped to develop the prosperity of this country in the 19th and 20th centuries, which are about low tax and low regulation?

[Daisy Cooper]

I have made it very clear in my speech that the single biggest lever for growth is a much better deal with Europe. I have never said that it is the only lever for growth. I absolutely believe that we need to invest in innovation, and I wish that the Government would go further in fixing the entire pipeline, from ideas and start-ups to scale-ups and commercialisation. We should be the best place in the world for a business to start up, to scale up and to stay, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman shares that vision.

I return to the motion. I was saying that the rise in national insurance contributions has exacerbated youth unemployment. We want growth with Europe; we want NICs cut; we want 100 hours of guaranteed work experience for young people before they reach the age of 18; and we want the cliff edges in universal credit tackled as well. We are pleased that the Labour Government have finally looked at putting a tax on the banks, but they will be aware that we have pointed out other ways in which they could have raised taxes on the banks—for example, through a windfall tax on unearned income, which would not deter any further investment. When it comes to our economy and supporting employers, the only long-term solution is to get growth back into our country and get Britain growing again. That is the only way that we can cut taxes and bills.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. To ensure that everybody can contribute, there will be a speaking limit of seven minutes for Back Benchers.

17:00

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

I want to start a bit differently today, if I may. My parents were employers; they were business people. They employed me in what was probably my first job. As the son of immigrants, I did not get a choice as to whether I took up that employment. I am not quite sure if I was paid the minimum wage, but working taught me something. It taught me what it meant to earn money; it taught me the pride in work; and it taught me what I got at the end of it. I will never forget working for a week, and then buying a turquoise iPod Mini. I loved that iPod, partly because I was really hip and cool, of course—

[Paul Holmes]

You still are!

[Dr Sandher]

Stop it! The hon. Member is too kind.

I had a sense of pride, because I knew that I had earned that iPod; it was the fruits of my labour. When I was growing up in the ’90s and ’00s, I saw business people doing well, partly because we were growing under a Labour Government, but also because the conditions of business worked. My parents knew that their workers had skills and were healthy, and they also knew that workers and families across the country were living good lives at that point in time. They could afford a decent life, and to spend money down the shops and on the goods that my parents were producing and selling. I saw them do well, and I saw business do well. Part of the reason why I became a member of the Labour party is that I want to see every single person do well and thrive. I saw businesses thrive, and I saw my parents’ business thrive.

I also joined the Labour party because we are the party of work—the clue is in the name. I want every single person in this country to have a good job, but we are quite far away from that, and we have been for quite a while. About 40% of people in full-time work cannot afford to raise a family, because there are not enough good jobs in this country. Post-industrial areas are still post-industrial, and they are the most deprived parts of this nation. They have not been doing well for an incredibly long time. We have to do more to create good jobs across our country.

[Patrick Spencer]

I could not agree more. We should do everything to create jobs. Surely the hon. Member is about to suggest that we cut taxes on businesses. That will create jobs.

[Dr Sandher]

I want to start there. I disagree with the Conservatives’ motion. It effectively says that if we cut national insurance contributions, good jobs will follow. The first thing to note is that, yes, we did raise national insurance contributions in our first Budget, and there are a million more people in work today. The second thing to note is that the Conservatives’ mistaken moral aims would lead to poorer material ends. They are googling; they are finding out the difference between the pay-as-you-earn measure of employment and the Office for National Statistics measure of employment.

There is something else on which I disagree with the Conservatives. I read the document entitled “The Right Way”, which they produced before their conference. It effectively said that if the Government just step away and create the right conditions, businesses will create the prosperity and good jobs that we need. We have seen that this has not worked. Post-industrial areas are still post-industrial. We saw the Government step away in the 1980s, and we saw those areas remain poor over time. In places like Middlesbrough, the employment rate is 20 percentage points lower than the national average. For non-graduate men, the employment rate is down by about 20 percentage points, too.

[Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

The hon. Member is talking about deindustrialisation; it is happening right now in my constituency, because we are turning our back on the oil and gas industry. We are not approving Rosebank, when we should. It is an absolute disgrace that the Labour Government are killing off jobs right across north-east Scotland.

[Dr Sandher]

I think about 90% of jobs in the oil and gas industry have disappeared over the past 20 or 30 years, including 150,000 in Aberdeen. That is basically because the North sea is a declining basin; we cannot change geological facts. As the hon. Member will know, the Rosebank decision is a quasi-judicial one that will be made by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.

I come back to the fact that in the 1980s, the Conservatives said, “If you just cut taxes, good times will follow,” but they did not follow for huge numbers of people and huge areas of this country. We also see the legacy of the Conservative Governments from 2010 to 2024: in the past few years, there have been 250,000 more young people not in education, employment or training; areas have not recovered; and there has been the longest wage stagnation since Napoleon’s time.

We have seen the outcomes of the Conservatives’ philosophy. They had 14 years in government, and it was not a success. We did not see good jobs across this nation, because there was not the means or materials for them, or a foundation of prosperity. There were not the skills; the number of apprenticeship starts for young people was down by a third. The population was not healthy; we had the longest waiting lists on record. There was not enough transport infrastructure—ours was the worst in western Europe—and energy costs were the highest in the G7. That was the legacy of your Government, because the only thing Conservative Members have ever believed—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I am not participating in this debate, but presiding over it, so “you” and “your” are not needed.

[Dr Sandher]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Graham Stuart]

rose—

[Dr Sandher]

I will give way, because the right hon. Member has been very patient.

[Graham Stuart]

. The hon. Member is being most generous in giving way. He is a fair-minded man, so, on outcomes, I am slightly surprised that he picks this figure of 1 million more people in work; the numbers from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs show that the payroll has reduced by 165,000 people since July 2024, and that the number of unemployed people has gone up by 225,000. In fairness, would he make sure that he does not just pick the one statistic that he thinks helps his argument?

[Dr Sandher]

I choose to use the labour force survey statistic because it includes both the self-employed and those who are low-paid and do not appear in the PAYE figures. I pick that figure because it is more comprehensive, and I believe it is more correct, as it includes everybody in work.

I want to briefly pick up the point about unemployment. The right hon. Member is right to say that both employment and unemployment have increased, but that in part is good news; it is because those who were economically inactive are now seeking work, so they are now in the category of “unemployed”, rather than “inactive”. We have more people in work, and more people looking for work.

Our argument is that, for businesses to create prosperity, they need not just lower taxes—I take the Opposition’s point on that—but the sales and the foundations to create prosperity. They need a healthy workforce. That is why we are investing in the NHS and waiting lists are falling. They need good skills, which is why the number of apprenticeship starts in this country is such a focus for this Government. They also need lower energy costs, which means providing home-grown, cheaper, cleaner energy. Those things help employers produce more in this country, and help businesses hire more people.

[Dr Luke Evans]

I am very grateful to my Leicestershire colleague for giving way. Could he point to where in the Budget Loughborough cafés or restaurants will get specific support with their energy? The British industrial competitiveness scheme is only for manufacturing, and all the tax levies that are coming off bills—the carbon taxes, the green levies—will not do so until 2028. I am not aware of any support specifically for cafés in Loughborough or restaurants on his high street. Am I wrong?

[Dr Sandher]

As the hon. Member will know, we are also freezing rates, but on a personal note, I do everything I can to support every pub in my constituency, because that is the service we Labour Members believe in.

We know that our approach, our philosophy and our moral aim leads to material prosperity because we have seen it before. We saw Attlee create collective prosperity after collective sacrifice, and Blair and Brown renew a nation after 18 years of Conservative Government. We see how our aims lead to better outcomes. Labour Members believe that our country thrives when everybody thrives. Businesses do well when everybody does well—when the young person who leaves school knows that they can get a good job in a local business; when that business can hire them, because it knows that they have the skills that it needs; and, more importantly, when the business knows that consumers can buy its goods, because we are making life affordable for all. That is how we Labour Members are creating jobs and helping business people like my mum and dad.

17:10

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and to listen to a range of views, but I genuinely think that Government Members should begin with an apology to employers, for a number of reasons. First of all, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury insulted them all a few weekends ago, basically saying that employers are not working people. It was a flat insult to the millions upon millions of people in family-run businesses, probably just like the parents of the hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), who just gave a lecture on his views about employment and employability.

Fundamentally, small and medium-sized enterprises—hard-working family-run businesses—have always been the backbone of Britain and the British economy. I have a lot of time for the Minister. He is a great survivor, and he deserves some kind of accolade for his long-standing defence of his Government’s tax-grabbing, job-destroying policies, and even for his references to fiscal discipline—we can talk about that—but the Government need to wake up to the adverse impact of their economic policies for employment. We see devastating impacts on small businesses across the country and their ability to function. They are working hard and putting in long hours just to keep the lights on and manage their cash flow. The Government need to demonstrate some humility and acknowledge that right now.

[Patrick Spencer]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her assessment of the performance of the Government Front Benchers—I tried to intervene on the Minister. I have serious concerns; the Minister said, at the Dispatch Box, “We kept our manifesto commitment not to tax working people.” He then said that they introduced a NICs increase for employers, but in the same breath, he said, “Employers are working people.” Do you not agree with me that the Minister clearly does not understand what a business is, and that, in increasing NICs, he has increased taxes on working people and broken a manifesto promise?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Once again, “you” and “your” are not to be used when referencing colleagues.

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I do not want to insult anybody, but it is important for Members to speak on these issues if they have credible experience of them—if they have set up a business and come from a business background. I am afraid that government has become a blunt instrument now. Things are far too binary. The Government are not even thinking through the overall impact of their decisions on local businesses, and then they come to the Dispatch Box defending broken pledges. This House should spend much more time talking about our pride in the nation’s businesses. They are the wealth creators and employers who give people a hand up in life. They give people economic security.

I will speak for my great county of Essex, because I do not think it gets enough airtime in this Chamber. We are a county of entrepreneurs. Despite the damage that this job-destroying, business-bashing, tax-grabbing Labour Government are doing to our economy, we are fighting hard to survive. We have a range of amazing businesses, and I will list them, because I think the House might have experienced some of the fine produce from Essex. Wilkin and Sons in Tiptree makes the jam that is in the Tea Room. Linden Lady chocolates, made in Copford, are sold in the House of Commons shop. There is a range of Essex farmers and food manufacturers, whom we all depend on. A colleague spoke about food security; that matters. Maldon Salt, a very famous brand, comes from my constituency as well.

On the Opposition Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) touched on pubs, salons and all those other employers that provide the gateway to jobs for young people. Those are the types of business that we must support—we absolutely need to give them a hand up right now. We need reductions in national insurance, and we must recognise that in a significant way. Businesses think that Labour Ministers have no idea about the fact that they are working 70 or 80 hours a week just to keep their businesses afloat. That work is to generate tax revenues that this wasteful and bloated socialist Government are, quite frankly, destroying in an unjustifiable way.

There must be a recognition, because businesses in my constituency feel let down by Labour and seriously want to fight back against the increase in national insurance, the red tape from the infamous Employment Rights Act 2026 and the taxes on family farms. Businesses are constantly facing a rising tax burden. Even the reliefs in the recent Budget, which Ministers want to gloat about, will not compensate for the overall pain that businesses are facing.

The Minister spoke about fiscal discipline, but fiscal discipline alongside high levels of borrowing and debt will not give the financial and economic stability that local businesses need in our country. Debt is not going down, and borrowing is going up. We know who pays for all that: businesses pay for it all. Ministers come and go—we all know that—and they can make whatever defence they wish, but the reality is that it is hard-pressed taxpayers who are constantly filling Government coffers right now for higher debt and borrowing. Businesses need some latitude and leeway—they really do. I implore and urge this Government to reconsider many of the policies that they are putting in place.

There is a silver lining; it is called the Finance Bill. When that sees the light of day on the Floor of this House, it will give Members the opportunity to challenge the Government to give headroom and breathing space to businesses by lowering taxes, being more responsible on national insurance contributions and freeing up businesses to employ more people. Importantly, it will give Members the opportunity to challenge the Government to give the British people the freedom to succeed and live their lives, completely unshackled from the burdensome taxes that this Government are constantly putting on them.

17:17

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Like the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), I start by recognising the many amazing employers and businesses across my constituency, from large household names such as Aviva, to local SMEs, including MSI Defence Systems, and local retail and hospitality businesses that are the backbones of our high streets, such as Café 193. I recognise the pressures on employers and businesses, including in the face of external shocks. I will focus on relaying some of the messages that I have heard from businesses and employers in my constituency.

I welcome the targeted measures in last month’s Budget, as the Minister set out, including the business rates relief. That will mean that more than half of all retail, hospitality and leisure businesses in the east of England will pay no rates at all, and another 900 businesses in Norwich and 400 in Broadland will benefit from frozen rates.

I recently attended a roundtable hosted by the New Anglia Advanced Manufacturing and Engineering partnership. Many of those innovative businesses are creating products and jobs in Britain—including for my constituents in Norfolk—but they face challenges. One of the biggest challenges they raised, which will not surprise the Minister, was rising high industrial energy costs, which are affecting trade and regional growth. I welcome the action that the Government are taking with BICS, but I urge the Minister to set out what more we can do to support manufacturing businesses such as those at the roundtable.

Today, we have had good news in the press that £12 billion of investment has been secured to build the Vanguard East and West wind farms off the coast of Norfolk. Those schemes alone will create more than 2,400 jobs, and I want as many of them as possible to be for people from Norfolk. We have to ensure that employers can also benefit from the supply chains. Norfolk has many strengths; renewable energy is just one of them. We have a £20 billion economy and strengths in energy, agrifood, advanced manufacturing, financial services and world-class research, such as at the Norwich research park. When the new Prime Minister came into office, the Norfolk and Suffolk business boards wrote to him together to set out how Norfolk and Suffolk can help to power, feed, connect and innovate the UK’s future. That is the ambition that I have heard from businesses.

I have also heard businesses’ requests that the Government work with them in three key ways that will benefit employers in Norfolk and Suffolk. First, as we have touched on already in this debate, is the importance of backing nationally significant infrastructure projects such as the Bacton energy hub and the desperately needed upgrade at Ely and Haughley junctions. Despite our differences across the House, I know that MPs across East Anglia really support those investments because of the impact they will have on businesses in the area. Secondly, through innovation we could be the leading testbed for new technologies, building on world-class assets such as the Norwich research park. Thirdly, by aligning skills, innovation and industrial policy, we will help businesses to invest, create jobs and develop the workforces they need.

Another clear message I have heard—we have touched on the need for stability—is about devolution and the opportunity it presents for employers and businesses. I welcome Norfolk and Suffolk being on track for devolution. This week, the Reform-led Norfolk and Suffolk county councils have finally reached an agreement on the terms of a devolution deal, which the Government are backing with about £37 million of investment each year. That cannot come soon enough; we need that deal and the associated funding in place as quickly as possible so that we can invest in infrastructure, skills and economic growth. It is really important that employers and businesses’ voices are heard and that they are instrumental in seeing how that investment is spent.

I will not pretend that I have not heard messages from businesses about some of the costs around labour. The Minister has set out why those decisions have been made, and I will continue to listen to the concerns that businesses raise with me and relay them back to Ministers.

Finally, I want to focus on young people, who have so much to offer employers. Far too many young people are not in education, employment or training—something we will be focusing on even more in the next few weeks. I welcome the action the Government have taken, including the jobs guarantee and the jobs grant to back employers who give a chance to young people who have been out of work for six months. I am working with the local DWP office, employers and other local organisations on an initiative called Opportunity Norwich to support young people into work.

No one is pretending that this is an easy situation and that there have not been difficult choices to make. The Budget and the measures the Government have set out are a welcome step forward. As a Norwich MP, I am proud of our city and our county of Norfolk. We are a place of innovation, hard work and creativity, and I am proud of our employers who have consistently shown themselves to be genuine community partners and to bring so much benefit to our local area. I will continue to advocate for the support they need to invest in our region, grow our economy and deliver opportunities to my constituents. I am sure that the Minister will respond in detail to many of the points raised, but I want to urge him to work with us in Norfolk and Suffolk to ensure that as we move forward on our journey with devolution, our employers and, indeed, employees thrive.

17:23

[Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald). I heard a collective thud when the Minister was speaking earlier, which must have been the jaws of businesses in my constituency hitting the floor, because there was a real lack of understanding of the real pressures that businesses are facing.

One thing I love about being a Member of Parliament is spending time going around the constituency, and I always make a point of visiting businesses—be they small, medium or large—to hear directly from them their concerns, and there are many of them. I also hold a regular business club, and it is becoming increasingly difficult in those meetings to give businesses any meaningful answers of reassurance because of the real problems they are facing. I am always struck by just how hard these people are working to keep their businesses going. They are part of not just our local economy, but our community. They create the vibrancy of our villages and our towns and are places where people can meet and congregate. These things are really important. We heard a moment ago about tech and innovation; even in the smallest barn on a farm, some really amazing tech companies are being created, and that is something we should be celebrating.

Employers want their businesses to be successful, and having a great team of employees is a keen part of that. Employers invest not only financially but emotionally in their business. I hear time and again that the costs of running a business are making that increasingly difficult. The spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), was right to say that a multitude of tax rises are creating that difficulty—not least the Government’s increase in employer national insurance contributions.

The Government will point to the increase in employer allowance, and I appreciate that it helps some businesses, but it does not change the fundamental fact that many employers are facing higher costs just to employ the same people and local businesses are having to make really difficult decisions. Time and again I hear it. I was depressed to hear at one event about a business whose owner had started it three years ago on his own and that was about to employ three people, but the national insurance contribution rise meant that that simply was not affordable any more.

It is not just businesses that are affected. Time and again, when I was a shadow Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Minister, I tried to raise the impact on the charities sector, where I spent 16 years working before entering Parliament. I know the pressures that they face. I particularly worked in hospices, which can only provide care if they can afford to employ the people to look after their residents—children, in the case of the hospice I worked in. The Government will cite their £100 million of capital funding for hospices, but they cannot fund nurses with bricks and mortar. The reality is that these workers should not be facing these tax rises, because they are picking up a massive part of public sector work in caring for some of the most vulnerable people in our constituencies.

We have many wonderful charities in my constituency that provide important services to people who need them. They are employers too, and they still have staff to pay. When I speak to the people who use these charity services, it is not the charity that they talk about but the staff. That is why we must think about those charities as well.

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

In my constituency of Newbury, a volunteer centre survey found that charities needed to raise an additional £300,000 a year just to stand still. Does the right hon. Member agree that charities’ time should be focused on serving our constituents rather than worrying about fundraising off the back of Labour’s tax rises?

[Stuart Andrew]

The hon. Gentleman is right. I was the head of fundraising at the hospice, so I know that it takes some time to plan a fundraising strategy. If a charity suddenly finds overnight that it has to find all that extra money, it will be almost impossible, and often they will end up having to eat into reserves, which is not a good thing.

[Gareth Snell]

I want to go back to the point that I raised to the shadow Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman was here when the health and social care levy came around. At no point did the Conservatives attempt to exempt charities and hospices from that tax rise. Why was it appropriate to keep them in scope when he was proposing it but completely inappropriate now?

[Stuart Andrew]

I point the hon. Gentleman to his party’s own manifesto. Labour promised that it would not do it. That is the reality of it, and that is the challenge that we are putting to this Government.

I really am worried about the opportunities for so many young people. We all remember how important getting our first job was. Mine was being a waiter at a hotel in Anglesey. It taught me about independence, it built my confidence, and it gave me real experience of working, sometimes with very challenging customers. It was really important to build that confidence. But it is becoming increasingly difficult for young people.

I know that employers in my constituency want to give young people those opportunities, but there is a cost involved in taking on and training someone. I spoke to one of the pub owners in my constituency who said that he always used to employ 14-year-olds to wash dishes, and when they got a bit older they would work as a waiter or waitress in the restaurant, and when they were a bit older still they would work behind the bar. As a result, he had trained staff, when they came back from university at Christmas or summer. He simply cannot afford to do that any more because of all the additional costs. Instead, he is employing older people. That is a real problem that we have got to address.

Many people who have just finished university or further education will be trying to get their first job, often without much experience. We should be doing all we can to encourage employers to give them that chance. That is why I support the Opposition’s proposal to halve employer national insurance contributions for under-25s, which would help businesses to plan ahead when taking on younger employers, making it more affordable to employ those who are just starting out. If we do not address this problem, there is a real danger that young people will find themselves permanently stuck in unemployment.

I will make another point to conclude. Some Members talk about employers as though they are somehow separate from working people, but when I visit businesses across my Daventry constituency, I meet people who are working extremely long hours and have often had to put their savings into getting the business up and running in the first place and to keep it afloat. They are serving customers, they are dealing with suppliers and they are doing the accounts. Sometimes they are worrying about whether they will have enough money left to pay themselves, let alone their workforce. They say to me that they wake up in the middle of the night worrying about where the money will come from. I do not think anyone could seriously suggest that those people are not working hard. They are making great personal sacrifices. We should be proud of everything they do and give them encouragement whenever we can. We should welcome the fact that they are providing employment for other people.

I want to see businesses in my constituency and across the country doing well, our local charities continuing their important work, and young people having the opportunity to get into employment, but we must recognise that increasing the cost of employing people has consequences, particularly for smaller businesses. Halving employers’ national insurance for under-25s would be a practical way of helping businesses give more young people a chance in life and the start that I enjoyed. For those reasons, I will happily vote for the motion.

17:32

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I want to speak in the debate because Cornwall probably has more self-employed and small businesses than many other places. Small businesspeople hold businesses together and employ people. They take on the responsibility, risk and privilege of creating jobs for other people. I considered myself as much of a working person when I was an equity partner in a law firm that employed 50 people as I did when I was a teaching assistant.

Small businesses do an incredibly important job. I want to talk about a few of them in my constituency. Richard Wakeham at Treveague campsite in Gorran employs six people. We also have Mariners and Harbour Lights, our brilliant fish and chip shops; Bread & Butter in Truro; Fudge & More in St Mawes; and Windjammer, with Oliver running a number of establishments brilliantly. Of course, we have our farmers—I went to see one in Restronguet at the weekend—and then we have publicans like Mark Holden, who runs a number of pubs and has built his hospitality business over 16 years. For many years, Mark has worked hard with young people, setting up apprenticeships and giving training to dozens of Cornish young people. He is working closely with the Government and the Minister for Skills to set up skills training in hospitality down in Cornwall.

The motion concentrates on under-25s, so that is what I will focus on. Our young people have struggled, with rising numbers of NEETs, but that has been over a long time, not just the last two years, as the Milburn review made clear. Alan Milburn said that this has been a growing issue, and among the reasons for that are: how SEND provision in schools dropped off under the previous Government; covid, which was a really big issue for young people and hit their confidence; and mental health support, with child and adolescent mental health services having been decimated in the last 15 years.

As has been pointed out a number of times, employers pay no national insurance contributions on earnings of up to £50,270 for under-21s, nor for apprentices under 25. That makes a saving of up to £6,790 per employee per year, which was worth £2.5 billion in the last year.

Some of the Opposition Members have talked about the minimum wage rises. When the Labour Government first brought in the minimum wage, the figure was similar for everybody over 18, and businesses did not shut down and the economy did not stop, as the Opposition said would happen. When they got into power, they split the minimum wage into three or four different age brackets. That caused an awful lot of problems and inequity, because a 20-year-old’s rent is not cheaper than a 26-year-old’s. In trying to converge those wage differences, we are trying to reintroduce that fairness and the idea of the minimum wage in the first place.

This Government have introduced other measures to help small and medium-sized employers take on young people: £2,000 for SMEs that hire apprentices between 16 and 21; free training for under-25 apprentices; the youth jobs grant, with £3,000 for every young person hired; and the jobs guarantee, which is coming in, for fully subsidised jobs for six months, with the Government covering 100% of the employment costs. There are a thousand people in that first pilot.

There is a lot of work to be done. Under-25s have struggled for many reasons over a number of years, not just because of the job market. What we have to do, and what the Milburn review will make very clear in the next few weeks that we should do, is support those young people to overcome their barriers and help employers to employ them again.

16:19

[Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I rise in support of the Opposition motion. I rise to criticise this Government’s attitude towards employers, their disregard for the reality of life running a business, their nonsensical approach to tackling poverty and social mobility, and their maddening approach to the economy.

The reality is that a job is the foundational unit in an economy. It is the immortal gene that is fundamental to economic evolution, growth and prosperity. I say that because a job is, first and foremost, an income. An income keeps a roof over someone’s head, food on the table and the lights on. An income is spent and then passes through the economic supply chain, creating more value and, yes, more jobs. A job is not just an income, however; it is a source of pride, purpose and identity. It offers structure, routine and the opportunity for a sense of self-achievement. It is a source of social inclusion, friendship and support. It is also a stepping stone. The job someone has today connects them to the job opportunity that might come up tomorrow, next week or next month. Without a job today, the probability of being in work in future diminishes greatly.

As a result of those three realities, work is indeed the best route out of poverty and into prosperity, not just for the individual but for the population as a whole. Look what happens when work is degraded. All the evidence shows that long-term unemployment is synonymous with depression, anxiety, social isolation and a shortened life expectancy. The Health Foundation found that people out of work and on benefits are five times more likely to report poor health than those in work. And yet, Members on the Labour Benches are obsessed with talking down the importance of a job. They talk of bad jobs and unfulfilling work. The reality is that the phenomenal growth in employment we experienced between 2010 and the onset of covid coincided with a massive improvement in living standards and a fall in material deprivation.

If Members do not believe me, they should read the report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The share of children living in material deprivation fell by a quarter in the six years leading up to the pandemic. By 2017-18, severe material deprivation among working-age families was roughly one fifth lower than it was in 2010. Pensioner material deprivation fell continuously from 2010 onward. Why? Because rising employment and earned income, offset the cuts to welfare. That is what we delivered in government: a high-employment, low-welfare economy, which is in stark contrast to the high-unemployment and high-welfare economy that this Government aspire to.

The Government talk about hope. The Conservatives in government gave people hope of a life off welfare and in work. Four million new jobs were created between 2010 and 2024—4 million people who otherwise would have been left languishing on benefits, 4 million people who could go home on a Friday proud of their contribution to the economy, their family and themselves. The Labour Government cannot help themselves but steam in and ruin the jobs market for so many.

Nowhere is that more the case than in their deluded decision to increase national insurance contributions for employers. Can you imagine the contorted logic of saying, “I am from the Labour party, the party of work, and we want jobs for all, so we have decided to tax the people who create the jobs in the hope that taking money out of their pockets will inevitably mean they will have more money to put into yours.” It does not make any sense.

This Government do not make any sense. They are for Europe, then they are against it, then they are for it again. They want to invest in defence, then they do not, then they do and now they do not. They embarked on the famous prawn sandwich offensive in advance of the last election, only to turn around and backtrack on all that pro-business sentiment. They promised they would not tax working people, then they did.

In the process, we saw a Treasury Minister go on TV and refuse to recognise entrepreneurs, business owners and decent people who have taken a risk to start a business as working people. Well, say that to Jason and Kate of Trulock & Harris in my constituency. Tell Roger, the postmaster in Framingham, who had to put up with Storm Babet but kept on going, that he is not a working person. How about Will, who runs the Greyhound in Pettistree, one of my favourite pubs? People travel from across the country to go and visit him. Tell him he is not a working person.

Tell that to Debbie, the landlady at the Kesgrave Bell, who has served that community for a generation and is loved by her customers. Is she not a working woman? Tell my friend Charlotte, who works day and night on her business selling paper and card products and has done for six years, that she is not a working woman. How about Darren from DK9 in Blakenham? Our children are in the same class at school. He invested in rescue teams that helped find little Noah Woods in Brantham earlier this year. Is he not a working man as well? Or perhaps the team at Realise Futures in North Ipswich who have set up a community interest company supporting disadvantaged people into work—are they not working people either?

These are the people we on this side of the House stand up for: the workers, grafters, innovators and disruptors who work themselves to the bone because they want to make payroll for their staff and do not want to let their customers down. This Government could help them. It is not too late. Cut their taxes, reverse the NICs increase introduced by the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves) and help people get a job.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I call Danny Kruger, after whose speech the time limit will drop to six minutes.

17:42

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

I want to acknowledge the contributions made by Labour Members, because I think they have clearly articulated their philosophy of growth. In a sense, it is coherent and respectable, because what they believe is that the economic growth is driven by state action. It is true, and they often make this point, that we need the rule of law, infrastructure and proper investment in people, in places and in the sectors that need help. Those are legitimate arguments, but the fact is that our economy is built on businesses. It is built by businesses—particularly small businesses—being free to operate themselves. The prosperity of this country historically was created by free men and women trading with each other with minimal Government regulation. Yes, this took place in a safe and rule-bound world, but with rules that were light and predictable and without excessive taxation.

I think of Marlborough, in the heart of my constituency. This wonderful ancient town was given its charter 800 years ago, and it was a successful trading community on the road between London and Bristol. It was built on the textile trade, with amazing wool manufacture and processing. That is what made it rich. I was honoured to join the procession of the town council to the war memorial on Sunday—we love a procession in Marlborough—and to walk behind the robed councillors and mace bearers proclaiming the ancient wealth of the town.

The economy of Marlborough now largely involves retail, hospitality and tourism. As the procession walked into St Mary’s church, we passed Franklyn’s Bistro, a restaurant I know well—I was in only a month or two ago—and I saw that, to my great regret, it has now closed altogether. This happens in hospitality. Restaurants open and close, but there is something happening in Marlborough and across my constituency and across the country, which is that hospitality is absolutely on its knees.

Worst of all, Marlborough received the terrible news this week that the Polly Tea Rooms had closed down. It was an institution in the town, open for 114 years and surviving two world wars and all the economic ups and downs of the last century and more. This large shop front on the high street had been selling tea and cakes and lunch and dinner for all those decades.

I was very proud to be able to support the Polly during covid, and I was very proud that the owner said, “You have saved the Polly,” because I helped him with managing his application for a covid loan, but I am afraid to say that it is all over.

I want to quote the notice that the owner, David Clarke, put out:

“I have decided to close the Polly Tearooms with immediate effect.

I was hoping that the budget…would offer some help to businesses like ours, but the result was the same as every budget this Government has brought in, quite the opposite…Fuel costs and business rates have also been increasing all of the time, but with the cost of living crisis as it is, we simply can’t increase our prices to our customers and expect them to still come in as often as they did in the past.

The Chancellor John Healey spoke in his budget…of ‘hope’ for the future. He said the word so many times, I lost count. He sounded like Mr Micawber from David Copperfield, hoping something will turn up.

But that is all this government has—hope. No plan for growth, no idea what to do, just hoping something will turn up, rather than creating the environment and conditions to make the economy grow. They are spending far too much money on the wrong things, and then taxing the very people who would be able to create growth to the level that they have nothing left to achieve any of it. The measure for the government investing in anything should be how will this improve our economy. They should apply this test to every penny they spend—literally every penny. But this of course is not what…Labour…do.

So, along with literally hundreds of other businesses, I have no option but to give up trying to make it work.”

I could not put it better myself. I am the son of a restaurateur, so I know how people pour their hearts into these businesses. I am so sorry for the Polly, Franklyn’s Bistro and the other hospitality businesses in my constituency that are closing.

What should the Government do about it? My right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) has set out a series of measures on behalf of my party: we would raise the VAT threshold from £90,000 to £150,000 to support those small businesses to grow, take on more work and take on more staff; we would end tax on overtime; and we would reverse the employer national insurance rise back to 13.8%. On hospitality, we would cut VAT to 10%, we would cut beer duty by 10%, we would progressively over time abolish business rates for pubs, and of course we would repeal the job-destroying Employment Rights Act 2025.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I am really sad to hear about the Polly Tea Rooms in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but has he spoken to the IFS about cutting VAT? The IFS has said that cutting VAT would not generate the income that people promise, and I think the Treasury says the same. For businesses like the Polly Tea Rooms, I do understand the issue of the national insurance rise in the Budget of two years ago, but the other issue is the cost of living crisis, which is driven by something we have not spoken about in this debate at all: Trump’s war on Iran. Does he recognise those wider impacts on the economy as well?

[Danny Kruger]

I do not accept for a second that cutting VAT on hospitality would not be of great benefit to those businesses. I am astonished to hear that the IFS might have said such a thing. VAT is one of the major costs that businesses have to carry, so clearly a cut in what is essentially a sales tax for retail businesses would be helpful.

I will speak briefly about the challenge of the cost of living and energy costs in particular, because the issue for retail businesses like the Polly is not just about the costs that they have to carry; it is about the demand for their business being reduced because of the cost of living that customers are carrying, as Mr Clarke said in the statement I read out. What the Government should do is not simply give people more money to spend, but ensure a stable economy and a stable society, and then leave people with more of their own money that they can spend on our high streets.

That is why my party proposes raising the personal allowance for individual taxpayers to £15,000. That would be a tax cut of £500 per person for over 40 million people in this country. On the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), I say that we would take £250 off household energy bills, which is the right response to the accelerating energy costs that have been caused not just by global instability but by Labour’s obsession with net zero.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. There is now a five-minute speaking limit for Back Benchers.

17:49

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

British businessmen and women are integral to the growth and sustainability of our nation’s finances. A nation’s economic strength is measured not simply by the size of its Government, the amount it spends or the number of regulations it imposes, but by the confidence, enterprise and ingenuity of its people. It is built by those who take risks, start businesses, employ others, run shops, run pubs, manufacture goods and provide services. It is built from the ground up.

Yet at precisely the moment when we should be strengthening the foundations of our economy, this Government are placing an ever greater pressure on the very businesses that sustain it. I fear that this Government simply do not understand the reality of running a business in Britain today. Indeed, we have seen that in the last couple of weeks. Take the comments by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that employers are not working people. I do not think a political soundbite has resonated with so many across the country for a long time. I cannot overstate the hurt and insult that that comment caused to the men and women of this country who have had an idea, who get up early, who have gone out and built something, and who have given their employees a start in life, such as a young apprentice they have taken on, even if it means that they have to reduce their own pay to keep open or keep operating. They are the first ones out to work in the morning and the last ones home in the evening. Those comments hurt people, and although the Minister has apologised, I believe that she perfectly summed up the dire situation that this Government have caused for businesses up and down the country.

At the autumn Budget in 2024, the then Chancellor announced an increase in employer national insurance contributions of 1.2 percentage points alongside a reduction in the threshold at which employers begin to pay national insurance from £9,100 to £5,000. That happened despite Labour having promised that it would not do it. Ultimately, businesses have three options: absorb the additional cost, pass it on to their customers through higher prices or reduce their costs elsewhere. Both the Centre for Policy Studies and the Office for Budget Responsibility warned that those measures would lead to higher consumer prices and lower nominal wages. They have affected 1.2 million employers, and 940,000 people have lost out financially. They leave the average employer facing a net increase that will see their liabilities rise by approximately £26,000. Those are not abstract figures; they represent real businesses, real jobs and real decisions about whether to invest, expand or even remain open.

I want briefly to bring the debate closer to home by highlighting the experience of some local businesses in my constituency. Cherrywood Kitchen in Netley, run by Jason Hardcastle, is a small hospitality café that provides local employment and contributes to the community. He has seen a clear impact on the operating costs of his café since 2024, with national insurance contributions rising by over £2,000, VAT liabilities increasing by £4,000 and a weekly wage cost now exceeding £12,500. His cafe is busy. He has seen turnover increase every year that he has operated, but the actions of this Government have meant that he now takes on fewer people and does not take any profit home at the end of the week.

Another local business owner, Matthew Boyle, operates a number of excellent hospitality venues in my constituency, employing local young people—people who the Government claim they want to support. He spent 23 years building his hospitality business, which now employs 175 people, but this Budget and this Government’s actions will add £230,000 of additional annual costs to his business.

[Stuart Andrew]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Is he struck, as I am when I meet these business people, by how physically broken they sometimes look because they simply do not know how they are going to survive? Their life’s work and their dreams have been torn to shreds by this Government.

[Paul Holmes]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I go through the same thing as him. One of the most frustrating things on a Friday, when I go to see businesses in my area, is that I have no hope to give them because this Government have given them no hope. The Government need to listen to business people like Matthew who create the jobs and the wealth in the country that they love spending so much.

Ministers must recognise that businesses are not simply a source of revenue for the Treasury; they are the wealth creators of our economy. That is why I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition has set out our party’s policies on how we would help to meet the challenge that the Government have caused including, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) said, by halving national insurance contributions for people aged 21 to 24, saving £1,500 for employers, and abolishing business rates for hospitality. I also believe that we need to consider a VAT cut for hospitality businesses.

If we want thriving high streets, more jobs, better wages and a stronger economy, we must start by making Britain a better place to do business. Employers are working people because they create prosperity—not the Government, and certainly not this Government who are actively making the situation worse. It is not the Government who create prosperity; it is the people and businesses of this country, and they deserve better than what they are getting under this dire Labour Government.

17:55

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

Before I came to this House, I spent 17 years in the private sector as a chartered accountant, working with businesses in the food and drink, construction and utility sectors. I sat with owners as they went through their accounts, line by line, working out whether they could afford to take on one more person. When this House talks about business owners, I think of people who put their savings and even their own homes on the line so that others can earn a wage. There are a great many of them. At the start of 2025, there were 5.7 million private sector businesses in the country. Small and medium-sized firms provide almost 17 million jobs—almost three in five private sector jobs—and family firms sit at the heart of that, employing almost 14 million people in the country.

The value of a successful business goes far beyond numbers. In my constituency of Mid Leicestershire, there is David North in Rothley, a family deli that has served the village for more than 50 years; Barrie Stephen in Anstey, a salon that started in one village and has trained stylists who went on to open businesses of their own; and S. J. Langton in The Square in Glenfield. Businesses like those give a teenager their first job and offer the apprenticeship that lets a young person build a career without leaving home. They are the shops that keep our villages alive, but how have this Government treated them?

In the Government’s first Budget they raised employer national insurance contributions to 15% and cut the threshold to just £5,000. The accountancy firm UHY Hacker Young found that national insurance bills for employers rose by almost £28 billion in a single year. That is more than the Government’s own forecast. When we tax something more, we get less of it. Today, small firms planning to cut jobs outnumber those that are planning to hire by more than three to one. Then came the Employment Rights Act 2025, with new costs and new risks for every firm and every new hire. Then there were the business rates, and the results were entirely predictable. The Federation of Small Businesses confidence index fell to minus 71 at the end of last year. The business confidence monitor of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has now been negative for seven consecutive quarters.

The headwinds are getting stronger. Inflation rose to 3.5% in September, with motor fuel up by almost 30% on the year. The OBR has cut growth forecasts for next year to just 1%, and last week the Bank of England raised interest rates for the first time in over three years. Small firms looked to last month’s Budget to help, but the verdict of the Federation of Small Businesses was blunt. Those firms got

“nothing to ease sky-high energy bills, and nothing to make hiring someone more affordable.”

Employer national insurance remains at 15%—the jobs tax remains.

The Conservatives take a different view: Governments do not create growth, businesses do. Our job is to back businesses and then get out of their way. That is why we will scrap the family business tax and the family farm tax. We will introduce a permanent 100% business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure, cutting bills for a quarter of a million pubs, shops and high-street businesses. We will halve employer national insurance on jobs for those aged between 20 and 24, because the cost of giving a young person their first break has soared under this Government.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mr Bedford]

I will not. We would repeal Labour’s Employment Rights Act 2025, replace IR35, review Making Tax Digital, scrap the packaging tax and simplify tax for small businesses and the self-employed.

I started working in my early teens, because if I wanted something, I had to earn it. This is the bargain that every business owner makes: they take the risk and do the work, and all they ask is that the Government do not stand in their way. Back them, and they will build this country. Tax them into retreat, and they will stop. The Government must decide which side they are on.

17:59

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

“Yes”—it is a small word, but it is absolutely crucial to creating a successful economy. Yes to that first investment; yes to opening that business; yes to giving that young person a job; yes to taking that risk; yes to expanding; yes to investing—all those things are so crucial to getting a successful company and a successful economy. However, the Government cannot build an economy by making it harder for businesses to say yes. The economy responds not to a Prime Minister saying, “We must have growth,” and his intentions, but to the incentives that Ministers put in place—or, in this case, the disincentives.

We have heard it mentioned before—in relation to the jobs guarantee, for example—that the Government are trying to incentivise people into work, while at the same time disincentivising businesses from taking on people. That is like pressing the accelerator while putting on the handbrake. The Government have given so many businesses a reason to say no. The NICs increase, the business rates increase, the minimum wage increase and the red tape in the Employment Rights Act are a toxic concoction for our businesses, and are having a devastating effect.

Let me take the examples of the café in Burbage, the restaurant in Barwell and Earl Shilton or even the gym in Hinckley. They have had the jobs tax. They have had the minimum wage go up. They have had employment red tape added. They have had business support changed and taken away. They have had business rates go up. They have had their energy bills go up—there was no support in the Budget for that. Is it any wonder that the ONS has said that from October 2026, some 16% fewer hospitality businesses have been created? Across the entire economy, business creation is down by 3.5%.

Let us turn to the wider argument about the environment. As my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), has said, business confidence has been down for seven consecutive negative quarters. Businesses are losing the confidence to say yes. Why? Because of the employment costs. In a report by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, 53% of businesses cite labour costs and 41% cite taxation. That figure is double what it used to be.

Young people have been mentioned a lot. There are 981,000 people aged between 16 and 24 who are not in education, work or training. That is 30,000 more than last year. It is almost 1 million people, for the first time since 2013. That compares unfavourably with the likes of EU countries; for the first time ever, we are above the EU average.

Why does all this matter? The contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) from the Opposition Front Bench got me thinking. We can count the trees that have fallen, but we cannot see the forest that has never been planted. What do I mean by that? We can see the 12,000 job losses in Poundland. We know that Morrisons has had to lay off 5,000 people. Jaguar Land Rover has had to lay off 4,000 people. Claire’s on the high street has had to lay off 2,500 people. Whitbread, which runs Premier Inn, has had to lay off 3,800 people. We can also count the young people who are going abroad. We know that 250,000 people went, of whom two thirds were under the age of 35. But what about the businesses that never opened? What about the investment that was never made, the job that was never offered, or the apprenticeship that was never started?

The cost of this Labour Government’s “no” economy is so great. This is about the opportunity that has never been taken, and the future that we could have had. That is not recorded in any figures. No matter how hard this Government tell businesses to hire, they cannot force people to be hired, or force young people to stay. We cannot build a “yes” economy by giving businesses thousands of reasons to say no. That is why I support the motion.

18:04

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I started my business at the end of my first year at university. By my third year, it was paying me more than I thought any employer sensibly would—that is, if anyone would be foolish enough to take me on in the first place—so I carried on building that business, with no business experience and no knowledge of how to do anything. I had to learn everything from scratch. Lloyds became my business bankers, and although they were supportive, the sight of the black horse on an envelope was enough to make my palms sweat from sheer stress. All it takes is for the bank to withdraw its support, and your whole business—all your hours, hopes and dreams—are gone.

The Minister is unusual in having some feeling for and understanding of private business. One of the problems is that Government Front Benchers in particular, and the parliamentary Labour party overall, do not. If you do not understand the dynamics of a business—the pressure and the reality of trying to build a business—you will not understand why people were outraged by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s remark about employers not being working people. That outrage is not fake; it is real and visceral. Their sense of disappointment in their Government is so strong. Many of them will have voted for this Government, based on their promise that growth would be the No. 1 thing, and that tax would not be put up. It sounded great in the manifesto. Those people feel betrayed by the lack of understanding and empathy for the fact that they are risking everything, including the home that they share with a spouse, who has to sign up as well. They have put all that on the line to create a business. That is the only way to create wealth. The state facilitates—through the rule of law, decent health services, education and the rest of it—but it does not deliver wealth. That can only come from the private sector, and that failure of understanding and personal experience has led to this desperate situation.

The previous Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), made a manifesto pledge that must have been made because some public relations person told Labour, the weekend before the election, that if it did not make that pledge, it might not win, and not to be complacent: “Let’s promise not to put tax up on working people.” The Government then broke that pledge by coming up with the clever wheeze of putting tax up on employers, with no understanding of what that would do.

The arithmetic is really depressing. The £26 billion hit to the economy meant that there was not £26 billion to spend on the NHS. It turned out that the increase did not even raise the £16 billion that, according to the OBR, it should have, once the cut in corporation profits and so on was accounted for. The Government then had to compensate the public sector, which brought the figure down to £11 billion or £10 billion. Then they said, “Oh, no, hospices and GPs are not technically part of this,” so they had to find more money. Single-digit billions is all that the Government got for putting a £26 billion or £27 billion brake on the economy. It is utterly insane.

It is noticeable that smaller and smaller numbers of Labour MPs want to come to the Chamber to defend that decision. I congratulate those who have, on their party loyalty if nothing else, but when I talk to Labour colleagues outside this Chamber—if I have a chat with them in the bar, for example—I struggle to find any Labour MP who says, “That was a really good idea. That was the best way of raising money.” They will defend the need to raise money to stick into the health service, repair the “dreadful 14 years” and so on. They buy into that still, but they do not think that putting tax up on employers was a clever way of raising money, because it did not raise very much, it was an enormous brake on the economy, and it has been devastating. It has been most devastating for young people.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

indicated dissent.

[Graham Stuart]

If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene on me, I would be delighted to let him come in.

Yesterday, the deputy governor of the Bank of England said that one of the reasons why youth unemployment has gone up faster than unemployment generally—remember, because of that gigantic brake on the economy, overall unemployment has gone up by 250,000 under this Government—was the cost of employing young people, including because of the minimum wage, the jobs tax and so on.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the state of the graduate market, too?

[Graham Stuart]

The situation is affecting all young people, is it not? I have used this quote in the Chamber before, but it is worth repeating, even for the tiny number of Labour MPs who were prepared to come here, to vaguely try to support the Government. Ronald Reagan said about the left:

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

Labour taxed it with a jobs tax; then it regulated it with the Employment Rights Act 2025 until it stopped moving. Then young people were not getting employed anymore. Labour said, “Yippee!” Labour MPs were literally going around the TV studios saying, “Look at us—there is a jobs guarantee.” They have taxed it; they have regulated it until no one is getting employed; and now they will say, “We will subsidise it.” They have absolutely no conception of how private enterprise works, or how the economy works. They are letting the country down, and they increasingly know it, albeit that they do not say so in the Chamber quite yet.

18:10

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

Two weeks ago, when I spoke in the Budget debate, I criticised the Government for deliberately increasing the cost of running a business and of hiring people, in the full knowledge that it would cause more unemployment. I said that it is constituents, including mine, who are paying the price for Labour’s economic failure with their jobs. What I did not realise at the time was quite how prescient those comments were. On Monday, one of the largest employers in my constituency, Kanes Foods, went into administration, with the loss of 662 jobs. That is 662 people who last week were paying national insurance and income tax, but who this week are on benefits. My thoughts are with every one of those employees and their families.

Many people may not know or have heard of Kanes Foods, but most of us will have consumed its packaged salads or stir fries, which were on sale in major supermarkets and especially in Asda. Let me be clear that the business had some difficulties, and the administrators have particularly highlighted challenges with a recent waste water treatment issue. Let us be in no doubt, however, that Government policies did not help. When margins are as tight as they are in food production and distribution, even a tiny increase in labour costs can turn a profitable business into a loss-making one.

When the Government whacked up the national living wage by way more than inflation, they added to businesses’ costs. When the Government increased employer national insurance, it added somewhere in the region of £700 or £800 to the cost of employing each and every worker. When a business has hundreds of employees, as Kanes did, that is hundreds of thousands of pounds of additional costs. When the Minister comes to the Dispatch Box in a few minutes’ time, I would like to see him at least acknowledge that the Government have played a part in large numbers of my constituents now being unemployed, and perhaps bring himself to say sorry.

I hold the Government at least in part responsible for the situation, but on a more positive note, I thank the local community for supporting those impacted by the closure of Kanes Foods. In particular, I thank Primafruit, which has already gone out of its way to offer jobs to some of those who lost their jobs, and other businesses are coming forward. I also thank Jobcentre Plus in Evesham, which I spoke to yesterday, which is providing support for impacted constituents and information on how they can claim for pay, holiday pay and redundancy pay. The administrators are also working on that.

I am also concerned about the knock-on impact on the supply chain—on suppliers to Kanes, and on those who are owed money by Kanes. I appeal to them to talk to the administrators. I am hopeful, as are the administrators, that somebody will come forward and buy some of Kanes’ business, or its site. We may be able to get something back and resurrect the business—once a vibrant local family business, right in the heart of the vale of Evesham—in some way, shape or form.

A broader issue, and a key theme in today’s debate, is that this Government simply do not respect people who run their own businesses. They do not consider them to be workers, and the Government overall do not seem to have respect for the private sector. They do not seem to get business. They do not understand basic things like cash flow. They do not have a grasp of even the most basic economic principles, but that is not a surprise; they are socialists. As the saying goes, if a socialist understood economics, they would not be a socialist.

Before entering Parliament, I spent 23 years in the private sector, and that amounts to more private sector experience than the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Business Secretary, the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and the Housing Secretary have combined. In fact, it amounts to more private sector experience than is in 90% of the Cabinet, which is startling, but it probably goes some way to explaining why this Government are well on track to continue Labour’s unenviable record: every single Labour Government since the second world war has left office with unemployment higher than when they started. Let us contrast that with the Conservatives’ record in government, between 2010 and 2024, of helping to produce an environment in which 4 million jobs—800 jobs a day, on average—were created.

There is an alternative. There is a pro-business, Conservative alternative, articulated by the shadow Business Minister in her opening speech, and that is why I will wholeheartedly support the motion.

18:14

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Nothing highlights the fiscal failure of this Government more starkly than the plight of Poundland. The chain’s 600 stores and 12,000 workers sit on the verge of collapse, not because customers have walked away—they have not; sales grew by 6.7% in September—but because of the Government’s unaffordable tax rises, which make it impossible to run a business that works on slim profit margins. Those that work on slim profit margins keep prices down for customers. How ironic it is that a Government who preach about helping the least well-off and helping with the cost of living are forcing those firms out of business.

Business owners in my constituency are mystified by the damage that the Government have inflicted on businesses up and down the country. What I am asked by them most often is, “Do this Government not understand the harm that they are doing, or is it that they just do not care?” They have concluded that it is both. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds), made sure of that when she said that employers were not working people—which, by the way, was a kick in the teeth for every employer in the country who is often at work before everyone else, and leaves work after everyone else. When the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), announced that she would raise business and employer-related taxes by over £50 billion by the end of the decade, she wanted money for Labour’s pet projects—benefits and net zero—and she did not care that they squeezed the life out of businesses. Labour did not care where that money came from. I asked the right hon. Lady on several occasions whether she expected the number of jobs to go up or down when she taxed them. She did not say. She did not know. She was shocked.

Labour does not seem to understand that you cannot tax your way to growth and you cannot spend your way out of debt. The consequences have been job losses and, combined with day one workers’ rights, fewer opportunities. The tax rate policy hit on family businesses was hard as well.

[Ben Maguire]

I have sat here for nearly an hour and a half, and I have not heard anything from Conservative Members about how they will address the elephant in the room: how to generate economic growth and rebuild trade relationships with our closest partners in the EU and elsewhere. Instead, we just hear criticism of the national insurance jobs tax. I completely agree with the right hon. Lady about that, but we are not hearing anything—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. This is a debate about employers, not about our relationship with the EU.

[Esther McVey]

When it comes to getting costs down for employers, I would start with energy. I welcome the Government’s—eventually—approving the drilling in Jackdaw, and they need to admit to doing the same in Rosebank and going further. They should look at what our neighbours in Norway have managed to do by drilling in their country.

Let me return to the subject of family businesses. The Government showed a complete lack of knowledge of family businesses and how they are run when they capped what would have been 100% tax relief for business properties and taxed the assets as they did so. They did not understand that the life of a business can be a couple of years—it may not last—or it can go on for generations. It does not end when the founder of the business dies; it goes on. The Government did not seem to have a clue about that; they showed complete disregard.

The other thing my constituents talk about is why the Government hate wealth creators. Why do they hate the wealthy? It must be—has to be—the politics of envy and jealousy. Frankie Dyer of Barbakan Delicatessen—one company in my constituency, but it could have be any of the 365 hospitality businesses there—sent an open letter to the Prime Minister before the Budget. She wanted help, particularly with national insurance contributions, which have had the worst impacts on her business, now costing her an extra £1,000 per employee. If someone has 50 or more employees, they will have no profit left at all, and they certainly cannot invest to grow their business.

Frankie said that her business is second-generation, and it is 62 years old. It is now facing severe financial pressures. Despite the business having an annual turnover exceeding £2.3 million and winning more than 10 awards for its products, soaring operational costs—energy bills, tax obligations and national insurance—mean that the business is now struggling to stay afloat and to pay its bills each week. She is calling on the Government to reduce national insurance contributions. She wants to employ more young people, as does the whole of the hospitality sector. People in the industry want VAT, which those on the Labour Benches led them to believe would be reduced, to be reduced to 13%, and they want the charge on employment—the tax on jobs—to be reduced. The Government should reduce national insurance contributions.

18:21

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

The Government are quick to lecture Conservative Members about how to care for the most vulnerable, but at the very moment that Ministers say they want more people getting into work—as we have heard time and again this afternoon—they have increased the cost of employment. We all know that work is the best form of welfare, and Labour’s job tax is shooting the Government in the foot.

Time and again, local businesses tell me that they can no longer afford to take on apprenticeships. The double whammy of higher employer national insurance contributions and the increase to the minimum wage has simply become too much to bear.

[Gareth Snell]

The Conservatives have made the argument that they would like to see a reduction in national insurance. Will the hon. Lady spell out, in pounds and pence, by how much the Tory party would like to see the minimum wage cut to achieve the outcomes that she is suggesting?

[Rebecca Smith]

I thank the hon. Member for his question, but many questions of that nature have not been answered this afternoon. That is not what I am here to talk about. I am here to talk about the fact that businesses are currently dealing with this situation. What happens in the future is irrelevant; we are talking about what is happening while this Government are in power.

We know that by next year the annual cost of employing a full-time worker on the minimum wage will have increased by more than £4,000 since 2024—a whopping 31% increase in just three years.

[Gareth Snell]

rose—

[Jayne Kirkham]

rose—

[Rebecca Smith]

I will continue.

It is little wonder that job opportunities have shrivelled up under Labour, as has been pointed out by Members on the Government Benches. Vacancies fell by 21,000 between July and September this year, and as we have heard, small firms are being hit the hardest. To get our economy moving again, the Conservatives would halve employer national insurance contributions for under-25s. We would help young people get a foot on the ladder by backing the businesses that are prepared to give them that first opportunity.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you might be pleased to hear that there are more than 3,700 small and medium-sized enterprises in South West Devon, much like in Cornwall, which has been mentioned already. The south-west is home to many SMEs. Each one represents somebody who took a risk, invested their savings, employed local people and worked many long hours to build something of their own. In fact, that was my own experience. My dad regularly went out to work before I had even had breakfast, then came home and fell asleep—I never got a story or anything like that. He was out working six days a week, running his small business. When he was asleep, he was worrying about how the business was going to survive.

For many sole traders and small business owners, there is no guaranteed safety net if their business fails. If they have no public sector pension waiting for them at retirement, they are in an even more precarious position. I was therefore genuinely astounded when a Labour Minister had the audacity to claim that employers are not working people. The employers I know work incredibly hard. They are, as we have heard many times today, the ones opening up before dawn and locking up long after everyone else has gone home. They are the ones managing staff, cash flow and contracts. They bear the ultimate responsibility when things go wrong. When a business goes under, the employees may be able to move on to another job—although given the examples this afternoon, that is perhaps less of a possibility—but for many business owners, it is not that simple. They are losing something they have devoted years of hard work to building.

The Labour Government seem to forget that 99% of businesses in the UK are small and medium-sized enterprises, meaning that they have fewer than 250 employees. Saddled with ever higher costs, these businesses are now faced with difficult choices to raise prices, cut trading hours or make redundancies. Indeed, one local café owner told me that they have been forced to cut back deliberately on younger staff to protect the jobs of their employees who have mortgages and rent to pay. Added to that, they breed poultry, and they have had to increase the mid-year price of chickens, which will go on and lay eggs for people, for the first time in 18 years, which is driven by rising prices of animal feed, gas and fuel.

One local electrician from Plympton has told me how he regularly sees about 10 other businesses at the wholesaler each morning. There was a time when the majority of them had an apprentice, but now it is just him, and he has one only because it is his son, so it is in his interest to keep the business going. Ministers seem to have forgotten that employers pay the apprentice when they are at college as well as when they are at work, and the costs are just too high.

I have 670 construction businesses in my constituency, and one of them used to participate in an innovative scheme to support recovering addicts back into work. It partnered with well-loved Shekinah, a Plymouth homelessness charity, which provides employment support for people undergoing treatment for drug or alcohol misuse. These people would work for the company on a flexible basis, starting at a few days per week and building up gradually. After a few months, the workers would go on to gain full-time employment with other businesses. However, the company’s founders, Aaron and Sarah, say that it is impossible to continue offering this scheme due to the increased labour costs. As Aaron has said:

“We are so sad about this, as it is something that we feel is vital. Everyone needs a second chance and the chance for work and purpose in life.”

I believe that that is a sad indictment of Labour’s damaging policies.

The couple have also made the difficult decision to stop taking on apprentices. The business simply cannot afford it, despite being regularly approached by local colleges. Aaron told me that the total employment cost per day for a 21-year-old with no experience is now over £100, but for twice the cost he could recruit and employ an experienced tradesperson, who would be three or four times more productive from day one and require no supervision.

Despite the changes at the top table, this is the same old Labour, with more taxes and higher costs. If the Government are serious about helping people off welfare, they should stop making it harder to hire them. Labour’s answer is to punish employers. Ours is to create more opportunities and more apprenticeships, and get more people into work.

18:27

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

When Labour campaigners knocked on doors at the last general election, they made a promise—a promise that they would not raise taxes on working people and that they would not increase national insurance—and people put their trust in them. Today, however, the shutters are coming down on our high streets, young people cannot get a foot on the ladder and the business owners, who were told that they had nothing to fear from this Labour Government, are now paying the price for that broken promise. Let no one pretend that this is a debate about abstract tax rates; it is about jobs, the future of our high streets and whether the commitments that this Labour Government made to the electorate carry any weight at all.

Labour let the mask slip when the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that employers are not working people. What an absolute load of rubbish. Of course, employers are working people—the café owner who starts work before dawn, the farmer who employs staff from the local community, or the pub landlord who has gone without their own salary to keep their staff in work. Each of them are working people, and each of them have been asked to pay more by this Labour Government, who promised that they would not.

On broken promises and the rising cost of employment, Labour’s manifesto stated that it would not increase national insurance, yet in its first Budget the Government increased employer national insurance from 13.8% to 15% and cut the threshold at which it is paid from £9,100 to £5,000. The thresholds actively hurt part-time and lower-paid roles, which are precisely the jobs on which many young people depend. Ministers claim that this is not a tax on businesses, but it absolutely is a tax on businesses and working people. That has been seen throughout this debate. Then there is the increase to the minimum wage, which again stifled business growth. And that is before we look at the challenge of the Employment Rights Act 2025. Under this Labour Government we have seen higher taxes, higher costs and more red tape. Far from being the party of business, Labour is showing itself to be actively discouraging growth and killing the businesses up and down the country that are the very backbone of our economy.

Let me turn to my own constituency. We have held many roundtables with many local businesses, and I thank Sarah Brookfield-Almond and Ryan Troy from the Ilkley and Keighley business improvement districts for helping me to organise them. The businesses who came along were retailers, hospitality businesses and independent traders. Employers of every size were present—people who have spent years building up their businesses and who give work to local people across my constituency. Their message was consistent and stark: they described the relentless pressure of the increase in employer national insurance contributions, the minimum wage increase with no support to meet their needs, the business rates that bear down on them and the uncertainty of the Employment Rights Act hitting their businesses hard. These businesses are not asking for special treatment; they are asking for a Government who understand and want to support them.

One fantastic local business which has grown and expanded is Three Little Birds Bakery, owned and run by Bec Severs. She has a shop in Keighley, and recently opened one in Ilkley. Bec has been very clear about her views on the Labour Government’s most recent Budget. Taking to Facebook, she said:

“This budget does nothing to help”.

On the latest minimum wage rises, she says there is “absolutely no support” for how she will now have to pay that money to her employees. That has been heard loud and clear by the Turkey Inn, which has now reduced its working hours from seven days a week to four days a week on the back of this Government. Then we look at that hospice sector, which is being hit very hard, such as Sue Ryder Manorlands hospice in my constituency, by the rise in employer national insurance.

Those people are not think-tanks. They are not economic advisers to this Government. They are hard-working people in my constituency who are being impacted heavily by the choices of this Labour Government. This Labour Government are not on the side of hard-working people and my constituents are feeling the brunt of it.

18:32

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Fewer sentences have caused such shock and reaction than when the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that employers were not working people. I feel so saddened for all those small business owners across my constituency who have worked so unbelievably hard and sacrificed so much to give so many other people the opportunity of work. I think about Magda, who runs the Omorfi Nails and Beauty salon in Towcester. She does not only employ staff; while also bringing up her family, she is studying medical practice so that she can help people with diabetes—a matter close to my heart—through podiatry. It is an insult to say that she is not hard working and a working person. No matter how many examples we give, the Government simply will not listen. I wish they would engage. The voices from all the stories told here today are those of actual people from our constituencies who are living and breathing this. I implore the Government to take this issue seriously.

At the very beginning of the debate, the Minister talked of breathing space. I think the only “Breathing Space” people recognise is the song by the Pet Shop Boys, but I think their version might be slightly more popular than the Chancellor’s. We ask businesses every single day to take risks. The contract must be that if we ask them to take a risk, we give them the confidence to be able to operate their businesses, not the shifting sands constantly coming from this Government and their Budgets. Actions ultimately speak far louder than words, because hope does not pay the bills, hope does not put food on the table and hope does not heat our homes.

As we have identified, the people suffering most are our young people. We have heard many examples of people who are struggling to get opportunities and jobs. One of the pubs in my constituency—I have just run a pub of the year competition—said that it put up an advert for just a couple of hours of work at the weekend for those under 18. It received 200 applications for just one job. There are so many young people who are absolutely desperate to get into the working environment, but they cannot because those businesses cannot give them the opportunity. That is a travesty that has happened on this Government’s watch.

Nearly 1 million young people are NEETs, with 60% of those being economically inactive—not just not in work but not even looking for it. There is a much deeper issue of youth detachment from the market, which hurts young people’s confidence, health and ability to earn an income, and it hurts the taxpayer, because it is incredibly hard for us to give young people opportunities if those jobs do not exist. That is why I welcome the Conservative proposal to halve national insurance contributions for the under-25s to get them into work.

I will flag—as I did in justice questions this week—that the Employment Rights Act has introduced many powers that the Government laud, but with them we are going to start to see an increasing amount of red tape. With that red tape comes an issue with employment tribunals. When people are going through a dispute with an employer, one of the most difficult times of their lives, they are going to discover that there is a huge backlog for tribunals. There are already over 70,000 open single cases. In reducing the time from two years down to six months to bring a tribunal claim, the Act is going to increase the workload and the backlog in the courts by a third. That is madness.

We are slowing down the economy with everything we do. The Employment Rights Act is exactly as the Conservatives describe: it is an unemployment rights Act. It is burdening our businesses and slowing down opportunities, but the Government and the Labour Benches just sit and stare. That is the problem: they are sitting and staring while hard-working people out there are trying to make a living. The Government need to start listening.

My poor farmers were looking to the Budget for a little bit of help and assistance—88% of my constituency is agricultural land—but they are not getting any. Another big issue that we have to focus on are the massive issues in the pig industry. I will save that discussion for another day, but the industry is desperate for some support from the Government. I implore the Government one more time: please, do listen to the Opposition Benches. The Government may not want to on political grounds, but we are literally just voicing the concerns of our constituents. Please listen.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

18:36

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to close this debate, and I thank every Member who has spoken across the House. That includes the hon. Members for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), and for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald)—Norwich is a fine city.

On the Opposition Benches, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who took us on an excellent canter through the businesses in her constituency. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), and my hon. Friends the Members for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) and for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford). My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) talked about the importance of the word “yes”, and I will hold him to that in future. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), and for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey).

My right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) gave an excellent speech about his business sense; he also talked about his sweaty palms, which explains some of his bowling when we are playing cricket. The most important contribution was from my hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), who talked about the reality of businesses failing, and the 662 jobs that have been lost due to the squeezed margins at Kanes Foods—we wish them all well.

If this debate comes down to anything, it is two simple truths: if we tax growth, we get less growth; if we tax jobs, we get fewer jobs. That is not ideology; it is the exact logic that Government will use when they tax things such as tobacco. The difference is that the Conservatives would very much like to see more jobs.

Let me be clear what I am talking about: employers are the café owner who opens at 6 am; the scaffolder out in the rain; the builder, the hairdresser, the gym owner and the hotelier; and the pub landlord, who on any given night is also the cleaner, the accountant and, when needed, the bouncer. They take the risk, they put their own house on the line, and then they do something remarkable: they give other people a job. They are the backbone of our high streets and our economy and we value them.

In Bromley and Biggin Hill, I see them every week, in places such as The Oak pub in Bickley, Tip Top key cutters in Hayes, or the Spitfire Café in Biggin Hill. They are not asking for special favours; they are asking not to be charged more for doing the very thing that the Government say they want them to do, which is to give someone a job.

That brings me to the remarks of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on the first of this month, when she told GB news:

“I don’t think employers are working people. They are companies.”

I do not say this to be unkind. Every one of us has said something careless over the weekend that we have then spent Monday morning trying to explain—I certainly have. By the next day, it had fallen to the Science Minister to tell LBC that employers are working people. I have always believed in following the science, and I hope the Treasury will, too.

I have met a great many companies in Bromley and Biggin Hill since then, and some were greatly distressed and hurt by that statement. These are hard-working people who felt undervalued, disregarded or that their work was being disrespected; some were angry; and most of them have a first name. They open early, close when the last customer leaves, and do the VAT return at the kitchen table on a Sunday night. If that is not working, I would love to know what is.

This matters because of a promise. Before the election, Labour said in its manifesto that it would not increase taxes on working people, and that is why it would not increase national insurance. Businesses up and down the country were told again and again that Labour was on their side. Then came the first Budget, when the rate of employer national insurance went up from 13.8% to 15% and the threshold at which employers started paying fell from £9,100 to £5,000, bringing in around £25 billion a year with a tax on every job in the country, paid before a single new person is taken on. The only way for Labour to square its promise with that tax was to decide after the election that the people paying it no longer count as working people. With respect, that is not a definition; it is an escape hatch.

We warned that this would happen, as did the OBR, which said at the time that the rise would mean higher prices and lower wages, that around 940,000 employers would lose out, and that the average employer losing out would face a bill around £26,000 higher. The number of people on payrolls has fallen for most of the past two years. Youth unemployment is at its highest in more than a decade. Earlier this year, the number of young people neither earning nor learning passed 1 million for the first time in more than 12 years. That should trouble every one of us. When a Government put up the cost of hiring, the first person not hired is the one without experience. That is no judgment on them; it is just the arithmetic.

Here is the part I find hardest to square: this tax was sold as a tax on businesses, not on working people. However, the OBR’s own assumption is that over time, around three quarters of the cost—76%—is passed on to employees through lower real wages. This means that the tax that was not on working people turns out to be paid mostly by working people—it is just done behind a curtain of accountancy and in a way that never appears clearly on the front of the payslip. Instead, it appears in the pay rise that did not happen, the extra shift that was not offered and the job that was never advertised. Those are the hardest losses to see and the easiest for Government to overlook.

It is not only the high street. Think about who else is an employer: the GP practice, which is a private partnership and pays employer national insurance like anyone else; the care home; the nursery; the community pharmacy; and the local hospice, which is a charity, raising money one fun run at a time. I recently visited Demelza hospice, a remarkable charity that helps life-limited children and their families. The compassion staff bring to their roles was matched only by the frustration of rising employment costs, putting specialist staff at risk.

When this tax was announced, many hospices were surprised to find that they were caught by it. They had heard that the NHS would be protected, and assumed that that meant them. It did not. Every pound a hospice spends on national insurance is a pound raised at a cake sale that never reaches a patient.

Then there are the businesses I speak for in my own brief as shadow Minister: our fantastic hard-working manufacturers—firms that compete with the whole world on thin margins and that often have to train skilled people from scratch. Raising the cost of employing someone means raising the cost of training them, too. That is the last thing a country that wants to make things again should be doing.

Bill Perera, who employs more than 700 people in Bromley through his McDonald’s franchises, said that

“while individual measures may be manageable in isolation, their combined effect is placing a strain on investment, recruitment and long-term growth.”

National insurance, the wage bill, energy costs and new employment rules—each one on its own looks manageable, but together they decide whether a business takes on one more person.

The new Prime Minister and new Chancellor promised breathing space. It is a lovely phrase—I will give them that. But for the employer staring at a higher national insurance bill, a higher wage bill and a higher energy bill, it feels less like breathing space and more like they are holding their breath. A new Prime Minister was a chance for a new start; instead, we have simply put a new cover on an old book.

I want to be fair to the Government, because I know what Labour Members will say, and it deserves an answer. They will say that they inherited difficult public finances. Every new Government say that. I will not pretend that the choices were easy, but choosing how to fix things is the whole job of Government. They chose to put a tax on jobs after promising not to. At the very moment that the economy needed more people in work, that was the Labour party’s choice. They will say that they protected payslips—that employee national insurance, income tax and VAT were left alone. But as I have said, the OBR experts say that the workers carry the cost anyway. The Government can protect the front of the payslip and still shrink what is written on it.

Labour Members will say that we raised national insurance ourselves in 2022. We did. We listened and reversed that within months, because it was the wrong call at the wrong time. There is no shame in changing your mind when the evidence changes. I say gently to the Government that it is one of the few things in politics that it is never too late to do.

[Paul Holmes]

Does the shadow Minister agree that the key difference between our increase and the Government’s increase is that in their manifesto to win the general election in 2024, they said that they categorically would not raise national insurance?

[Peter Fortune]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Saying one thing and doing another is something that we are getting very used to from this Government.

What would we do? We would halve employer national insurance for workers aged 21 to 24, taking the main rate down to 7.5%. We are not inventing a new idea here. Under-21s and apprentices under 25 already pay no national insurance on most earnings. That was a Conservative reform and this Government have kept it, so I take it that they agree that it works. All we are asking is why that help should stop on someone’s 21st birthday, just as so many are leaving university or college and looking for a proper start. Nor is it only a Conservative idea. The cross-party Work and Pensions Committee recommended in July that the Government extend the relief to all under-25s. When a Committee with both Labour and Conservative Members agrees on something, it is usually worth a second look.

Most of us in this House remember our first job and the person who took a chance on us. Mine was at the South London Press in Streatham—though, to be fair, I think they regarded that as a mistake pretty sharpish. For a lot of young people, that first chance comes as a job in a café, shop, pub or hotel. Those are exactly the businesses that this tax hits hardest and that our plans would help most. On business rates, we would give retail, hospitality and leisure businesses full relief—up to £110,000 each—so that our high streets have genuine room to grow and hire. We look at the whole bill that businesses face—not one line of it—because that is how the person running a business has to look at it too.

Napoleon supposedly called us a nation of shopkeepers. I am sure he meant it as an insult, but as we know things did not go terribly well for poor old Boney after that, and I consider it a compliment—a strength, part of our industrious culture and something we can be proud of. The motion asks the House to agree with something that most of our constituents would think goes without saying: that the person who opens the shop, runs the pub or builds the extension and who pays the wages of the people working alongside them is a working person. If Members agree with that, they can say so tonight in the Lobby.

18:48

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Blair McDougall)]

It is a pleasure to respond to the debate with you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I join other Members in paying tribute to the work that entrepreneurs do in our country—to the sacrifice, long hours and sleepless nights that have been referenced.

The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) singled me out as being someone who has empathy with and an understanding of business. I do not know if that will result in him having to surrender his party card, or perhaps in me doing so, but I will take it in the spirit that it was intended. We absolutely understand the feeling of jeopardy that he talks about.

My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) spoke powerfully about the feeling of responsibility that employers have, including his parents, towards their workers. For all the disagreement that there will be in this debate about how we do it, our job is to make that just a little bit easier, because it can be an all-encompassing and, at times, lonely enterprise running a business.

I will endeavour to respond to as many points raised by right hon. and hon. Members around the Chamber as possible. Several made me hungry and reminded me that I skipped lunch earlier on today. The right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) and my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) referred to fantastic food businesses in their constituencies, and even the reference to the prawn sandwich offensive from the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) brought on that feeling.

I do, however, want to echo the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in his opening speech. The big macroeconomic picture for the UK is this: we were the joint fastest growing economy in the G7 in the first half of this year, the IMF has upgraded our growth for this year, and the IMF’s chief economist has called the UK the “stand out” economy for deficit reduction, with the lowest forecast deficit in the G7 by 2029.

[Esther McVey]

Will the Minister inform us how many businesses have gone to the wall since Labour came into government?

[Blair McDougall]

It has been a dreadful decade for businesses, and for small businesses in particular. As I said at the beginning, our job is to make it easier to invest and to ensure that we are cutting red tape and increasing access to finance. I will talk about that in a moment.

In the Budget, we took action to give the businesses that the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) is concerned about and employers some breathing space. We continue to work on the long-term changes that are necessary to create good jobs and growth in every part of our country. As a result of that work, employment is up this year—it is higher than previously forecast in March—and, in fact, the UK has the third highest employment rate in the G7. Meanwhile, business investment—so often embarrassing under the previous Government—relative to the size of the economy remains at its highest level for a decade.

Of course, as Members have said, there are global headwinds from the conflict in the middle east. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Conservative Members say “Ah”, and they do not like to be reminded of that, because they were calling for us to take part in that conflict. People and employers are seeing the impact of that conflict in their bills. We know that there is more to do, but this is a country that is turning a corner.

With that, I turn to the points raised throughout the debate, starting with national insurance, which was raised by several hon. Members. The facts are these. Employer national insurance contributions are forecast to raise about £150 billion in 2026-27. That is a significant contribution to the funding of our public services. Why is that needed? Because we cannot have a strong NHS or strong public services without investing in them, investing in our country and rebuilding the crumbling infrastructure we inherited after 14 years of austerity.

[Stuart Andrew]

The national insurance rises are really affecting hospices: in some cases, 40% of their beds are closing. Where will those people go? They will go to the national health service. How does that help our public services?

[Blair McDougall]

We recognise that and, as was mentioned, we are providing additional resources throughout the NHS and hospices to help with that.

On relief for employers, hon. Members will know that the employment allowance was estimated to be worth £7.4 billion in 2025-26. That provides eligible employers with up to £10,500 a year towards their national insurance contribution bills.

That is obviously not the only help that we gave to businesses in the Budget. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) noted, we have lifted tens of thousands of businesses out of business rates. Several hon. Members raised concerns about youth unemployment.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the Minister acknowledge, because he not only has the ear of business but is a very honest Member of this House, that, notwithstanding the talk about support for business and the 70,000 businesses that have been mentioned, overall the Budget raised the tax on business by another £2.2 billion, on top of the £66 billion that came in the two previous ones?

[Blair McDougall]

We asked business, and banks in particular, to pay a little more so that we could give people help with their energy bills. We have heard in the debate, once again, that the Conservative party opposes that and so opposes that additional support that people are getting with their energy bills this winter.

As has been said, no employer is paying national insurance contributions on under-21s up to a salary of £50,000 and similarly for apprentices who are under 25, which is a saving of around £6,700 at most for employers. We have doubled the employment allowance and ensured that 40% of companies do not pay national insurance contributions.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Has unemployment gone up or down on this Government’s watch, and what has caused it?

[Blair McDougall]

Unemployment is still lower than in comparable economies—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked the question, so I will answer. Employment is up and inactivity is down in this country. It is precisely because we are concerned about youth unemployment that we are introducing measures such as the £2,000 hiring payment for smaller employers to take on young people and the £3,000 jobs grant for those at risk of sliding into youth unemployment. As several hon. Members have noted, that is in stark contrast with the increase of a quarter of a million in youth unemployment and inactivity in the last few years of the Conservative Government.

[Dr Luke Evans]

rose—

[Paul Holmes]

rose—

[Blair McDougall]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) for one last intervention and then I will make some progress.

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister has outlined the £2,000 payment to businesses. Does he think that it is best for a Government to administer that payment or to reduce taxation on businesses so that they can choose to employ younger people without that Minister getting in the way?

[Blair McDougall]

It is precisely because we recognise, as many right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned, that retail and hospitality give so many young people their first job that we are lifting so many of those businesses out of business rates and lowering the tax burden on those individuals.

I will follow the Prime Minister’s lead and note that we agree on a lot despite the debate across the House. We agree, as many hon. Members have said, that small businesses in particular are the backbone of our economy, we agree that more must be done to support business to employ people, and we agree that young people should be supported.

[Dr Evans]

rose—

[Blair McDougall]

I will make some progress.

We agree that young people should be supported into work. However, we disagree fundamentally on how to go about that. The hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) spoke about the minimum wage, but told the House that she did not want to talk about what might happen in the future. I think I know why that is. It is because in a report from the Prosperity Institute, the shadow Business Minister in the other place committed to freezing the minimum wage for five years. That is a real-terms cut of 12% for the poorest workers that will not just take £8,900 out of the pockets of the poorest workers in the country, but take that money out of the tills of businesses in their communities.

The way to fix the issue we have with youth unemployment is to increase the number of apprenticeships, increase the flexibility of those apprenticeships, invest in the growth sectors that will create the well-paid jobs of the future, ensure that those young unemployed people are more attractive to potential employers and take all the other measures that we are taking to invest in business.

The Tory plan for those young people who have been rejected over and over again and who are close to being broken by the experience of being let down by the system is to punish them for that. We will not do that. The Conservatives offer only insecure hours, cuts to incomes and poverty pay. That did not work for 14 years, it did not work for employers and it will not work now.

Question put.

18:59

Division 121

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 105

Noes: 293

Independent Expert Panel

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Relevant document: House of Commons Commission, Independent Expert Panel: nomination of new members, HC 663.]

Ordered,

That, in accordance with Standing Order No. 150C (Appointment of Independent Expert Panel Chair and members) and for a period of six years from 25 November 2026, Alison Abu, Tom Crowther, Justine Davidge and Elizabeth Dux be appointed as members of the Independent Expert Panel.—(Sir Alan Campbell.)

Business without Debate

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Commons Chamber

National Security Strategy (Joint Committee)

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Commons Chamber

Ordered,

That Derek Twigg be discharged from the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy and Dame Chi Onwurah be added.—(Jessica Morden, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Northern Ireland Affairs

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Commons Chamber

Ordered,

That Chris Bloore be discharged from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and Sean Woodcock be added.—(Jessica Morden, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Procedure

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Commons Chamber

Ordered,

That Michael Wheeler be discharged from the Procedure Committee and Jeff Smith be added.—(Jessica Morden, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Public Accounts

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Commons Chamber

Ordered,

That Catherine McKinnell be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Al Carns be added.—(Jessica Morden, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Science and Technology

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Commons Chamber

Ordered,

That Dr Allison Gardner be discharged from the Science and Technology Committee and Steve Yemm be added.—(Jessica Morden, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Work and Pensions

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Commons Chamber

Ordered,

That Lee Barron be discharged from the Work and Pensions Committee and Neil Duncan-Jordan be added.—(Jessica Morden, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Charity Commission

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Relevant document: Third Report of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s investigations into the Charity Commission, HC 111.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Liam Conlon.)

19:14

[Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

I am grateful to have secured this debate and to raise an issue that is important not only to my constituents but to everyone who relies on the vital work of charities. It concerns whether the Charity Commission currently has the necessary powers and resources to respond effectively when charities are not properly governed.

A charity’s ability to operate successfully and serve our communities depends on public trust. Well-governed charities can make an enormous difference to people’s lives, and trusteeship carries series legal responsibilities. Trustees are custodians of charitable assets, and they must comply with the governing documents and manage the charity’s resources responsibly to ensure that activities further charitable purposes. When charities are not appropriately governed, the consequences are significant, and it undermines public confidence and deprives the local communities they are supposed to serve. When trustees fail to meet their responsibilities, there must be an effective regulator with the powers and resources to intervene swifty and restore public trust in the charity sector, the vast majority of which does an excellent job. That is the role of the Charity Commission.

I acknowledge the important work of the Charity Commission. It regulates more than 170,000 charities in England and Wales, overseeing a sector that is responsible for tens of billions of pounds in annual income and expenditure. It has a range of statutory powers, including the ability to investigate misconduct and mismanagement, to require information and documents, to issue official warnings, to suspend or remove trustees, and in appropriate circumstances to appoint interim managers.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for her assiduousness in bringing forward this issue. Although the Charity Commission should have teeth, does she agree that it is the job of enforcement agents such as HMRC, or indeed the local council, to take a bite out of those who are in breach? The delineation of powers must be clear, and that is one thing that charities perhaps needs some help with.

[Ashley Dalton]

A wide range of powers are held by a number of organisations, and it is crucial that each one of those takes responsibility and has power to work within its own remit, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree. There are serious questions as to whether the Charity Commission’s current framework is sufficient. A regulator’s ability to investigate concerns does not necessarily mean that it has the capacity to intervene swiftly or effectively enough, and there is a pertinent concern in my West Lancashire constituency, where I have been engaging with the Charity Commission over long-standing concerns about the management and governance of Scarisbrick village hall.

In 1972, local people secured a piece of land and went about fundraising and building a village hall, a village green and a children’s playground. They then fundraised and erected a war memorial to the Scarisbrick residents lost in the world wars who had not previously been recognised. Many years went by, with the village hall being a valued community asset, including the village green and the children’s playpark. In recent years, however, concerns began to surface over the running of the hall and facilities.

First went the children’s playpark, with trustees claiming that funds could not be found to maintain it. The trustees then changed the name of the village hall to The Venue Scarisbrick, marketing it as a function suite. Local organisations such as the Scouts were allegedly deprioritised, and regular slots that they had been using were changed, making it difficult for them to continue, forcing them to go elsewhere. The trustees then fenced off the village green, denying access to local residents, and renting the green space to a private sector petting zoo. The final straw came in July 2025 when the trustees proposed the permanent removal of the war memorial. I launched a petition to save the memorial, and wrote to trustees in August 2025 setting out my concerns and requesting a meeting. I received no response. I chased it in August and later in October, but I still received no response.

Meanwhile, local residents became increasingly concerned about not only the trustees’ decisions, but their behaviour towards residents. It transpired that the trustees were using the hall as a base for their own private sector businesses and charging other businesses to use the address. When challenged, the trustees refused to meet local residents, refused to meet or correspond with me, and called the police when local residents protested at the proposed removal of the war memorial. On inspection, it transpired that the trustees have set up a limited company in the name of The Venue Scarisbrick, of which some of the trustees are directors. There is no indication of how that company relates to the charity that owns the building. They have also failed to register accounts for the charity for several years running.

Residents demanded an annual general meeting, as one had not been held for some time and was long overdue. In February 2026, six months later than the governing document required, the trustees, despite receiving advice from the Charity Commission that they must hold the AGM in person, held an online broadcast, claiming that it was an AGM. There was no way to ascertain who was there, how many people were present or whether they were eligible to be there. There was no way to contribute unless explicitly invited to do so.

When it came to so-called elections, the trustees were appointed by ballot by email. It was not secret, and there was no adequate scrutiny or transparency. Unsurprisingly, all the existing trustees were re-elected. Not only was the so-called AGM appallingly run, but the chair of the trustees took the opportunity to launch a 15-minute verbal attack on local people who challenged him. Local parish councillors have been threatened with legal action and intimidatory language on social media. While the war memorial was saved—at least for now—the village green remains inaccessible and the trustees remain in charge.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making a bold and brave case. As she knows, she has recently become a bit of a heroine of mine following a recent and well-publicised speech. Is not the problem here the Charity Commission? I do not know if it has the resources, the means or the legal powers required, but, in a variety of cases that I have drawn to its attention on woke causes—about which we might not agree—it seemed to be highly ineffective. She is talking about a very local case, but she is highlighting a bigger point in doing so.

[Ashley Dalton]

I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution. That is the point that I am making: whether the Charity Commission has the powers, resources and ability to act. I fear that the story I am laying out today is far from unique across the country.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I congratulate my good and hon. Friend on securing this debate. There is a really key point about trust and accountability. Does she share the concerns of myself and other members of the coalfields group of MPs about the activities of the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation? It is a charitable body established by Parliament in 1952 to provide support to mining communities. Many former mining communities, including some in my own constituency, say that they are missing out on millions of pounds of investment from the sale of former miners’ welfare halls and outdoor welfare schemes. Does my hon. Friend agree that the public must have confidence that charitable trusts are held accountable for their actions? Will she support our efforts to ensure that the Charity Commission takes all appropriate action in the cases that we have identified?

[Ashley Dalton]

I absolutely agree with what my hon. Friend has outlined. The Charity Commission should support all charities, because it is fundamental that public trust remains. That is why residents and I have engaged with the Charity Commission and raised concerns regarding the transparency and governance of Scarisbrick village hall and the decisions being made.

The Charity Commission has begun an investigation. Following the February AGM, the commission confirmed that concerns about the failure to comply with advice and the conduct of the meeting itself had been escalated to its regulatory compliance team. Further concerns, including concerns around social media activity and questions about the transparency and integrity of the AGM ballot, have been added to its case records. However, by June, the commission confirmed that the case remained ongoing and was progressing.

Last month, the commission advised that it had received a significant volume of further correspondence, including new concerns about the conduct of a trustee on social media. It also confirmed that it was continuing its investigation and planned to undertake a books and records inspection in the coming weeks. I appreciate that thorough investigations take time, particularly where there are complex governance issues to consider. However, this case illustrates the challenges of addressing concerns in a timely way, particularly where further issues and inappropriate conduct continue to emerge while an investigation is ongoing. Residents of Scarisbrick are concerned that the village hall will potentially be lost and its resources frittered away.

Those concerns have been compounded by further developments. Two companies associated with the management of the village hall, The Venue Scarisbrick Ltd and Community Inclusion Projects Ltd, have appeared on Companies House as having active proposals to strike off. That raises even more questions about corporate governance and the protection of charitable assets and community facilities. Given that this case has been ongoing since last summer and I have been raising concerns with the commission for a year, I ask the Minister to consider what more the Government can do to ensure the commission can investigate cases of this nature promptly.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I am staggered by the story of Scarisbrick village hall—what the hon. Lady is describing is terrifying. It seems to me that the Charity Commission does not have the resources it needs to do any of its work. I have a constituent who is starting a charity, HeritageTies, and he has been told that it is going to take 23 weeks to register his charity. During that time, he cannot get a bank account, fundraise, or start the job he is trying to do. I am told that 3,000 new church charities have been added, so does the hon. Lady agree that we need a root-and-branch investigation of whether the Charity Commission has the resources it needs to do its job?

[Ashley Dalton]

I thank the hon. Member for her contribution. This is an ongoing issue, and she will be aware that the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s report on the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s investigations of the Charity Commission more widely has raised similar concerns. It also questions whether the commission shows sufficient boldness in exercising its existing powers, and whether it has the powers it needs to regulate the charitable sector effectively.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for referencing my Select Committee’s recent report. Will she join our Committee in calling on the Government or the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee to hold a thorough consultation on the commission’s powers, both to identify whether it needs further powers and whether it is making the best use of the powers it already has, and particularly whether the legal advice it is getting is too risk averse?

[Ashley Dalton]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and join him in that call.

I would welcome an update from the Minister on the Committee’s report and on the Government’s plans to take forward its recommendations, particularly its proposal for a wider consultation on the powers of the Charity Commission. Is the Minister satisfied that the commission’s existing powers and resources are adequate to enable it to intervene at an earlier stage where there are persistent governance concerns and potential risks to charitable assets? Are there opportunities to strengthen the regulatory framework so that the commission can take effective action without unnecessary delay? Ultimately, this is about ensuring that the Charity Commission has the resources, powers and support it needs to fulfil its responsibilities, protect charitable assets and maintain public confidence in the charitable sector.

19:28

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Vicky Foxcroft)]

I am pleased to respond to this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) on securing it. She is an incredibly powerful woman—such a powerful woman that she has been able to get the Secretary of State to attend the debate. She also shares powerful woman characteristics with my mother. I have to mention my mother today, because it is her birthday and, sadly, I am not able to be with her.

Village halls and other such spaces are often the lifeblood of our communities, and I pay tribute to the army of workers and volunteers who selflessly provide vital services in them, to communities up and down the country. In the vast majority of cases, these spaces are well-run and treasured by their communities, but on rare occasions, problems can arise.

My hon. Friend has raised concerns about Scarisbrick village hall in her constituency. Such cases highlight the important role that local Members of Parliament can play in resolving issues in their communities. I congratulate her on securing a positive outcome that protects and preserves the war memorial. On the ongoing concerns about the management of the village hall, I note that the Charity Commission opened a regulatory compliance case into the charity in February 2026. The opening of a case is not a finding of wrongdoing, but a step the commission can take to consider concerns in greater detail. The case is ongoing, and the commission is therefore limited in what it can say at this stage. However, I understand that the commission intends to meet the parties involved at the charity’s premises in the coming weeks.

The Charity Commission for England and Wales plays a vital role in helping community charities, such as village halls, to thrive, and in supporting public trust and confidence in charities across the sector.

[Grahame Morris]

Trust is important, and I support the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), but further to the issues that I raised in my intervention, I point out to the Minister that we are expecting a judgment from the Charities Commission on the evidence provided to it by Members of Parliament representing coalfield constituencies. We gathered that evidence from local authorities, the National Union of Mineworkers, the Industrial Communities Alliance and around 20 locations across the UK coalfields. This is not an isolated issue, so does the Minister believe that the Charity Commission has sufficient powers to effect the change required to hold charities to account for their actions? If I may be so bold, will she agree to meet a delegation from the coalfields group to look at some of the evidence that we have gathered, which should raise concerns for the Charity Commission investigators?

[Vicky Foxcroft]

I will come to the points that my hon. Friend raises later, but I will say that the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), met the Charity Commission when she was the Minister responsible for civil society to discuss CISWO’s support for coalmining communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) cares deeply about supporting coalfield communities, and the Government and I share that sentiment. I would be happy to meet a delegation.

We rightly rely on the Charity Commission not only to promote best practice and deliver knowledge for trustees, but to step in and act when issues arise. As a civil regulator, its core responsibility is to ensure that trustees comply with their duties under charity law, that charities pursue their charitable purposes for the public benefit, and that any misconduct or mismanagement is addressed. The Charity Commission has a range of statutory, investigatory and enforcement powers at its disposal to effectively regulate charities and address wrongdoing. The Government fully support the Charity Commission in taking proportionate action in such cases, but it is important to note that the Charity Commission can only take action where there is misconduct or mismanagement. Where a charity pursues its charitable purposes within the law and the terms of its governing document, the commission cannot intervene.

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

I am a member of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and we have had the Charity Commission in to review matters, in the wake of its attempt to violate privilege in several cases that had been dealt with badly. Would it surprise the Minister to learn that the Charity Commission has expressed concern about the limits of its powers? One example was an incident in which a member of a charity board dealing with children had been asking for intimate photography of children. They resigned from that role, which meant that they could not be disbarred from holding an office in another charity in future, because the powers of the commission apparently did not extend that far.

[Vicky Foxcroft]

I am interested in having a further discussion with my hon. Friend, because what he has described sounds extremely worrying.

It is undoubtedly important to resolve disputes such as the one raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire, for the benefit of local communities. Indeed, many of the points that she raised seem deeply concerning. However, with more than 170,000 registered charities to regulate, the Charity Commission takes a risk-based approach to regulation to ensure that no issue or complaint is overlooked, while also ensuring that it acts in a proportionate manner and uses its resources to prioritise the highest risks. That means that in some cases the commission cannot take action, or cannot take action as swiftly as those involved would like it to, and final outcomes of casework can depend on the complexity of each individual case. The commission experienced a 50% increase in the number of concerns raised about charities between August 2025 and 2026, which has left its resources severely stretched. It is important that we have a regulator that can act effectively to tackle abuse and mismanagement of charities.

[Sir John Hayes]

There is a fundamental difference between others raising concerns and a Member of the House doing so. We do this all the time, do we not, in respect of public bodies, Government Departments and so on? That should be given an appropriate degree of weight by the Charity Commission, because we speak for our constituents.

[Vicky Foxcroft]

I agree. The Secretary of State and I discussed the possibility of presenting this as a test case to establish why it is taking so long to be resolved, and we will explore that further.

In the 2025 spending review, in recognition of all of the challenges faced by the Charity Commission, we gave it a 25% uplift in funding, which is backing a three-year transformation programme to manage rising demands on its services. I know that it has been criticised recently by both the Committee of Privileges and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee for its approach to reports by the Public Service Ombudsman, which made findings of maladministration in two cases. The commission has apologised unreservedly to Parliament in response to the Committee of Privileges report, and has accepted the report in full. I have confidence in the commission’s leadership, and I know that the board is taking action to address the concerns raised by the reports and to learn lessons for its handling of similar cases.

The Government keep the Charity Commission’s powers under regular review, and are committed to strengthening them where needed. On 14 October, the Government published a consultation proposing expanded charity trustee disqualification powers, which will help to protect charities from extremist abuse.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

The Government are rightly consulting on those additional powers for the commission—which I welcome—to disqualify people from being trustees or senior managers if they engage in conduct that promotes hatred of people on grounds of race, religion or belief, but does the Minister agree that we should not limit the powers to those three grounds? We often see discrimination in the form of misogyny or homophobia, and discrimination against disabled people. Would the Minister consider extending her proposals to cover those as well?

[Vicky Foxcroft]

We will indeed be happy to engage with my hon. Friend and look into his proposals. We will also consider carefully PACAC’s call for a broad review of the Charity Commission’s powers to ensure robust regulatory oversight, and will continue to engage closely with the commission on that.

Let me again thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire for securing the debate, and genuinely thank all the Members who have contributed to it. I think that it has been enhanced by all those contributions.

Question put and agreed to.

19:39

House adjourned.

Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Cryptoassets) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026 Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Addition of Relevant Enactments) Regulations 2026

Wednesday 11th November 2026 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Carolyn Harris

Cooper, Daisy (St Albans) (LD)

† Cooper, John (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)

† Craft, Jen (Thurrock) (Lab)

† Dollimore, Helena (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)

Duncan-Jordan, Neil (Poole) (Lab)

† Foody, Emma (Vice-Chamberlain of His Majesty's Household)

† Garnier, Mark (Wyre Forest) (Con)

† Glindon, Mary (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds North East) (Lab)

† Pearce, Jon (High Peak) (Lab)

† Reed, Steve (Streatham and Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)

† Rigby, Lucy (Economic Secretary to the Treasury)

† Rushworth, Dr Sam (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)

Smith, Rebecca (South West Devon) (Con)

† Strathern, Alistair (Hitchin) (Lab)

† Vickers, Martin (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)

† Wrigley, Martin (Newton Abbot) (LD)

George James, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Second Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 11 November 2026

[Carolyn Harris in the Chair]

Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Cryptoassets) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026

14:16

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Cryptoassets) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Addition of Relevant Enactments) Regulations 2026.

I will now call the Minister to move the first motion and speak to both instruments. At the end of the debate, I will put the question on the first motion and then ask the Minister to move the second motion formally.

[Lucy Rigby]

These two instruments serve a common purpose. They make targeted practical changes to relevant regulatory frameworks and support innovation in our financial services sector while, very importantly, maintaining appropriate protections for consumers and markets. We want the UK to maintain its position as a world-leading financial centre as new technologies reshape payments and our financial markets. That requires clear rules, proportionate regulation and the ability to remove barriers as markets develop.

Earlier this year, as hon. Members know, we legislated to establish a financial services regulatory framework for cryptoassets, including stablecoins, with the aim of giving firms greater certainty to invest and innovate in the UK and, importantly, protecting consumers. The regime comes into force in October next year. The first draft instrument does not replace or seek to reopen the comprehensive framework we introduced. It simply makes targeted refinements to ensure that the regime works as intended, remains proportionate, and supports a competitive market here in the UK. Its principal effect is on UK-issued qualifying stablecoins.

Appropriately regulated stablecoins could play an important role in both retail and wholesale payments. We consulted widely on the wider reforms to payments regulation, including the treatment of tokenised payments such as stablecoins. Without the amendments before us today, firms using UK-issued qualifying stablecoins and payment chains could be caught by the cryptoasset requirements designed primarily for trading activities. Following continued engagement with the sector and with some really helpful input from hon. Members, we have concluded that that outcome would not be proportionate.

The first instrument therefore excludes UK-issued qualifying stablecoins from the cryptoasset dealing and arranging activities. It also excludes their temporary holding from the safeguarding activity where that holding is in connection with the payments transaction. It is very clearly not about removing stablecoins from regulation entirely. Issuing qualifying stablecoins in the UK will remain regulated. Lending and borrowing activities will remain in scope, and overseas-issued stablecoins will continue to be in scope of the cryptoassets activities.

Turning to the second SI, as hon. Members know, FSMA 2023 allows us to establish financial market infrastructure sandboxes. In those sandboxes, firms can test use of new innovations and technologies in a live environment in relation to financial services markets. Each FMI sandbox provides a modified legislative framework to enable that to happen where existing requirements might otherwise impede innovation. The power in FSMA 2023 was designed with flexibility in mind. When the power was created, it was not possible to know at that time every provision of legislation that might need to be modified as technologies developed. Section 17 of the Act therefore allowed further legislation to be added to the “relevant enactment” list, which defines which pieces of legislation can be modified using the sandbox powers. The second instrument before us today adds a further 10 enactments to that list.

The new enactments relate to areas such as debt issuance, company law, payment services and the rehabilitation of offenders. Certain areas of legislation were identified through our work to prepare for the issuance of the Government’s digital gilt instrument, DIGIT, which will be the first digital gilt issuance in the G7, putting us ahead of other countries in our agenda to push forward digital assets. These additions will allow the digital securities sandbox to operate more effectively and provide the legislative flexibility needed to enable DIGIT to be issued through a platform operating within the DSS. I should make it clear that the second instrument does not modify the enactments that are listed; it only brings them within scope of the existing FMI sandbox powers, so that necessary modifications can then be made through the sandbox framework.

These instruments are practical steps within our wider programme of work to modernise UK financial markets, and I hope they provide regulatory clarity. They seek to remove barriers, where that is sensible and proportionate, and they allow new technology to be tested responsibly and in a way that continues to protect people. I hope that the Committee feels able to support both instruments.

14:35

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I begin by thanking the Economic Secretary to the Treasury for her enthusiasm to engage after we debated this topic in January this year. A problem highlighted at the time was the confusion between what is a cryptoasset and what is part of a payment system. Something like Bitcoin is effectively dematerialised gold, so there needs to be regulated investment advice for people who have invested in it, whereas a stablecoin such as Tether is actually part of the payment system. It was incredibly thoughtful of the Minister to engage with me and others to resolve the difference between those two things.

I would particularly like to thank two people for giving me advice on that issue—Mike Ringer and Professor Sarah Green. They are far cleverer than me, and they came in and highlighted the problem. To my way of thinking, having been here for 16 years, it is incredibly good that Parliament works so effectively when we get together and sort out a problem such as this. I thank the Minister and all her officials for their engagement.

The second instrument relates to the City of London and the UK remaining at the forefront of financial innovation. We are delighted that this measure is coming through, and I thank the Minister once again. Mrs Harris, you have chaired an afternoon of unanimity and enthusiasm towards the Government.

Question put and agreed to.

DRAFT FINANCIAL SERVICES AND MARKETS ACT 2023 (ADDITION OF RELEVANT ENACTMENTS) REGULATIONS 2026

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Addition of Relevant Enactments) Regulations 2026.—(Lucy Rigby.)

14:37

Committee rose.

Draft Employment Rights Act 2025 (Unfair Dismissal) (Removal of Limit on Compensation) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026

Wednesday 11th November 2026 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Sir Alec Shelbrooke

† Aldridge, Dan (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)

† Barclay, Steve (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)

Cooper, Daisy (St Albans) (LD)

† Costigan, Deirdre (Ealing Southall) (Lab)

† Davies, Paul (Colne Valley) (Lab)

† Dearden, Kate (Minister for the Future of Work)

† Mohamed, Abtisam (Sheffield Central) (Lab)

Murphy, Luke (Basingstoke) (Lab)

† Olney, Sarah (Richmond Park) (LD)

† Pakes, Andrew (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)

† Rhodes, Martin (Glasgow North) (Lab)

† Robertson, Joe (Isle of Wight East) (Con)

† Stevens, Jo (Cardiff East) (Lab)

† Taylor, Rachel (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)

† Thomas, Bradley (Bromsgrove) (Con)

† Wheeler, Michael (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)

Williamson, Sir Gavin (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)

George Stokes, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Third Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 11 November 2026

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke in the Chair]

Draft Employment Rights Act 2025 (Unfair Dismissal) (Removal of Limit on Compensation) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026

16:30

[The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Employment Rights Act 2025 (Unfair Dismissal) (Removal of Limit on Compensation) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. The draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 12 October, will make necessary consequential amendments arising from the Employment Rights Act 2025. Commencement regulations have been signed to confirm that, from 1 January 2027, the statutory cap on compensation awards for unfair dismissal will be removed. A number of other employment law provisions do not contain their own stand-alone compensation limits; instead, they cross-refer to the unfair dismissal cap. Once it is removed, those references would no longer operate as intended. The draft regulations therefore replace or remove them where necessary.

At present, compensatory awards for unfair dismissal are capped at the lower of £123,543 or 52 weeks’ gross pay. The 2025 Act removes the statutory cap by repealing section 124 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Removing the compensatory award cap forms part of a wider package of reforms to strengthen unfair dismissal protections, which will reduce the qualifying period from two years to six months. Together, the changes will give more than 6 million employees greater security at work while ensuring that employers retain the flexibility to assess and, where appropriate, dismiss new recruits during the first months of employment.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Will the consequence of these provisions be felt more keenly in the public sector than the private sector, given the interaction of the regulations with final salary schemes, which are more generous in the public sector?

[Kate Dearden]

We do not think there will necessarily be a significant impact on employers. We are removing the cap—I will come on to the engagement we have had, and am happy to update the right hon. Gentleman on it—but a process will still be in place for unfair dismissal claims to be handled in an established, known way by judges.

Let me continue with the provisions affected by this statutory instrument. It will replace references to section 124 of the 1996 Act with references to section 123 of that Act. That means that tribunals will continue to determine compensatory awards based on what is

“just and equitable in all the circumstances”.

Compensation will remain based on evidence of actual and projected losses sustained by the claimant. In practice, most awards are expected to remain modest, reflecting the continued application of these well-established legal principles, as I have said. That is important, because most of these provisions concern claims for detriment brought by workers when that detriment consists of their contract being terminated.

[Steve Barclay]

The Minister just said that she thinks the implication of the provisions will be modest, but is it not the case that higher-paid potential claimants have been deterred by the cap, that removing the cap will open the door to many more higher-paid claimants, and that therefore their claims will not be modest, particularly, as per my previous intervention, when they relate to final salary pension schemes, such as those in the NHS?

[Kate Dearden]

As I have said, this change does not reset how tribunals calculate awards. Tribunals have well-established ways to calculate compensation that might be awarded for particular losses, and they will continue to base those awards on evidenced actual and projected financial losses. We are committed to ensuring that all employees receive fair compensation when they have been unfairly dismissed. We are talking about unfair dismissal here.

As I have said, the provisions concern claims for detriment brought by workers. Our long-standing approach is that such workers should receive neither more nor less compensation than they would have received as employees for bringing an unfair dismissal claim. These amendments preserve that alignment after the statutory cap is removed.

The regulations also amend section 140 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. That provision concerns compensation where a person is refused employment or the services of an employment agency for reasons related to trade union membership. The amendment ensures that compensation in those cases continues to be aligned with the unfair dismissal compensation.

We are taking a different approach to sections 67 and 176 of the 1992 Act. Those provisions cover compensation payable by trade unions when members or former members have been unjustifiably disciplined, excluded or expelled. Parliament removed the compensation cap for unfair dismissal, but it did not intend to increase compensation limits for trade union discipline and expulsion cases. The regulations therefore preserve the existing limits in those provisions.

The regulations preserve the existing position by replacing the reference to section 124 with the fixed amount of £123,543, which is the current cap on unfair dismissal compensation. That amount will continue to be uprated annually in line with inflation using the retail prices index, and the additional limit based on 30 weeks’ pay will remain. That ensures that removing the unfair dismissal cap does not change the existing compensation limits that apply in these cases.

Finally, the regulations amend the ACAS Arbitration Scheme (Great Britain) Order 2004. They remove references to section 124 so that, following the removal of the unfair dismissal compensation cap, an arbitrator’s powers to award compensation continue to align with those of an employment tribunal.

The regulations are an important and necessary step in implementing the unfair dismissal reforms that Parliament has already agreed. They are necessary so that, when the unfair dismissal compensatory award cap is removed on 1 January, the wider statute book continues to work as intended. They preserve existing policy where appropriate, and ensure that related compensation provisions remain effective. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

16:37

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. Removing the statutory cap on unfair dismissal compensation demonstrates yet again just how little this Government understand business. Insurance and legal specialists have warned that the removal of a legal limit on payouts, coupled with increasing the time limit for employment tribunal claims from three to six months, will trigger a substantial number of insurance claims. That will likely force insurance companies to pay higher rates to their own reinsurance, which ultimately will drive up prices for business customers.

Furthermore, it has been highlighted that as employment practices liability risks accelerate, speciality solutions will become increasingly valuable. This is yet another cost of employment, encompassing both direct financial expenditures and high-risk liabilities, which the Government expect employers to absorb without regard for the economic consequences. The domino effect of this policy is easy to predict: employers will become more risk averse and employment opportunities will decrease. When it becomes more expensive to hire, fewer people are employed. Furthermore, as there is no doubt that this policy will open the floodgates to claims, the already overstretched employment tribunal system will become all the more overwhelmed, inevitably leading to higher defence costs being incurred. That is good for lawyers; it is not good for businesses.

To be clear, we know the vital importance of employment rights, and we unequivocally support having comprehensive protection for workers, but the point we continue to emphasise, and that the Government keep dismissing, is that in order to have secure employment rights, there has to be secure employment in the first place. The Government continue inaccurately to imply that we do not care about workers and their rights, yet the Conservatives are the only ones fighting for policies that will actually protect jobs and get more people into work.

The removal of this cap will only deter employers further, push unemployment higher and compound the pressure on a tribunal system that is already over-extended. It is for those reasons that we will vote against it. To truly support the workforce, the Government must start listening to the businesses encountering the very hurdles that the Government continue to introduce. Creating an economic environment where businesses can thrive is the only way to drive hiring and sustain long-term job growth.

16:39

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. The Liberal Democrats voted against plans to remove the compensation cap as the legislation made its way through the House, and we will oppose the SI today. The removal of the limit on compensation was a Government amendment at a very late stage in the progress of the Bill and was something that took a lot of people by surprise, which was why we were not able to support it on that occasion. We will continue to oppose it now.

The Minister said in her opening remarks that she would expect compensation payout awards to remain modest. I would challenge her on that point, because I do not know on what basis we can expect claims to remain modest if we remove a compensation cap. There will undoubtedly be an increase in claims from people who would now expect to receive an award above the cap, and that will not only increase the backlog, which is already immense in the tribunals and causing a huge amount of detriment to my constituents, and I am sure hers as well. It will contribute to increasing that backlog, and it will create massive disruption for employers. I am particularly concerned that where employers currently take out insurance and pay premiums to cover the cost of employment tribunals, those premium costs will either go up enormously, or some employers will find that their costs are simply uninsurable. That will create a knock-on impact so that some of these jobs will simply not be available. It will be too great a risk for employers to take people on.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff East) (Lab)]

The easiest way to look at this is: if you do not dismiss somebody unfairly, you do not carry the risk of having to make a payout in compensation.

[Sarah Olney]

The whole point about a tribunal is to assess whether somebody has been dismissed unfairly. It will undoubtedly be the employer’s point of view that it is not an unfair dismissal, but the employee’s view that it has been. That is the point of a tribunal. The employer will not have been intending in any way to dismiss somebody unfairly. Nobody intends to dismiss unfairly. [Interruption.] The point of the tribunal is to test whether an unfair dismissal has taken place.

My final point to the Minister is this: as we go through this process, there is a fundamental shift at the moment between what humans will continue to do in the workplace versus what will be taken on by AI or other innovative tech. The changes will make it more difficult and more expensive for employers to take on human beings to do the work, which will undoubtedly accelerate the shift that is already taking place. For that reason, the Liberal Democrats will oppose this SI.

16:42

[Steve Barclay]

I am sure the hon. Member for Richmond Park will agree that it is quite rare for her and me to agree, but she is right to pick up on the Minister’s opening remarks and the oddity of the comments that claims will be modest, because, if claims are modest, why the need to remove the cap? The removal of the cap is because some claims will not be modest. It seems self-evident that a consequence of the regulations will be an increase in claims, and therefore an increase in the risk to employers and a deterrent to employers to hire, which is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove made from the Opposition Front Bench.

First, it seems odd to suggest that claims will be modest while bringing forward the removal of a cap, which provides scope for unlimited claims moving forward. As I tried to suggest in my intervention, in the NHS, for example, some consultants at a senior level will be well paid. They will have final salary schemes and their claim could be quite significant. Indeed, some NHS managers are on salaries of several hundred thousand pounds and a claim in that instance could be significant. That brings me on, following the point from the hon. Member for Richmond Park, to a second consequence of the regulations. Not only will the quantum of claims increase, but the quantity of claims will increase. Currently, particularly for senior salaries, people might pursue other routes and not make a claim because the cap is such that it creates a deterrent. However, the removal of the cap acts as a pull factor because it is an incentive for those on the highest salaries, and that does not just apply to areas such as the NHS. If we think about financial services firms, some very large claims could flow from the removal, and someone in a modest role in such a firm will feel a sense of unfairness when they see the mega-payments that might come as a consequence, so the quantity of claims will increase.

Thirdly, I was a little surprised by the Minister’s opening remarks, because the draft regulations were not set in the wider context of the other changes that the Government are making, such as giving trade unions greater access to employers, making it easier to come in and harvest or encourage claims, or to create a grievance where there may not be one. The draft regulations should not be seen in isolation: they need to be seen alongside the other changes that the Government are making.

To respond to the right hon. Member for Cardiff East, surely the answer is not to have unfair dismissal. She has had a very respected legal career in this field— I think it was in this field, but she certainly has a lot of experience in this area—and no one wants to see claims or action by employers that justify an unfair dismissal claim. However, an employer is not guilty until proven innocent, and some people will be incentivised to bring claims that may not be justified. Therefore, there will be instances—although not all—where claims that are not valid are incentivised by the removal of the cap. Ultimately, that will be a further cost to employers, in addition to the many other costs that they face at a time of rising inflation and growing regulation.

That is why I find myself in the uncharacteristic position of agreeing with the hon. Member for Richmond Park. The quantum will increase, and the quantity will increase. This also sits alongside other changes that the Government are making, and it speaks to a Government who do not trust employers or back businesses, but who are happy to see additional costs on those businesses. They then seem surprised when youth unemployment, in particular, continues to rise as a direct consequence of the decisions they make, including the decision they are making today.

16:47

[Kate Dearden]

It was disappointing to hear what the Opposition said, as voting against the draft regulations does not mean that the removal of the compensation cap will not happen—that is already in place. What we are debating today is about keeping the statute book neat, and I hope I made that clear in my opening remarks. We discussed this issue at length during the passage of the Bill—I am old enough to remember last year—and today we are talking about keeping the statute book neat. I want to reflect on a few points, and I apologise if this is repetitive.

[Sarah Olney]

I want to challenge what the Minister said about us debating this measure at length. It was not introduced until a very late stage, so there was not a lengthy debate about removing the compensation cap.

[Kate Dearden]

I fondly remember debating it on the Floor of the House, and it was of course debated in the Lords too.

I will address some of the points made by Opposition Members. As I have said, employers will continue to comply with the law and will not be directly affected by these changes, so the impact on businesses will be limited. The vast majority of unfair dismissal awards are well below the existing cap, and tribunals rarely award compensation at the maximum level.

Removing the cap does not mean that large awards will become routine. In 2023-24, there were 646 awards for unfair dismissal from employment tribunals, and the median award was £6,746. Lifting the cap does not mean that compensatory awards will become impossible to anticipate. As I said in my opening remarks, tribunals follow well-established principles when calculating the compensation that might be awarded for particular types of losses resulting from unfair dismissal. I am glad that Opposition Members mentioned employment tribunals, because, under the Conservatives’ watch, unlawful fees were introduced. They presided over a substantial reduction in tribunal funding during austerity and left the tribunal system facing significant capacity and workload pressures. Yet again, we are trying to get the support and fix and improve the system.

That is why I have spoken at length with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, about the really important work we are doing with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to make the system more resilient and make sure that people get access to justice. This is about fairness and security and employees knowing that they can get the justice they absolutely deserve. The Conservatives made it harder for workers to access justice; we are strengthening the rights to make justice possible. I am going to choose not to bite on our wider approach on employment rights, because I could spend however long we have left talking about why that legislation is important and why I am proud that this Government are leading on it.

As I have explained, the decision to remove the unfair dismissal compensation cap has already been made by Parliament. These regulations make the consequential amendments needed to ensure the related compensation provisions continue to operate correctly once the statutory cap on unfair dismissal compensation is removed. They are necessary to maintain consistency across the statute book and preserve existing policy where appropriate. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put.

Division 1

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ayes: 10

Noes: 4

16:52

Committee rose.

Draft Licensing Act 2003 (Permitted Temporary Activities) (Amendment) Order 2026

Wednesday 11th November 2026 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Christine Jardine

Brown-Fuller, Jess (Chichester) (LD)

† Dalton, Ashley (West Lancashire) (Lab)

† Griffiths, Alison (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)

† Hoare, Simon (North Dorset) (Con)

† Kitchen, Gen (Comptroller of His Majesty’s Household)

† Lamb, Peter (Crawley) (Lab)

† Minns, Ms Julie (Carlisle) (Lab)

† Newbury, Josh (Cannock Chase) (Lab)

† Reed, David (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)

† Ribeiro-Addy, Bell (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)

† Sullivan, Kirsteen (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)

† Sullivan, Dr Lauren (Gravesham) (Lab)

† Thompson, Adam (Erewash) (Lab)

† Vickers, Matt (Stockton West) (Con)

† Ward, Chris (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven) (Lab)

† White, Jo (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department)

† Wilkinson, Max (Cheltenham) (LD)

Chloe Smith, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 11 November 2026

[Christine Jardine in the Chair]

Draft Licensing Act 2003 (Permitted Temporary Activities) (Amendment) Order 2026

16:30

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jo White)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Licensing Act 2003 (Permitted Temporary Activities) (Amendment) Order 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. The purpose of this instrument, laid before the House on 10 September, is simple. It will increase the number of temporary event notices that may be given in respect of a single premises from 15 to 20 in each calendar year. It will also increase the maximum number of days on which temporary events may take place at those premises from 21 to 26. Subject to Parliament’s approval, the new limits will come into force on 1usb January 2027, when the annual entitlements are reset.

Temporary event notices, or TENs, are a means of authorising licensable activities on a temporary basis without the need to obtain or permanently vary a premises licence. Those activities may include the sale or supply of alcohol, regulated entertainment or the provision of late-night refreshments. TENs can also be used by premises that already hold a licence but wish temporarily to undertake an activity or operate at a time that is not covered by their existing licence. The system is used by a wide variety of businesses, individuals and community organisations. A TEN might allow a pub or restaurant to hold an additional event, but equally it could support an event at a school, a community centre, a church hall, a wedding venue, a market or a small festival.

Under the changes before the Committee, responsible organisers will be given additional flexibility to respond to local demand and hold more well-run events. The order will support local economic activity, provide new opportunities for communities to come together and remove an unnecessary constraint on business. I am sure that all of us here recognise the contribution made by the hospitality sector, not only to our economy but to our high streets and communities. I do not suggest that this targeted measure will address every pressure facing the sector. However, it is a sensible and proportionate step that will give businesses greater flexibility without requiring a fundamental change to the licensing system.

The limits proposed in this instrument are not untested. Higher thresholds of 20 TENs and 26 days applied temporarily during 2022 and 2023 as part of the response to the economic effects of the covid-19 pandemic. Information available to the Home Office did not identify a significant increase in adverse impacts linked to those higher limits.

The Government have carefully considered the differing views expressed in a call for evidence on licensing reform. Hospitality businesses and trade bodies generally supported greater flexibility. Some local authorities, public health organisations, residents and community groups raised concerns about public nuisance, crime and disorder, public health and additional pressure on local services. We have taken those concerns most seriously. The instrument makes a modest adjustment to the annual limits while keeping the safeguards at the heart of the Licensing Act 2003 firmly in place.

The four licensing objectives—the prevention of crime and disorder; public safety; the prevention of public nuisance; and the protection of children from harm—will continue to apply. The police and environmental health authorities will continue to receive temporary event notices, and they may object where they consider that a proposed event would undermine one or more of those objectives. Where objections cannot be resolved, the licensing authority may, where appropriate, impose conditions on a TEN or issue a counter-notice preventing the event from proceeding. Licensing authorities will still be required to issue a counter-notice where the statutory limits are exceeded.

We should be clear about the limited nature of this change. The instrument does not alter the limits that apply to an individual premises user, whether or not that person holds a personal licence, nor does it change how individual notices or event days are counted. It simply increases the annual premises-level limits by five notices and five days. The instrument applies in England and Wales and makes the necessary consequential amendments to the prescribed TEN forms. The statutory guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act will also be updated to reflect the new limits when the order comes into force. In designing those changes, we have been acutely aware of the need to balance support for businesses with protection of residents and local communities. The order strikes that balance. I commend it to the Committee.

16:35

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. On Armistice Day, I begin by remembering all those who served. Many of the community events that this order helps, in Royal British Legion branches, social clubs and village halls, are where our communities come together to remember.

At the outset, I declare an interest as a regular patron of Stockton West’s pubs. We have some of the best—in fact the best—pubs in the country, and they will welcome anything that lets them put on another event and get more customers through the door. So let me be clear: the Opposition support this order. Giving licensed venues, and particularly our pubs, greater flexibility is exactly what the last Conservative Government did when we raised the limits in 2022 and 2023 to help the sector recover from the pandemic. It worked then, and I am glad the Government have recognised that. It is no surprise that a significant majority of hospitality and leisure venues backed the increase in the call for evidence. For a publican planning a beer festival, a charity quiz night or a Christmas market, five more notices and five more days a year really matter.

Of course, there must be safeguards. As shadow Policing Minister, I know how important it is that the police and environmental health authorities can scrutinise notices and step in where an event risks crime, antisocial behaviour or serious nuisance for neighbours, but that has to be balanced against the evidence. When these higher limits applied before, there was no significant increase in adverse impacts and, overall, police forces did not oppose this change in the call for evidence. It is right that we back it, but the order cannot be seen in isolation from what our pubs and hospitality businesses have been through.

In Stockton West our pubs are part of the fabric of the community, from a night out in Yarm to the locals served in Eaglescliffe, Ingleby Barwick, Stockton, Thornaby and our villages. Like a number of hon. Members, I host my own pub awards, and places like the Myton House Farm in Ingleby Barwick show what a pub can mean to a community. They provide local jobs—often a young person’s very first job—support local charities and other local businesses, and bring people together. When a pub struggles, the impact goes well beyond the landlord, and pubs are struggling.

Every week, I hear from businesses that are being absolutely battered. They are paying more to employ people after the rise in employer national insurance. They are paying the price for more red tape introduced by the Employment Rights Act 2025. They are paying more in business rates because the Government cut the relief for retail, hospitality and leisure. In 2023, I led a campaign backed by more than 40 colleagues. It called on the then Chancellor to extend the 75% relief. He did, and this Government cut it.

I know the Minister may point to last month’s Budget. I welcome the 20% cut to pubs’ business rates, but that goes nowhere near far enough to undo the damage already done. The Government’s own figures suggest that only around 10% of pubs would pay no business rates, and what the Chancellor gave with one hand he took back with the other by adding 2p to the price of every pint.

The industry’s own trade body, UKHospitality, says that the sector has lost more than 100,000 jobs in the past two years. That is almost half of all the jobs lost across the entire economy. Those are not just statistics; they are bar staff, chefs and young people losing their first rung on the employment ladder, in a sector that provides almost a third of first-time jobs for 16 to 24-year-olds. The economic note for the order, although based on older data, estimates that each additional temporary event notice generates an average profit of £119, with a range of £105 to £143. That is welcome when margins are this tight, but it does not take an experienced publican to recognise that a few extra events will not pay the additional bills landing on the doormat.

I have two brief questions for the Minister. First, will she publish the evidence from 2022 and 2023 showing that the higher limits did not lead to more crime or nuisance, so that residents and licensing authorities can have confidence in the change? Secondly, will she confirm that the police and environmental health authorities keep every one of their existing powers to make reasonable objections? We support the increased flexibility, but our pubs need more support than five extra events a year. I hope the Minister will keep looking for practical ways in which licensing policy can help pubs, and that she will make the case across Government for tackling the costs that put their futures at risk.

16:41

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. It is right that the Government are making this change to support our hospitality sector. We hope that it will prevent the absurdity that happened this summer, when the England team played late at night and the Government were required to make a one-off order to allow venues to stay open late. Will the Minister confirm that the order will give some extra flexibility, so that we do not have a repeat of the scenario we experienced before the Mexico game in the summer?

There are, however, general concerns about the application of TENs. They are annually used in my constituency to circumvent licensing laws to allow pop-up sexual entertainment venues. In particular, that happens during Cheltenham race week. If councillors on the local authority reject sexual entertainment venue applications, it is well known that the venues will open anyway, perhaps even in the same place, under TENs exemptions. Those venues then operate to a lower standard of regulation and represent a risk to women—the performers.

The TENs regulations, as they stand, undermine SEV licensing regulations, but Ministers in this Government and the previous one have repeatedly refused to engage. Will the Minister look at how she can amend legislation to close that loophole and to address the gaping hole in licensing regulations, particularly given the ongoing debate about the need to tackle threats and violence against women and girls in general? Will she and her officials meet me to discuss the matter at the very least, to prove that the Government are as good as their word on VAWG?

16:42

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

I will speak briefly in support of the order, particularly with regard to rural communities like mine in north Cumbria, where it is not that a pub may have closed but that a pub never existed in the first place, so the centre of the community is the village hall. I put on the record my thanks to the village hall committees of Nicholforest, Roadhead and Stapleton, which each run an amazing number of community events throughout the year. This order will be a big boost for them.

I also give credit to the Crossings and the Black Lion, which are more than pubs for the two villages they serve. When there are storms and power cuts, which are sadly too frequent, they are hubs for the community. I very much welcome the order, which is crucial to sparsely populated areas such as north Cumbria. Gathering at a function at the village hall or local pub gives people the opportunity to meet their neighbours.

16:43

[Jo White]

I am grateful for the contributions and comments from hon. Members. I agree with the hon. Member for Stockton West that this order will give our armed services personnel and those who want to participate in Remembrance events greater opportunities to meet together.

Hospitality businesses play an important role in strengthening communities and creating places where people can come together. That is why the Government have delivered permanently lower business rates for more than 750,000 eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties. We have also provided targeted support for pubs, clubs and live music venues, and are reviewing pub and hotel valuations to ensure that the system is fairer, more transparent and more predictable. We have also invested £10 million through the new hospitality grant scheme to support growth, boost resilience, create jobs and strengthen local economies.

Hospitality businesses continue to face significant cost pressures, and the Government want to provide practical measures that support growth, high streets and local communities. The increase in the number and availability of TENs is a low-burden change that provides additional flexibility without requiring businesses to go through the process of obtaining a full premises licence variation. On the issue raised by the hon. Member for Cheltenham, strip clubs are regulated under different legislation—the Local Government Act 2003—but I will take his point back to the Home Office and ensure that the Policing Minister follows up with him.

I once again thank hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions to this debate. As I have set out, this sensible and proportionate measure will support our hospitality sector while maintaining the important checks and balances that underpin the licensing regime. With that, I commend the order to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

16:46

Committee rose.

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 11 November 2026

[Graham Stuart in the Chair]

Hunting Trophy Imports

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

The House will observe a two-minute silence at 11 am in remembrance of those killed in conflict. The beginning and end of the silence will be marked by the Division bells. I will suspend the sitting before 11 am so that Members can observe the silence. I call Clive Efford.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of hunting trophy imports.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. For anyone watching this debate who is unsure of what we are debating today, hunting trophies are taken from animals, usually big game, that are murdered by huntsmen in what is the most despicable form of hunting that remains today. In the words of Sir David Attenborough, trophy hunting is

“what people did in the 19th century. One would have thought people would have got over that.”

To bring their hunting trophies—bits of mutilated animals—back to the UK, the hunters need to obtain an import licence. The UK is among a diminishing number of countries that still license the import of hunting trophies. I know the Minister will agree that we must end the import of hunting trophies, because it was a pledge in the Labour manifesto at the last election. The purpose of this debate is not to convince the Government that the importing of hunting trophies is wrong, but to stress the need for action and to end the constant delays.

We know that those in the pro-hunting lobby are rich, powerful and well-connected. They deploy arguments to confound Governments and defuse arguments against hunting. They claim that it is essential for conservation and for reducing human-wildlife conflict, and that it brings economic benefit to rural communities—but none of that is true. Only last month, the World Wildlife Fund launched its latest “Living Planet” report, and its shocking conclusion was that wildlife numbers in Africa have fallen by 80% since 1970.

The global conservation body, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, says that many species are affected by hunting. CITES, the international wildlife trade body for the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora, tells us that some of the world’s most endangered animals are being shot by trophy hunters, including British trophy hunters.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for securing this debate. The late, great Dr Jane Goodall described trophy hunting as

“unconscionable…utterly cruel…and…disastrous from a conservation perspective.”

Since 2015 we have seen 1,764 trophies from endangered species brought into the UK, including 284 elephant trophies. Does the hon. Member agree that there is strong cross-party support for a ban, and that the need for the Government to bring forward the legislation is urgent?

[Clive Efford]

Yes, I agree, and I welcome the support of the Green party in urging action on this matter.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. I have looked into the question: since the July 2024 general election, 41 permits have been given for the UK, including one crocodile, one giraffe, four hippopotamuses, 21 African elephants, a scimitar-horned oryx, Marco Polo sheep, five lions, one leopard and six bears. Is he shocked by that, and does it not show that the Government need to crack on and implement the promises of their manifesto and ban trophy hunting?

[Clive Efford]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right—we need to crack on. The examples that he has read out are shocking. We should not countenance that by importing the parts of the animals that have been slaughtered.

LionAid says that hunting endangered and vulnerable species contributes directly to the dramatic decline in their populations by adding an extra mortality factor to the threats already facing them. Stopping hunting will reduce death rates, stabilise animal populations and promote biodiversity. The main international bodies campaigning on this issue are telling us that trophy hunting has nothing to do with conservation, nor does it address wild animal-human conflict. I have seen testimony from local community members of the Maasai, who state that hunting increases the anxiety of wildlife in areas where it is taking place, increasing the likelihood of attacks on humans. There is evidence that, far from reducing incidents of wild animal-human conflict, it makes attacks more likely.

Neither does trophy hunting bring economic benefits to rural communities. In the testimonies that I have seen, members of the Maasai communities talk of families being forced from ancestral lands and, if people resist, beatings and kidnappings—not my claim, but the claim of people from communities being forced from their lands to make way for trophy hunting.

Amnesty International conducted research into forced evictions of the Maasai indigenous people in Loliondo between June 2022 and May 2024. It reported on suppression of protests by Maasai people:

“On 10 June 2022, Tanzanian security forces resorted to the use of excessive force, including using live ammunition and tear gas, to stifle peaceful protests by Maasai residents of Ololosokwan village in Loliondo. The demonstrators had gathered to resist a demarcation exercise by the security forces, who were trying to displace them from their ancestral lands in the name of so-called ‘conservation’. More than 40 people were wounded, others were left homeless, and many were forced to flee the country.”

Tigere Chagutah, regional director of Amnesty International for east and southern Africa, said of the Tanzanian Government:

“It is particularly disturbing that they have carried out these evictions under the pretext of ‘conservation’, while in reality, they have allowed Otterlo Business Corporation to do improper or illegal trophy hunting activities, in clear violation of Tanzania’s Wildlife Conservation laws”.

Otterlo Business Corporation is a trophy hunting company. Far from being of benefit to these people, hunting is taking away their human rights.

I urge the Government not to turn their back on these atrocities. We cannot police what goes on in other countries, but we can prevent our country from being used to encourage human rights abuses by ending forthwith the import of hunting trophies, listening to the people whose communities are being destroyed by the hunting industry and introducing an immediate ban on hunting trophies, with a view to introducing legislation at a later date. That has been done in other countries, and we should not delay.

I have been on safari. I have visited Botswana and Zambia, where I saw wonderful animals in their own habitats. The experience was nothing like seeing captive animals. I was armed—with my camera—and captured moments that will live in my memory for the rest of my life, and I was not alone. Across the safari park, there were hundreds of people in trucks capturing similar experiences. Of course, we left the animals behind for others to see at a later date, rather than killing them and stealing them away for our own gratification. That is the sustainable way for communities to benefit from wildlife and invest in conservation. Trophy hunting is doing the exact opposite.

This is not an issue of people in the UK acting like neo-colonialists. It is for us to choose what we allow to be imported into our country. More than 90% of the British public approve of a ban on animal body parts being imported as trophies. A ban imposed by the UK would have a significant impact on this vile trade. Research by anti-hunt campaigners confirms that some of the world’s leading trophy hunters are British. British trophy hunters have shot the critically endangered black rhinoceros, shot monkeys out of trees and shot African elephants, which are currently the most popular of the various threatened species shot by British hunters. More than half the permits issued by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs since the 2024 general election were for those magnificent creatures.

That is despite African elephants recently being upgraded by IUCN’s red list. Savannah elephants are listed as endangered and forest elephants are now critically endangered. Yet British trophy hunters are still shooting them for their ears, feet, tails and tusks.

British hunters have also shot giraffes, hippos, leopards and canned lions. Canned lions are born and bred in captivity for the purpose of being shot. The semi-tame animals are fenced in fields from which there is no escape before they are slaughtered. British hunters have shot polar bears, which face extinction thanks to climate change, and Africa’s most endangered big cat, the cheetah, of which 7,000 remain. We know all that because we can see the licences for their body parts to be imported to Britain. It is time to bring this to an end once and for all.

Even Donald Trump’s America will not allow imports of the last three cases I quoted—canned lions, cheetahs and polar bears. That should tell us something. Of all those, the canned lions tell us most about the mentality of the people who hunt. How does someone get a thrill from slaughtering an animal that cannot escape? The word “sport” is often associated with hunting, but how can it be a sport when one side of the game cannot choose to play and does not know it is fighting for its life until it is shot?

Trophy hunting is not about conservation, it does not resolve issues of wildlife-human conflict, and it does not bring economic benefits to rural areas—certainly not in the way that tourism can. Local people have been attacked, their land stolen and their human rights abused. Private companies are stealing their homelands. Britain should not be accommodating this industry.

Will the Minister confirm that legislation to ban trophy hunting imports exists and that officials at DEFRA have drafted it? If Government time does not exist for that Bill, will the Minister pass it to me, so that I can put it forward as a ten-minute rule Bill? The overwhelming support across the House would get it through quickly. Other countries have introduced a moratorium on such imports and legislated later. If Britain cannot do that, will the Minister explain why? Above all, will the Minister accept that there can be no further delay?

09:42

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) on securing a significant amount of parliamentary time for this debate.

Most people know of Cecil, the iconic lion lured from a protected area in Zimbabwe, wounded by an American trophy hunter and killed some hours later. Cecil’s death sparked a global outcry and public calls to ban the outdated and inhumane practice of trophy hunting. As the hon. Member said, trophy hunting causes animal cruelty for the purposes of human entertainment and so-called sport. Animals hunted for trophies are shot by inexperienced hunters, and the animals’ suffering is not just celebrated, but incentivised, with some hunters using bows and crossbows to hunt. Animals that are shot but escape can take hours or even days to die in agony.

The trophy-hunting industry is based on an economic model that incentivises the cruel and unsustainable exploitation of wildlife. It conflicts with and undermines the viability of ethical alternatives, including eco-tourism. As the hon. Member described, trophy hunting is not, as is sometimes claimed, essential for conservation. There are many highly successful conservation programmes operating around the world, in countries such as Kenya and Costa Rica, that do not involve killing the animals they are meant to protect. Yet we see organisations such as the Otterlo Business Corporation, based in the United Arab Emirates, making millions from this horrible so-called sport.

I have been contacted by a number of constituents. Like my colleague beside me, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I see an awful lot of traffic in my inbox on this topic. The messages all agree that the practice of trophy hunting is deeply cruel and barbaric. In that correspondence, my constituents rightly point out that page 59 of Labour’s manifesto committed to a ban on the import of hunting trophies. On behalf of my constituents, I ask the Minister when that Bill will be introduced. Can she confirm that work has actually begun on such a Bill?

As the practice continues, one British hunter even boasted recently of proudly killing a critically endangered black rhino—one of the rarest and most vulnerable animals on the planet. People across these islands have been waiting for 11 years since the first promises were made to ban the import of hunting trophies. In that time, another 2,000 trophies from animals considered to be endangered by CITES have been brought back to Britain, including the ears of elephants, the feet of giraffes and the entire bodies of bears and monkeys. I am told that these so-called trophies are worthless in their countries of origin and gain value only when imported. That is the key to the legislation promised by this Labour Government.

Across the Atlantic, the vice-president of the United States, J. D. Vance, has met Safari Club International, the trophy hunting group that targets endangered animals including pygmy hippos. The UK Government need to stand against any influence from the White House against proposals for a ban.

The hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst mentioned Tanzania during his excellent speech. It is no coincidence that the most recent meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union was held in Tanzania. The country is a member of the Commonwealth, yet we hear about human rights violations against the Maasai tribesmen and tribeswomen. These are not minor matters. I am sure he has seen the same footage that I have seen of Maasai tribesmen risking their lives to give evidence of disappearances, murders, forced evictions, the slaughter of cattle, corruption, bribery, false fines and paramilitaries operating on behalf of the Government. There are claims that allowing trophy hunting is all about conservation and reducing human-animal conflict. No, it is not about those things; it is about a multimillion-dollar industry called trophy hunting.

The fact that the 153rd meeting of the IPU was held in Tanzania should be of great interest to us. I have read the report, especially the section on human rights, and there is no mention of trophy hunting. That meeting of the IPU was attended by Mr Speaker. It is about time that the UK Government acted and introduced a Bill to ban trophy hunting imports.

09:47

[Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for introducing the debate and setting out the arguments for change so well.

Banning trophy imports was in Labour’s 2024 manifesto and is an incredibly popular topic with the public, as we have heard. In common with other hon. Members, my office receives many emails about the issue. Over 80% of people in the UK are very much in favour of a ban, although I think the number may actually be higher. We know how cruel trophy hunting is: animals are chased for long distances, with many wounded from failed shots, all for the enjoyment of people. Around 400 trophy items have been imported into the UK over the last decade, including from giraffes, elephants, rhinos, lions, cheetahs and more, which is very distressing.

Trophy hunting is also harmful for conservation. The conservation argument for the continuation of trophy hunting is very weak. It is shocking that trophy hunters can still shoot endangered animals, such as many giraffe subspecies that have been declared endangered. Current leopard population sizes are unknown, yet about 10,000 were killed by trophy hunters between 2004 and 2014. Hunters target older males, which are needed for social stability and population health in many animal populations.

Moving away from the topic slightly, it is important to note that Scotland still exports trophy items, which I find upsetting. In 2024, a rural community in Zimbabwe imported a Scottish stag’s head. In Scotland, a red stag can be shot and exported for £500 to £1,250. I know that is not what today’s debate is about, but we should consider discussing it in the future. As well as banning imports, we need to look at banning exports from the UK. We may not have lions and elephants, but we have other beautiful animals, such as many different species of deer. We need to protect wildlife not only abroad but here.

09:50

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for showing such passion and determination for bringing about these much-needed changes.

As the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) said, this matter strikes a deep chord not only with my Strangford constituents, but across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. My constituents have contacted me in large numbers about the archaic, barbaric and utterly indefensible practice of importing hunting trophies from endangered animals into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Let us be quite clear: this debate is not about traditional, sustainable hunting for food. If it was, and if people were starving, there could be some justification. It is about the execution of some of the world’s most iconic and vulnerable species for nothing more than a sick thrill, a photo opportunity and a gruesome souvenir to put on a coffee table or to hang on a wall. Society has moved on. What may have been acceptable in the past is certainly not acceptable today, and that is the reality. Yet despite years of promises, manifestos and cross-party consensus in both this Chamber today and the main Chamber, the UK’s doors remain wide open to this vile and barbaric trade.

Recent figures from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs paint a deeply concerning picture. Between July 2024 and September 2026, the Animal and Plant Health Agency issued no fewer than 41 import permits for hunting trophies, which the hon. Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock) mentioned in his intervention. Let that sink in: 41 permits in just over two years.

Those permits cover animals that are on the brink of extinction, with some 21 permits issued for African elephants. For the life of me, I cannot understand how anybody would want to shoot an elephant—I cannot get my head around that one. Five were issued for lions and four for hippopotamuses, and there were others issued for leopards, polar bears and rhinos. We see lovely nature programmes on TV where animals roam free, but some men—and probably some women as well, unfortunately—wish to kill them. Every single permit represents an animal that died in distress, often slowly, from blood loss or infection, just so a British hunter could boast about it. It is a national embarrassment that, in 2026, we are still facilitating the decline of these magnificent creatures.

The public support for taking action is overwhelming. Up to nine in 10 British people—almost 90%—want to see an immediate, comprehensive ban on trophy hunting imports. I wish the Minister well in the role she plays—she knows that we wish her the best in what she does—but the Government should take the action that people overwhelmingly want. It will go through Parliament without any hiccups or problems whatever. We have seen private Members’ Bills pass through the House of Commons unanimously, only to be stalled, blocked or run out of time because of a small minority. This is something that 90% of people in the United Kingdom believe should be law.

The current Government made a clear commitment in their election manifesto to ban these imports. Yet—I say this with respect to the Minister and the Government—when asked just last month for a concrete timetable to implement this ban, Ministers provided no dates and no timeline. Today the Minister is in the hot seat: I ask her to give us a timescale, give us a date and tell us when it will happen. The permit flow continues at a rate of nearly two dozen a year while the Government drag their feet.

We cannot allow external pressure from international hunting lobbies or administrative inertia to water down the British people’s standards. We should be leading the world in wildlife conservation, but to do that we must stop giving a green light to the destruction of the world’s biodiversity.

I am not the only one who loves David Attenborough’s TV programmes. They are all about the oceans at the moment, and he has done other wonderful programmes in the past. They motivate us to speak out, and today we are doing that. I urge the Minister to please stop kicking the can down the road. The British public are watching; our constituents demand action. The wildlife of this planet cannot afford any more delays. Give this House and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland a date by which legislation will be introduced, and let us finally consign this cruel trade to the history books, where it belongs.

09:55

[Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for securing this important debate.

We have been here before. I am deeply passionate about banning the import of hunting trophies. Indeed, I was proudly part of the shadow DEFRA team that ensured that a commitment to such a ban was included in our manifesto at the last election. Despite that commitment, two years on from the election, we are still yet to legislate for a ban. Indeed, we are yet to see a lot of progress on the broad range of ambitious pledges that the Government made before the last election and in the recent animal welfare strategy.

This is not a new issue—there have been such debates before in Westminster Hall, the main Chamber and the other place—but I believe that we now have the numbers to get this done and dusted in this parliamentary Session. I share the public’s frustration at the delay, which is made worse by the confident knowledge that we have won the argument in the House and among the public. As we have heard, polling consistently shows more than 80% support for banning this outdated practice. Nevertheless, the Government have issued 41 permits to import hunting trophies since the election. That means we are complicit in this vile trade until we do something about it. We cannot afford to wait until the next parliamentary Session for a ban, or to replicate the dither and delay of the Conservatives; we need change now. Any further delay risks this critical legislation being timed out before the next general election. I therefore ask the Minister to confirm that DEFRA will introduce a comprehensive animal welfare Bill next year, and that it will include a comprehensive ban on the import of hunting trophies.

I believe that the case for a ban has been comprehensively and emphatically proven—I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister agrees—so I will focus the remainder of my remarks on why hunting directly undermines species conservation and on how to tackle poaching. Due to the actions of humans, more species are threatened with extinction today than ever before. A major global biodiversity study in 2019, co-ordinated by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, found that direct human exploitation of animal populations, such as hunting, has been a major driver of the decline. Despite that, internationally protected species—those protected by the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora, or on the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s red list—remain the focus of trophy hunters. Thousands are killed each year; we have already heard the list.

We cannot turn a blind eye to this crime against nature. The populations of hunted species are declining dramatically, with studies showing that hunting has knock-on effects on animal populations in protected areas. Indeed, local populations have recovered only when hunting bans or moratoria are implemented consistently.

Another myth is that trophy hunting prevents poaching, but they are two sides of the same coin. Permitted and illegal activity are rampant in identified hunting areas. A major example of that is the Selous game reserve in Tanzania, previously the largest hunting area in Africa. Despite its prolific commercial use, 55,000 elephants were poached on the reserve between 2007 and 2014, leading to an estimated population decline of 80%. That prompted the Tanzanian Government in 2018 to accuse hunting companies of being complicit in a national poaching crisis. Shortly afterwards, the northern part of the reserve was designated as a national park, in which hunting was banned.

I pay tribute to all those who have continued to campaign over the years to get this ban in place, including the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting. Let us be clear that trophy hunting drives international demand for the body parts of threatened species, whether licensed or poached. That directly undermines global efforts to tackle the illegal trade in animal parts, such as ivory or rhino horns. The only way we can drive down global demand is to end the UK’s participation in this immoral enterprise. That requires a comprehensive ban on trophy hunting imports, and I implore the Minister to bring that forward as soon as possible.

We have been here before. We have had the debate before, we know the arguments and we know what needs to be done. There is cross-party support; we have heard that very clearly today. Please, Minister, let us just get on with it.

10:00

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

I first commend my friend, the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for the manner in which he introduced the debate and for bringing his personal experience of photo safari tourism to the Chamber. Those of us who have had the privilege of seeing animals in the wild in Africa can only marvel at the experience. It is unlike anything else, and certainly unlike anything that anybody ever sees in a zoo.

There will be an element of repetition in this debate, but the points are worth restating. It is suggested that trophy hunting contributes to conservation and the African economy. That is a myth. When Ian Seretse Khama was President of Botswana he banned trophy hunting and promoted photo tourism. The economy grew, wildlife was conserved and the populations grew. It was a win-win. His successor—wined, dined and probably bribed by Safari Club International—overturned the ban. Tourism fell and wildlife suffered, as did the economy. That classic example kicks the bottom out of the argument that this issue has anything whatsoever to do with anything other than hard cash. It is certainly true that a very small number of very wealthy and corrupt people in Africa benefit considerably, mainly from the United States’ trophy hunting tourist trade.

There is a myth that trophy hunting also involves some kind of macho courage. Men, and occasionally women, go and slaughter wild endangered species. What is courageous about slaughtering an effectively tamed animal that has been bred and fed in captivity, caged in a small area and then murdered so that the killer can have a photograph taken with the carcase and the body parts shipped back home to be mounted on the wall? A yellow streak runs right through those people and they are revolting. It is time that everybody stood up and said so.

In the last Parliament, I had the privilege of chairing the all-party parliamentary group on banning trophy hunting. I applaud the work that continues to be done by Eduardo Gonçalves and his campaign. He has been an absolute stalwart to the cause and he deserves our thanks.

In the last Parliament, two Bills were brought before the House of Commons. One was a Conservative-led Bill, presented by the then Member of Parliament for Crawley; the other very similar Bill was brought by John Spellar, then a Labour Member of the Commons and now Lord Spellar in the other place. Both those Bills went through virtually unopposed, but they were killed off by the neanderthal tendency in the upper House.

With great respect to my friend the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst, the idea that he will present a Bill—I would support that, of course—if the Government cannot find time to do this is a forlorn cause. This has to be Government legislation. I understand that a Bill has already been prepared by DEFRA. The point has been made that it features in the Labour party manifesto, and as far as I can see, there is no reason whatsoever why this measure should not be brought swiftly on to the statute book. It can be done; it must be done. The time is right—in fact, it is beyond time. We may not be able to ban trophy hunting, but we certainly have the power to ban the import of the product of that trade, and we should do so now.

10:06

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Mr Stuart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) on his tenacity in pursuing this issue and his speech today. I know the passion the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) has for this issue and the hours and hours he has spent making the case in such a formidable way, as he has today.

The number of mammals in Africa has dropped 80% in my lifetime. Many are brought back dead to these shores, diminished to rugs and relics for the enjoyment of a few people who take pleasure in presiding over the extinction of some of the world’s greatest mammals. Parliament has long supported the banning of this practice, and it was an honour to serve on one of those Bill Committees when we last sought to legislate. However, that was unsuccessful due to the other place, and this sickening trade continues while other nations have brought it to an end. We should have led the way, not least in the light of the number of people from the UK who hunt. Instead, there has been painful dither and delay. We have to do this in this Parliament.

Across Europe and the world, laws on this are tighter. Britain is one of just four countries that still allow the critically endangered black rhino to be imported from hunts, alongside polar bears, cheetahs, lions, giraffes, elephants and leopards. Animal parts are being brought into the UK under this Labour Government. I urge the Minister to go back to her Department and place an immediate moratorium on the issuing of licences; that would be action before the legislation comes before us. This has to stop. We could see the extinction of some species in my lifetime if we do not. I congratulate the armed forces, who we send to Africa to support the patrolling of some of these reserves. But it seems unconscionable that we also allow the trophies to return to the UK.

We need to address this, but I want the Government to think about going further and making it illegal to advertise safari hunting and for anyone to hunt on those trips. Given the depravity that goes with this barbaric practice, people should face criminal charges. Those who promote the trips should have the full force of the law thrown at them. There is little point in banning the import of so-called trophies when people already have the photos, have destroyed their prey and, in some cases, have left the animals wounded and in pain. We have to stop the shooting and the killing.

The 30,000 endangered animals killed each year, the 10,000 lions killed since Cecil, who we heard about earlier, was brought to our attention, and the 2,800 African elephants killed in 2024 alone—their population has declined from 20 million at the start of the 19th century to just 400,000 today—show that our failure to legislate over decades has let the trophy seekers off the hook. Add to those the monkeys, gorillas and baboons, which share our DNA and are now the second most hunted species. That is shocking.

Labour Ministers need to get a ban over the line. When I was the shadow Secretary of State for DEFRA, we committed to an immediate ban as soon as we came into government. Two years of this Labour Government have passed, and we are halfway through this Parliament. We have to legislate. If the Government are looking for a quick fix, we can make the parliamentary time. Ban the imports, the adverts, the hunters and—one more—the publication of photos. We must make it a criminal offence for a UK resident to celebrate their kill on social media or in an advert—no carve-outs, no exceptions. There is no need for a new King’s Speech or manifesto—86% of the public support a ban. We must not delay, but be proud to see it through.

10:14

[Imogen Walker (Hamilton and Clyde Valley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for securing this important debate and bringing us all together.

Yesterday, I visited a drop-in for assistance dogs. Two dogs were available for photographs—and, frankly, to pet. That was smart of the organisers—the queue was out the door, and they were running out of leaflets. The organisers knew that we are a nation of animal lovers, and that that is reflected in Parliament. However, that is not yet reflected in our action on trophy imports. Whatever our intent and feeling, and however much work has been done behind the scenes, we are falling behind. The US, Canada, Australia and many more have implemented trophy bans, and we have not. In the past decade, almost 2,000 animal trophies have been brought into the UK. These are endangered animals—body parts of species we cannot afford to lose and individual animals whose lives were much too precious to be ended for entertainment.

There is no public opposition to a ban—the vast majority of people in the UK support one—and there is little political opposition. Virtually all Members of Parliament support a ban. Issues that unite us in this place to that extent are vanishingly rare. We should value that and celebrate it; we should take the chance to do the right thing—an act of strength and kindness in a hard world. On so many issues, the drama and division make a lot of noise and take up a lot of space. We all participate in that—it is one of the ways that we make things happen—but a consensus does not mean a lack of importance, urgency or determination. It means quite the opposite. This is an issue on which people who agree on little else have come together, and that is significant.

We really are a nation of animal lovers. On this issue, there is a simple way to reflect that in our laws: we must make parliamentary time to ban the import of hunting trophies, and to ensure that we play no part in the exploitation, suffering and violation of innocent animals. I will be so proud to support that ban when it happens. We have the power to do this. Let us use it soon.

10:14

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) on his very good speech on this important subject. A few weeks ago, I was in Zambia for the first time, as part of a global public health trip to look at HIV, malaria and tuberculosis control. While we were driving between villages, we got to see elephants and giraffes just walking along the side of the road. It was an absolute dream come true for me. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), who is an absolute hero of mine for the years he has campaigned on animal welfare issues, including many years on this subject specifically.

I very much appreciate and recognise the work that has been done on this issue, and the public agree. Some 84% of responses to the Government’s consultation were in support of a ban on hunting trophies entering or leaving the UK. Despite overwhelming support, successive Governments have failed to act and get a ban over the line. When in government, the Conservatives promised a ban and held a consultation, but when the legislation passed through the Commons, opposition to it in the Lords used deliberate delaying tactics to prevent it from becoming law. The Labour party promised to ban trophy imports in its manifesto, yet we are still waiting. There is no Government Bill, no clear timetable, and no mention of trophy hunting in the animal welfare strategy.

We should be clear that our animal welfare laws should be written here in Westminster, not in Washington. We know that the Trump Administration have written to the UK Government urging them to reconsider approaches to trophy hunting. We should not allow pressure from the United States to determine how we protect endangered animals worldwide.

I find it genuinely difficult to comprehend the mindset of somebody who travels thousands of miles, pays tens of thousands of pounds and then deliberately kills one of the most magnificent creatures on the planet simply for the pleasure of doing so, especially when that creature may well be endangered. Like all vets, I have had to end the lives of animals on many occasions—more than I can remember. We do it out of compassion and to relieve suffering. Even when it is the kindest thing to do, no matter how many thousands of times we have done it, taking a life is never something that we take lightly. I cannot understand someone who wants to take the life of a magnificent, healthy wild animal and then bring it back and mount its head or body part as a trophy. What kind of achievement is it to kill an elephant? What is there to celebrate in shooting a lion or a rhinoceros? What sort of person, having killed an endangered animal, then wants to see that body part mounted on a wall?

The British public want a ban, the House of Commons has already voted for a ban and the Government committed to a ban in their manifesto. I urge the Minister to please bring forward legislation, stop any delaying and let us show the world that Britain wants absolutely no involvement in trophy hunting.

10:18

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) on securing this important debate and setting out the importance of the issue.

I declare a strong personal and professional interest as a veterinary surgeon and a fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. I thank the many organisations that have campaigned against trophy hunting for many years, including Four Paws, Humane World for Animals, Born Free, the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation and the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting. I am pleased to be here as the shadow DEFRA Minister speaking in strong support of a ban on the importation of hunting trophies.

We have heard many powerful contributions from all parties. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) introduced us to the story of Cecil, whom I will talk more about. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) is a wonderful, proud animal welfare advocate in the House, and I consider her a close colleague and friend. She is a member of the all-party parliamentary group for animal welfare—in fact, three officers of that APPG, which I chair, are present. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the majesty of the animals that have been hunted, while the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) talked about the importance of her work when she was in the shadow DEFRA team.

Like my veterinary colleague and friend the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) for his animal welfare advocacy from the Conservative Benches. He worked very closely with our late friend Sir David Amess, and I pay tribute to him. My right hon. Friend talked about his passion for conservation and the importance of photo tourism, which I will touch on soon.

The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) talked about the splendour of the African mammals that have suffered and mentioned the importance of our UK armed forces working to help conservation efforts. Finally—I do not think I have missed anyone—the hon. Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker) spoke with huge passion about how we are very much a nation of animal lovers. It sounds like a cliché, but it is so true. This is an issue that unites us across the House, so I thank her for saying that.

Last year, we marked 10 years since the tragic killing of Cecil the lion—a horrific event that caught the world’s attention and ignited global outrage and the campaign to ban the import of hunting trophies to the UK. Yet despite the outcry, the global trophy hunting industry has continued unabated. Sadly, Cecil’s story was not unique: every year, trophy hunters kill thousands of these precious and majestic animals around the world. Trophy hunting is a barbaric and outdated practice that should be consigned to the history books. These majestic animals should be shot only with cameras, not with lethal weapons.

Since the 1980s, an estimated 25,000 hunting trophies from slaughtered animals have been imported to the UK. The practice of bringing animal carcases or parts thereof back to Britain is outdated and unnecessary. Ending this trade would send a clear message that the United Kingdom does not support the killing of precious, majestic and often endangered wildlife.

In the UK, we have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, and I am proud that our country has shown global leadership in that regard. I am proud of the Conservatives’ work in government to advance animal welfare standards and strengthen protections for animals at home and abroad. This included banning the export of live animals, including cattle, sheep, pigs and horses, for fattening or slaughter in the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024, which I hope will survive next week’s EU reset; banning the keeping of primates as pets; passing the Pet Abduction Act 2024; increasing the maximum prison sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years in the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021; and enshrining animal sentience in UK law through the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, thereby establishing the important Animal Sentience Committee so that any new legislation must pay due regard to animal welfare. We must remember that Cecil the lion was a large, majestic, magnificent, sentient animal that was hunted and senselessly and horrifically struck down.

I was extremely proud to co-sponsor the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025 with my veterinary colleague and friend, the hon. Member for Winchester. It was a landmark piece of legislation designed to tackle illegal, disturbing and unethical pet importation practices such as the importation of under-age puppies, heavily pregnant dogs or cats, dogs that have been horrifically ear-cropped and cats that have been barbarically declawed—senseless procedures that have no clinical indication whatsoever. The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Act 2025, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), the shadow Nature Minister, strengthened penalties and expanded police powers to tackle livestock worrying.

Back in 2018, the Conservative Government passed the Ivory Act 2018, one of the world’s strongest ivory bans, providing vital protection to elephants at risk. Later, as a shadow Minister, I was proud to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition in support of the expansion of that Act to provide protection to narwhals, orcas, sperm whales and hippopotamuses. As I said at the time:

“Animal welfare and protecting and conserving precious animals and wildlife across our planet is something that unites us in humanity”—[Official Report, Sixth Delegated Legislation Committee, 11 December 2024; c. 4.]

across the House.

The United Kingdom can again use its global soft power and put pressure on countries that, horrifically, continue to kill animals such as whales and dolphins. We must tell those countries to stop these barbaric practices once and for all. Now is the time to get serious about protecting the world’s wildlife and habitats, protecting animals, halting further damage and restoring what has been lost. The UK has a significant part to play in that work.

In 2019, the Conservative Government held a consultation on the scale and impact of the import and export of hunting trophies. It received more than 44,000 responses, 84% of which were in favour of a ban on all hunting trophies entering or leaving the UK. In response, the Conservative Government rightly set out plans to ban imports of hunting trophies from endangered and threatened species.

Sadly, it is now more than six years since a UK Government first committed to a ban on the import of hunting trophies. It is also six years since the IPBES—the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services—global assessment reported that around 1 million plant and animal species are believed to be at risk of extinction. Yet to this day, trophy hunting continues, with the most recent available statistics showing a huge increase in the numbers of trophies imported.

I was very disappointed when, in the previous Parliament, the Conservative-led Bill to ban hunting trophy imports failed to proceed after receiving unanimous support and passing through the House of Commons. So much work had been done to get to that position—consultations carried out, the Bill drafted and parliamentarians across the House briefed—but we now find ourselves, five years on, having to think about reintroducing legislation. I am sure we all feel this is deeply upsetting and frustrating.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed), who brought the Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill back to the House in the 2024-26 parliamentary Session, where it again received cross-party support. But it now feels like groundhog day, because once again we are waiting for legislation to come forward. The previous Conservative Government started the process; the baton has now passed to the current Government, who also had a ban in their manifesto.

There is a saying: “The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago; the second-best time is now.” The same is true here. We should have taken action sooner after Cecil the majestic lion was killed, but we can and must take action now. I urge the Government to act; will the Minister say how and when they will do so? Together, parliamentarians and animal welfare organisations—all of us as a human race—must do something powerful and great for animals. Let us get a ban over the line and consign this practice to the history books.

10:29

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter)]

It is an honour to respond to this important debate under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for securing it and all hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions. We are used to hearing different views from different sides of the House, but I have heard the overwhelming consensus in the room today.

This is an issue that understandably generates strongly held views, both within Parliament and beyond, and raises important questions about the role that the United Kingdom should play in helping to protect biodiversity around the world. I therefore welcome the opportunity to clearly restate the Government’s position, which, as my hon. Friend rightly acknowledged, formed a clear part of our manifesto commitment in 2024. The Government have made a clear commitment to ban the import of hunting trophies from species of conservation concern, and we remain committed to delivering on that promise.

The United Kingdom has a long history of championing global action to protect endangered species, demonstrated most recently by our chairing of the standing committee of the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora—CITES—our leadership and engagement at the convention on biological diversity COP, and our more recent work under the UN convention against transnational organised crime to tackle the serious and organised crime that drives the illegal wildlife trade. Our approach to hunting trophy imports forms part of that wider commitment to protecting biodiversity and ensuring that international wildlife trade does not undermine the conservation of threatened species.

[Irene Campbell]

What has come over very clearly during the debate is that we are looking for a timeline. Can the Minister confirm whether one is forthcoming?

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

My hon. Friend raises a critical point, which I acknowledge was the key and overwhelming theme of the debate. I have 10 minutes to talk and there are some other points that I want to make first, but I will come to it in a moment.

Ensuring that the UK plays its part in reducing pressures on species of conservation concern and supporting wider global efforts to protect biodiversity remain core commitments. I know that Members, campaigners and the public are understandably keen to see progress. Indeed, this issue has been debated in Parliament on a number of occasions and there is considerable public interest in it. The Government recognise that strength of feeling. Our commitment has not changed, and we will deliver a ban when parliamentary time allows. We are working to ensure that we are in a strong position to move forward when the opportunity arises.

[Imogen Walker]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

I will not, because I am addressing the point of timing, but I will come back to my hon. Friend if she would like to intervene in a moment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst, the hon. Members for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker) all raised very valid questions about timings. The timetable for any Bill will depend on wider parliamentary scheduling. Our aim is clear: to introduce the Bill at the earliest opportunity and within this Parliament.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

I want to continue to make this point clearly, if I may.

A number of Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst, asked how we have progressed. We have undertaken considerable preparation and are ready to move quickly when the parliamentary timetable allows. I hope that reassures Members.

[Irene Campbell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

Let me continue for one more moment.

I recognise that Members and stakeholders will want to see faster progress, but our objective is not simply to put legislation on the statute book that is not fit for purpose. We want to deliver a ban that is robust, enforceable and capable of securing positive conservation outcomes.

[Jim Shannon]

I understand the process only too well, but I encourage the Minister and the Government, because we all want to ensure that they get a win-win out of this. Eighty-six percent of the people of this nation want this to happen. That has to be a win-win for the Minister, for the Government and for all of us.

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and for his earlier contributions. I hope I have made it clear that this formed a part of our manifesto commitment and we remain committed to it. I understand and recognise the public sentiment that he references. It remains a core part of our commitment, and we are fully committed to bringing forward legislation when the parliamentary timetable allows.

[Imogen Walker]

There have been clear cross-party calls today and in the lead-up to the debate. If the Minister is not able to give us a timetable here and now, will she commit to updating us at the earliest possible opportunity when this will be progressed in Parliament and when parliamentary time will be found?

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and for her speech earlier. I reiterate that we will bring forward the legislation when the parliamentary timetable allows. I am sure that we will be able to bring forward further announcements in due course.

[Clive Efford]

With all due respect, “when parliamentary time allows” is not good enough. We have had too many delays on this issue. Other countries have introduced a moratorium, with the intention to legislate later. Will the Minister explain why we cannot do that, so that we can move urgently and quickly, here in the UK?

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. A moratorium was the theme of many hon. Members’ contributions today, and I understand the strength of feeling behind that. We do not have the legal powers to stop trophy imports without primary legislation. That is why we are focused on doing this properly, so that the ban is clear, enforceable and robust, which requires primary legislation.

[Rachael Maskell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

I will make some progress, if I may.

I recognise that this is not always a straightforward issue. That is why we want to continue to engage with stakeholders representing different perspectives and to consider the evidence carefully as we develop a robust policy. That engagement has deliberately sought to build a balanced picture of the evidence, to ensure that the policy, when it comes, is robust, defensible and deliverable.

[Ruth Jones]

With all due respect, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) said, we have had the debates and arguments. We know what the stakeholders say and believe. We know we need action. My fear is that the planned legislation will come too late. It is no good bringing it in at the fag-end of this Parliament because we will not get it enacted. That will be a tragedy for us and the animals.

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. I hear the issues and the sentiment loud and clear, both in this room and from the public. Forming the right robust legislative process is different from having a debate. We have to get the legislation tight, robust and defensible. That work is ongoing and it requires engagement and evidence. We have committed to delivering that when the parliamentary timetable allows. I hope that provides reassurance that work is ongoing to build the most robust and defensible legislation.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

Apologies, but I need to make progress.

My colleague Baroness Hayman has engaged directly with representatives of affected range states, including in discussions with representatives from southern African countries—Botswana, South Africa, Zimbabwe and others—where concerns have been raised about the implications of an import ban for wildlife management, conservation and livelihoods. At the same time, she has met extensively with organisations campaigning for stronger action on trophy hunting, bringing together conservation and animal protection organisations to hear their evidence and concerns.

Although we may not be able to reconcile every view on this deeply contested issue, we can and must ensure that the policy we bring forward is informed by evidence, by the experience of affected countries and communities, and by those organisations that have rightly and tirelessly worked on these issues for many years. Engagement will continue as we work towards legislation that delivers our manifesto commitment.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. A point I raised in the debate was that the Government could place an immediate moratorium on the issuing of licences. Will she go back to the Department and raise that with civil servants, and ensure that the Government put that immediate moratorium in place?

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. I think I have made clear the point on a moratorium: we need primary legislation to ensure that we bring in a ban that is defensible and robust. I am happy to meet her to discuss the specific point she raises in further detail, but I hope I have been clear that we stand by our manifesto commitments and we are committed to bringing forward a ban when the parliamentary timetable allows within this Parliament. I am happy to meet colleagues to discuss this in further detail.

[Sir Roger Gale]

This really is not good enough. The point has been made over and over again in this Chamber. All this work has already been done, twice. The Bill has been approved; the Minister’s Department has a drafted Bill ready to go. There is ample parliamentary time for the Government to introduce the legislation now. The time for kicking the can down the road is over. It has to be done now.

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution. I hope I have been clear that we are committed to delivering this. We are committed to making sure that we bring forward the most robust piece of legislation, which is defensible and workable, and it will happen when the parliamentary timetable allows within this Parliament.

Let me conclude by saying that protecting species is central to our wider ambition to halt biodiversity loss and safeguard nature for future generations. We are determined that the UK should play its part, and we will deliver on our commitment to ban hunting trophy imports in a way that is robust, enforceable and delivers positive outcomes for conservation. I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst for bringing this important issue before the House, and all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate.

10:40

[Clive Efford]

I am grateful to the Minister for her response but, quite frankly, it really is not good enough. Who are the Government afraid of? Such a tiny minority of people would be affected by a ban on hunting trophy imports. The Government have overwhelming power behind them; they could defend their position.

On the idea of “robust” legislation, what is so sensitive about this piece of legislation compared with any other? Are we to expect that the Government will introduce a perfect Bill that will not be amended in any way? Over my years in this House, I have seen Bills that have had hundreds and hundreds of Government amendments made to them after they have been brought before the House. What is the debate that is taking place within DEFRA that is making it fearful of bringing forward legislation? That concerns me greatly. This issue has been debated widely, over a great many years; there is not much more that we can learn from either side of the argument. This is the time that the Government have to act and move forwards.

I am grateful to all hon. Members who have spoken this morning—we have to keep the pressure on—and to all the campaigning groups. I have mentioned some of them, but I thank in particular the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting, which supported me in preparing for the debate. The Government have to listen. This is not just about the animals themselves; it is becoming more and more apparent that it is a human rights issue as well. The time has come for the Government to stand by those people, stand up for the animals that are being slaughtered and take forward this legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of hunting trophy imports.

10:43

Sitting suspended.

11:00

On resuming, the House observed a two-minute silence.

Neurodiversity: Ministerial Role

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Westminster Hall

11:04

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

I will call Adam Dance to move the motion; I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up. We will still have to finish strictly on time at 11.30 am.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of appointing a Minister for Neurodiversity.

About 20% of the population are what we would call neurodivergent, yet there is no one person working across Government Departments to ensure that the needs of this 20% are considered. Neurodivergence is an umbrella term that describes people who think, learn, process, inform and interact with the world differently from the normal. It captures both medical and non-medical differences, including attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, autism, dyslexia and so many others. I myself am very neurospicy, as I call it. Although each of those traits and learning difficulties is unique, we use the term not only because there are overlapping traits but because people with ADHD and autism, for example, share a lot of challenges with their health, school and work.

For years, the main challenge when it comes to Government has been an unacceptable lack of understanding of neurodivergence. Policymakers just have not got it and have made life harder, not better, for that 20% of the population. In fact, that lack of understanding is why I got involved in politics in the first place, campaigning to stop the closure of the youth club that helped to save my life when I was struggling with severe dyslexia, ADHD and severe bullying. It just made no sense to me that the Government and the then Conservative-run Somerset county council could not understand the damage they were doing by cutting youth service funding by 100% in Somerset, particularly for neurodiverse people.

Even after we saved my youth club, the feeling that decision makers just do not understand has followed me through politics. It is what drove me to stand for election and to be in this place today. For far too long, it has felt like the world has been set up by someone else, and like neurodiverse people are an afterthought.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for all that he does and for how he has been able to overcome these difficulties. Many neurodivergent people report being misunderstood by those around them, leaving them feeling isolated and without adequate support. A dedicated Minister for neurodiversity could help drive a more targeted approach. Does he agree that appointing a dedicated Minister would help to prevent neurodivergent people from falling through the cracks and would ensure that they receive the understanding that they very much deserve, which would help them in their lives?

[Adam Dance]

I completely agree, and I thank the hon. Member for bringing that up. I will come to lots of those points later.

Coming into this Parliament with a new group of MPs and a new Government, I was really hopeful. I thought we would get things done across the parties. There are some fantastic MPs and Ministers who really do get it, but there are still far too many in power who are just as clueless as the Tories were when they tried to shut my youth club. I have been in meetings where Ministers have suggested that ADHD is just a mental health illness, which is not the case, and in meetings and debates where MPs and others have leaned into toxic narratives about ADHD or autism being a myth. While these seem like lots of insignificant things, when they are put together, we get a culture that leads to policy that is not just bad but damaging for neurodiverse people.

In fact, in many ways I think we have gone backwards from when my generation was at school. Under-investment in diagnosis and support pathways in the NHS means that people face a two-year minimum wait for ADHD and autism assessments if they are lucky, and way too many miss out on support and treatment.

A whole generation have gone without any identification or support at all. Research by the charity The Hidden suggests that between 250,000 and 600,000 autistic adults over the age of 50 in England have never been diagnosed. The education system is not set up to support neurodiverse people. Years of under-investment in local councils, which are for some reason responsible for special educational needs and disabilities support, has led to a crisis in Somerset, where more than 85% of children wait 20 to 52 weeks to get their education, health and care plan implemented, if they are lucky, and so many others are going without support at all.

Meanwhile, vocational, technical and creative pathways are being shut down, and there is too much focus on exams. Spelling, punctuation and grammar marks in non-English exams just punish you for having a learning disability. A lack of investment in training and support for teachers has seen them struggling to support pupils or just not understanding them altogether.

Arm’s length bodies are just as bad. Recently removed training material from Ofsted on Prevent suggested that a person with autism is more likely to be a dangerous extremist because they may develop special interests, which is insane. My assistant’s younger sister is autistic; her special interest is frogs. How does that make her more likely to be a terrorist? Guidance like that means that people with autism are more likely to get those types of referral; it does not address the factors that actually lead to radicalisation.

It is not just about healthcare or schools. The failures spread to the workplace. You are 80% more likely not to be in education, employment or training if you have SEND. There is still too little understanding of how to adjust and make the most of neurodiverse people’s skills. Sadly, what all this means is that you are far more likely to end up in prison or taking your own life if you are neurodivergent. Without the support I had, that would have been me.

What is most frustrating of all is that none of the work across Government to solve this is joined up well enough. You do not stop struggling with dyslexia, ADHD, autism or any other neurotype difference when you leave school, believe me. Being neurodivergent means that you will experience our education, health, justice, work and pension and Government systems differently for your whole life. That is why we have so many campaigners out there fighting for support for neurodivergent people: because after years of terrible policy, too many people feel like I did as a young person, which is that decision makers just do not get it and cannot be trusted.

A Government are supposed to serve all their people, and yet we are failing to provide representation for 20% of the population. Think about it like this, Mr Stuart: if I owned a landscaping company and ignored the needs of 20% of my customers by using plants that they were allergic to and making it impossible for them to get around their gardens, I would rightly be out of business. The Government will probably not go out of business—well, I hope not, at least as long as Liz Truss is not allowed anywhere near the Government again—but their failure to properly represent the needs of 20% of the people they were elected to represent is more than just a policy failure. It is damaging our democracy.

What we need in Government is someone whose job it is to listen, to understand and to represent the needs of neurodiverse people. It is not about special treatment, but about making sure that politics—big and small, national and local—do not unfairly impact neurodivergent lives, as they so often do. Given all the big challenges in Government, considering the appointment of a neurodiversity Minister could not come at a better time. Our health service is being restructured, our local integrated care boards are being merged, while their budgets are being cut, and our SEND system is undergoing generational change. The Milburn and Timms reviews will see an overhaul of work and benefits support, local government is being totally restructured, and our justice and prison system is undergoing a serious overhaul as it faces collapse.

Despite the fact that these are the systems that educate, diagnose, support and rehabilitate neurodivergent people, no one in Government is currently responsible for neurodivergent people through this transition. We all know what institutions, politics and Government are like: without someone with authority in the room making the case for neurodivergent people’s needs, they will be drowned out and forgotten. That cannot be allowed to happen any more. Ultimately, that is why we need a Minister in the Cabinet Office for neurodiversity.

A Minister for neurodiversity is obviously no silver bullet. No one policy solution will fix this, but what we need is one officer holding responsibility for making sure we join up all the different solutions: someone who is working across Government and is able to hold Government Departments, bodies and local authorities to account, but also someone who can co-ordinate and help Government bodies to get it right. It is not that there is some evil group of neurodivergent-hating elite we need to get rid of. Well, I hope not; that would be way too easy. There are so many fantastic people across Government, at all levels, who want to do right by neurodivergent people, but right now our institutional culture across Government just does not give policymakers the space or the tools to consider neurodivergent people properly.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. I recognise that our society and Government are set up in a neurotypical way, as opposed to looking at divergence. I congratulate the Government on all the work they are doing around young people, but we know that we need to look at a life course. I support the hon. Member’s call to ensure that we have a cross-cutting mainstream focus on neurodivergence, but also that we embed that into the policies and the structures of our society.

[Adam Dance]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention; I totally agree with you—

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Adam Dance]

Sorry—I totally agree with the hon. Member. It is really good to have cross-party support. Just as the Prime Minister has argued that we need mayors as a force to drive change in local authorities’ areas, we need one person in Government to drive positive change on neurodiversity policy.

You are probably thinking, “Adam, that is all great, but how are you actually going to do it?” To put it simply, I am asking the Government to do three things: first, to make way for a new Minister by restructuring current posts or amending the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 to expand the number of Ministers we can have; secondly, to give the new Minister funded statutory powers, by presenting Parliament with a cross-departmental strategy for neurodiversity that the Minister would be responsible for implementing, because this does not work if the Minister does not have teeth; and thirdly, to appoint a Minister for neurodiversity, which is probably the most difficult and political part of the whole process.

That is obviously easier said than done, but, as with most things, the answer is there: it just requires political willpower. Look at the new Minister for Artificial Intelligence post in the Cabinet Office. We see this time and again with Government: we are told, “Oh, that is too complicated,” or, “Oh, that wouldn’t be practical,” but then the public kick up a fuss, and, suddenly, it is not too difficult and can actually be done rather quickly. Let us not forget that this is about 20% of the public.

Obviously, though, the Minister today cannot snap her fingers and promise to do this—I would love it if she could. That is just not how this works, and I get that. Instead, I ask the Minister to commit today to starting the process by having civil servants review cross-departmental policy on neurodiversity and the merits of a neurodiversity Minister, and then to meeting me and campaigners to talk through the findings with us and hear our suggestions in more detail.

I know that this proposal is ambitious, but it is the lack of ambition on neurodiversity policy that has got us into this mess in the first place. It is only with bold action that we are going to make a difference, because I do not want to live in a country where the next generation of neurodiverse kids feel as I did when they tried to shut my youth club, and where decision makers just do not get it and just do not care. I thank everybody for listening.

11:16

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Sally Jameson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) for securing this important debate, and to other Members for their contributions.

I know that the hon. Member speaks truly from his own heart and his own experience about these issues. I assure him that I take his contribution very seriously, and I will make sure that the points he has raised are heard across Government, particularly in the Departments for Education, Health and Social Care, and Work and Pensions. It is so important that we have people like him in this Parliament, making sure that voices and experiences like his are heard not just here but across the country. I thank him for that.

[Jim Shannon]

One of the good things about the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) introducing the debate is that, by showing others out there with disabilities how they can progress in life and what they can achieve, he will now become, perhaps unknowingly, an inspiration to them.

[Sally Jameson]

I agree. The hon. Member for Yeovil is a role model for many thousands, possibly millions, of people out there who might think that their neurodiversity could hold them back from office: he is showing that that is absolutely not the case. He is using his role in Parliament to make sure that these issues are brought to the forefront of Government, the media and so on. I congratulate him on doing that, both today and more widely in this place.

Supporting people who are neurodiverse is of critical importance to the Government. The hon. Member is right to say that we do not have a Minister solely responsible for neurodiversity. He will know that ministerial portfolios and the machinery of government more generally are matters exclusively for the Prime Minister himself, but I want to assure him that this is a core focus of Government policy across Departments. I would actually expect—as I am sure Ministers and people more widely would as well—that neurodiversity and the issues that affect neurodiverse people need to be woven into all Government policy across all Departments, regardless of whether there is a Minister. We should expect that and hold the Government and ourselves accountable to ensure that that is happening.

The particular issues raised today are overseen by the Secretaries of State for Health and Social Care, for Education, and for Work and Pensions. Those Secretaries of State and their Departments work closely together, and the Government continue to work on the needs of people who are neurodiverse.

The independent review into the prevalence and support for mental health conditions, ADHD and autism found that ADHD and autism referrals and waiting lists for diagnosis have “risen dramatically”. We want to ensure that people of all ages get the right support and, crucially, get it at the right time, without having to wait for a diagnosis before they can get access to help.

The Government recognise that waits for ADHD and autism assessment remain too long and have a huge impact on individuals and their families. We all know that from our constituency inboxes.

[Adam Dance]

One of my projects last year was a ten-minute rule Bill for universal screening, which I have been working on and talking to Ministers about. It would screen everyone at primary school to pick up their neurodiversity. Does the Minister think we can reopen the discussion on that?

[Sally Jameson]

I cannot make a decision on that here, but I will take it back to the relevant Departments—I suspect that is a question for the Department for Education—and ask that they have another look at the hon. Member’s ten-minute rule Bill.

Support is too often organised around diagnosis, rather than people’s needs and circumstances. People seeking help increasingly present with overlapping needs that do not simply fit into a single diagnosis. Better understanding of that is important. As set out in the Government press release following the independent review, we are moving to a more needs-led model, providing earlier access to information, support and appropriate intervention based on individual needs and circumstances without and before a diagnosis, while also improving timely access to high-quality diagnostic assessment when required.

Moving on to the SEND reform element, which the hon. Member for Yeovil touched on, we remain committed to ensuring that every child has the best start in life with accessible and local support in their community and ending the need for families to fight for help. Since consulting on our SEND reforms, we have worked with partners across education, health and local government to build on the foundations for long-term improvement.

Funding allocations and guidance that have been previously announced include £4 billion of investment to enhance inclusive provision across early years, schools, colleges and local authorities. Alongside that, there is another £3.7 billion in capital funding between 2025 and 2030, which will create 60,000 new specialist places. Through local SEND reform plans, we are ensuring every area delivers targeted local support. We will publish the consultation response in due course and will introduce legislation on this at the earliest opportunity.

As announced in the King’s Speech, the education for all Bill will be introduced in this parliamentary Session to make mainstream education more inclusive and ensure all children get the right support early on. The Bill will help children and young people and is backed by more than £200 million for SEND and inclusion training. New requirements in the SEND code of practice will ensure that settings train all staff in SEND and inclusion more widely.

[Adam Dance]

That £200 million is welcome, but it is very little money per school or per teacher. It is a good start, but we need to go further. I have one more question, while I am on my feet: will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss a neurodiversity Minister in the Cabinet Office?

[Sally Jameson]

I will ensure that someone meets the hon. Member. I am not sure whether that meeting will be with me; I need to clarify responsibility and portfolio on that, because it is technically the Prime Minister who would appoint the Minister for neurodiversity, but I will come back to the hon. Member on that and arrange an appropriate meeting.

The hon. Member touched a bit on employment and neurodiversity, though I appreciate there is more to be said. It is incredibly important, particularly as we await the Milburn review and things we will be doing more broadly to support the population. Good work, good health and wellbeing for neurodivergent people is incredibly important. In 2025, the DWP launched an independent panel of academics with expertise and lived experience of neurodiversity to advise us as a Government on boosting awareness and inclusion in the workplace.

The panel considered why neurodivergent people often have poor experiences in the workplace and have a low overall employment rate. We welcomed the publication of the report by the expert academic panel on neurodiversity, alongside the Government response, on 2 October. The report highlights the valuable contribution that neurodivergent people make to our workforce and sets out recommendations to improve their recruitment, retention and progression in the workplace. Neurodivergence should not hold anyone back from achieving their potential in their workplace, or in their career more widely, as the hon. Member has shown. Our response sets out our work across Government with our stakeholders to increase work opportunities, and our continuing work focusing on needs-led support and inclusive workplace design to help employers better attract and retain talent.

We have also announced a training package, backed by £200 million of new funding, to ensure that teachers, educators, teaching assistants, support staff and leaders across early years, school and, importantly, post-16 settings can be trained to support pupils with SEND and neurodivergence and to help them with employment readiness.

I am conscious of time, but I will touch on the inclusive mainstream fund, which forms part of the Government’s commitment to building a more inclusive mainstream education across the country. More than £500 million per financial year over the next three years will equip schools and, importantly, colleges, as well as early years settings, with up-front funding to help them to have a more inclusive design. Building on the consultation on SEND reform, the fund addresses historical gaps in early support to help to ensure that every child and young person benefits from high-quality adaptive teaching. Settings can use the IMF alongside core funding allocations to strengthen inclusion for all pupils. It focuses on a needs-led approach rather than a rigid set of boxes that need to be ticked. It will allow teachers, colleges and employers to focus on what the people they work with need.

The independent review led by Peter Fonagy has challenged us to think differently about supporting people with mental health and neurodivergent needs. We want people of all ages to have the right support at the right time without waiting for a diagnosis before they can access help. Through our forthcoming mental health strategy, we will set out how we will move towards earlier needs-led support and better integration between mental health and neurodevelopmental pathways. We want to provide earlier access to information, support and appropriate interventions based on individual needs, while improving timely access to high-quality diagnostic assessments when required.

I end by repeating the Government’s commitment to support people living with neurodiverse conditions. I again thank the hon. Member for Yeovil for securing a debate on this important issue. I know that he will continue to raise this issue, not just in proposing a Minister for neurodiversity, but in championing the needs of the neurodiverse population and what they require from the Government to ensure that they can be successful and thrive, not just in early years and school, but in higher education, employment and, later in life, in social care. I will ensure that everything the hon. Member raised in the debate lands with the relevant Government Departments. I will take away his request for a meeting to discuss further how we can have better representation in Government. We are committed to ensuring that the right services are available at the right time for the right people; our support for that will not waver.

Question put and agreed to.

11:28

Sitting suspended.

Rosebank Oilfield: Government Policy

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Westminster Hall

[Derek Twigg in the Chair]

10:34

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government policy on Rosebank oilfield. 

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. Tomorrow, the Prime Minister will stand in front of world leaders at the COP31 climate summit. He is expected to say that this is a pivotal moment for global climate action. He is right, and that takes me straight to the heart of today’s debate. If the Government are clear that climate change is no longer a distant threat and that fossil fuels are driving climate breakdown, why are they not clear that green-lighting Rosebank, the biggest undeveloped oil and gasfield in the North sea, is a complete dereliction of duty? My constituents are clear about the risks of more fossil fuel extraction.

[Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Carla Denyer]

Not at this moment—I will get a bit further in my speech. The risks include more of the heatwaves that killed thousands of people in the UK this summer, the worst drought in 50 years and floods that could hit this winter, driven by a dangerous combination of climate change and what is set to be the most extreme El Niño we have ever seen. Every fraction of a degree of global heating makes the future less safe, and every drop of oil pumped from Rosebank contributes to that less safe future. Today, I call on the Government to make the right choice and reject Rosebank. Let me lay out my case.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

We all want growth but, given that Rosebank is primarily for export and that oil and gas revenues are expected to plummet to nearly zero by 2030, does the hon. Member agree that even the economic case does not stack up?

[Carla Denyer]

I do agree, and I will be coming to that point in just a moment. First, I will start with the climate and nature case against Rosebank. If it is given the green light, its carbon emissions are projected to total a devasting 254 million tonnes. That is equivalent to 70% of the UK’s entire emissions last year and greater than the combined carbon dioxide emissions of the 73 lowest-emitting countries and territories.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Member agree that those nations did the least to cause this crisis, but are already paying for it in floods, failed harvests and debt, and that Britain should not hand the global south yet another bill for our choices?

[Carla Denyer]

I absolutely agree. In fact, it is the human rights and international justice aspects of this that turned me into a climate activist in the first place.

That devastating 254 million tonnes is a climate-wrecking volume of emissions. If Rosebank is allowed, it would keep producing oil until 2052, polluting our atmosphere after the date by which the UK is legally committed to net zero.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Carla Denyer]

I will make a little more progress. The International Energy Agency and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are clear: opening new oil and gasfields is incompatible with limiting warming in line with the Paris agreement. This is the key point in this debate: globally, even if we only extract all the oil, gas and coal in existing wells and mines, we will release seven times more emissions than would keep us within 1.5° of warming. That means that there must be no new oil and gas extraction at all.

[Douglas Lumsden]

Would the hon. Member accept that, if we do not produce our own oil and gas, it is not that we are going to use any less of it, but that we are going to import more oil and gas from other places with a higher carbon footprint?

[Carla Denyer]

Unfortunately, it sounds as if the hon. Member might be suffering under some misapprehensions about the facts of the case. The fact is that this oil and gas would be sold on international markets, as I will come on to in just a moment.

[Warinder Juss]

Employment in oil and gas has fallen significantly over the last decade, but the UK is forecast to be reliant on oil and gas until 2050. Does the hon. Lady agree that a just transition requires the Government to do their utmost to create high-quality clean energy jobs as quickly as possible, so that we can not only challenge the climate crisis, but keep our skilled workers in employment?

[Carla Denyer]

I agree absolutely; it is almost as if the hon. Member has been peeking at my notes. I am now going to plough on, because quite a lot of interventions have predicted something I am about to say.

I have put the climate case against Rosebank, but the economic case is equally powerful. Rosebank will not bring down my constituents’ energy bills, nor anyone else’s. New oil and gas production in the UK will do nothing to affect market price here, which is set internationally and has been driven up by Donald Trump’s war in Iran. As Equinor has confirmed, Rosebank’s oil will be sold on the open market. Hon. Members should not just my word for it: a former Conservative Energy Secretary admitted that new oilfields will do nothing to bring down the price of energy. The current Energy Secretary has said that

“if you care about affordability, North Sea does not solve that problem for you”.

By contrast, renewables are already saving us money. Since the start of the Hormuz crisis, record-high UK wind and solar generation has avoided the need for gas imports worth £5.9 billion. That is what real energy independence looks like. Although I welcome the progress and ambition on renewables that we have seen under this Government, it does not and never will justify the extraction of new fossil fuels. Every day, I am emailed by Bristol Central constituents struggling with the seemingly never-ending affordability crisis, and energy bills are now set to jump by another £276 from January.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing this debate. Last summer, Monmouthshire saw wildfires, and before those it saw floods. Does the hon. Lady agree that people such as my constituents need more affordable renewable energy to secure their homes—not investment in the vested interests of oil companies?

[Carla Denyer]

I agree. The Prime Minister has rightly promised action to address the cost of living. To do that, he needs to break the link between fossil fuel prices and electricity prices by getting off oil and gas, rather than deepening our reliance on fossil fuels, when we are precisely in a fossil-fuelled cost of living crisis.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Carla Denyer]

I am going to make a bit more progress. Why on earth has the Chancellor been given a veto on new offshore wind projects if they do not lower bills, when he is not applying the same test to decisions about climate-wrecking fossil fuels?

That brings me to jobs. In the last 10 years, the number of jobs supported by the UK oil and gas industry has more than halved, despite the previous Government approving hundreds of licences. The reality is that 93% of viable oil and gas reserves in the UK North sea have already been extracted, so jobs will continue to decline unless we change direction. By investing in renewables industries and helping workers to secure well-paid, unionised jobs in those industries, the Government can build a secure future for workers.

Currently, an offshore wind turbine contains three times as much material from abroad as it does from domestic manufacturers. Public investment in UK manufacturing capacity for offshore wind alone—never mind the other technologies—would generate 10,000 direct and more than 13,000 indirect jobs.

[Douglas Lumsden]

rose—

[Alice Macdonald]

rose—

[Carla Denyer]

I am going to make a bit more progress. Those potential jobs are why, last year, I tabled the Energy and Employment Rights Bill, outlining key steps to future-proof jobs in the energy sector. They are also why I am working alongside trade unions to call for statutory rights to union reps for future-proofing jobs, to create a legal requirement on employers to include trade union reps in workplace planning related to decarbonisation. That, not Rosebank, is how we build a stable, future-facing economy.

The economic case against Rosebank goes to the heart of our tax system. We need to know whether the Government questioned the assumption in the Office for Budget Responsibility’s autumn Budget papers that Rosebank will be approved, and whether the Treasury has a predetermined view. The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero alone must take the decision on Rosebank. Any indication that the Government are relying on it for tax revenues could be considered indirect pressure. Could that risk making the decision unlawful?

In her approval of Jackdaw, the Secretary of State herself concluded that she

“has not been able to form a view in which she has sufficient confidence”

regarding the tax receipts from the gasfield. In other words, the Government do not think that they are going to raise much tax from the gas drilling for which they have just given the go-ahead. The OBR has pointed out that, even with its assumption that Rosebank is approved, the combined effect of the expiry of the windfall tax and the declining nature of the North sea basin means that tax receipts from the oil and gas sector as a whole are projected to be “close to zero” by 2031-32. Compare that with the global damage that would be caused by emissions from Jackdaw and Rosebank, which are estimated to cost between £170 billion and £483 billion, and the £13.3 billion of UK public money that has already been spent, incredibly, on tax breaks for fossil fuel firms between 2019 and 2026. That is enough money to insulate every home in fuel poverty in England, which would be the real way to bring down bills.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful case, particularly about the economic importance of investing in renewable energy and the fact that the Rosebank oilfield would not bring down our bills. Does she agree that it was particularly disappointing that, in the recent Budget, the Government cut back on funding for home insulation measures—measures that, alongside renewable energy, are where the Government should be focusing their attention?

[Carla Denyer]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. As he and I have said many times, the cheapest energy bills are those that people do not have to pay, because their home is so well insulated that they do not have to buy that energy in the first place.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Carla Denyer]

I am beginning to wrap up now.

If Rosebank is fundamentally incompatible with a liveable planet, will not bring down energy bills, will not future-proof North sea jobs and represents a significant drain on public finances, why is it even being considered? Analysis of Government meetings shows that, between July 2024 and June 2026, UK Ministers had 200 meetings with the main firms involved in Rosebank and Jackdaw and their lobbyists—about two a week. The only ones who benefit from more oil and gas are the fossil fuel companies making record profits. Shell, part owner of Rosebank, doubled its global profits in the year from September 2025 to an astounding £8.1 billion. We cannot cave in to its lobbying now.

Green-lighting Rosebank would also risk breaching the Government’s sanctions on illegal Israeli settlements in the west bank. Ithaca Energy, which holds a 20% stake in Rosebank, is controlled by Delek Group. Last year, that group was included in a United Nations database of firms that allegedly provide services or utilities to support illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. That, too, must be a factor in any decision on Rosebank.

As I draw to a close,

“the idea that we will say, ‘Look, there is a climate crisis; this will not make any difference to our energy security; the Energy Secretary says that it will not cut bills; it is not the answer for the jobs of the future; but we will carry on doing it anyway’, is climate vandalism.”—[Official Report, 22 January 2024; Vol. 744, c. 50.]

Those are not my words, but the words of the now Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband). He is completely right. The decision whether to approve the climate-wrecking Rosebank oilfield is a defining moment for this Government and this Parliament. I hope that today’s debate will help to ensure that, when we look back, we can do so with pride at a decision that will protect us all and stop Rosebank in its tracks.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

Order. It will not have escaped right hon. and hon. Members’ notice that this is a very busy debate. It is unlikely that every Member will get in; however, I am imposing a two-minute time limit. If Members intervene, I may not call them during the debate. I intend to call the Front-Bench speakers at 3.34 pm.

14:45

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) on securing this debate. I may disagree with her, but it is very valuable that we continue these conversations.

Too often, this debate is framed as a binary choice: people are for oil and gas, or they are for renewables. I spent more than a decade working with renewables businesses before I came to this place, and I can say that that is a false choice. The question is not whether we decarbonise; it is how we do it and who we take with us. Let me be clear: this is not an issue for Aberdeen or even just for Scotland. While in my constituency I have businesses such as TechnipFMC and Oceaneering, which employ hundreds of skilled people in subsea engineering and manufacturing, we are nowhere near the North sea’s front door, and that story is repeated across the country.

We will not decarbonise our economy or remain world leaders in decarbonisation by switching off one industry and hoping that another switches on. The engineers, welders, technicians and businesses—that whole ecosystem—will build floating offshore wind, carbon capture and the grid of the future. Those skills do not sit in a drawer waiting to be used. If the work goes, the skills go, and the capability goes with them. In Fife, we know very well what happens when an industry closes down without a plan. When pits closed, whole communities lost not only their jobs, but the sense of who they were. For communities across the UK, energy is part of their identity and their pride, and it should be part of their future.

The Government took the right decision on Jackdaw, and the Treasury’s own forecasts have assumed that Rosebank would go ahead since at least 2019. Through the energy wealth fund, that revenue can be reinvested in a low-carbon future. Think of a young person, in my constituency or across the country today, deciding whether to start an engineering apprenticeship. For generations, oil and gas has been the front door to that technical career; many who walk through it go on to offshore wind, nuclear, renewables, defence or other industries, but they need to see that that door is open. Close it, and we do not just lose an industry—we lose the next generations of engineers that every other industry depends on.

14:47

[Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Twigg. My constituents will be brutally disappointed with the opening of this debate, and probably with many of the contributions we will hear later. In my constituency, we are proud of our legacy in oil and gas, and we are proud of the jobs. These are good, high-skilled jobs, many of which cannot and will not be replaced by the energy transition, but this is not about jobs just in Aberdeen: as we have heard, thousands of jobs all across the country are supported by continuing oil and gas production. Forcing my constituents out of their jobs and then importing the hydrocarbons they were previously paid to extract is cruel and unnecessary. I do not understand why so many people do not get that argument.

Rosebank is desperately needed. It is needed for the almost 3,500 jobs that depend on it, and more importantly, it is needed as a sign that the North sea is open for business. It is needed for the tens of thousands of supply chain jobs up and down the country. We all know that the North sea is a declining basin—we have heard it already; we get that. It will not last forever, but it would be economic suicide to pay for more imports rather than extract ourselves, with all the jobs and tax revenue that that brings.

Not only does the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) suggest that we miss out on billions of pounds in tax revenue, which could fund any ideas that she cares to go for, but it is clear that not supporting Rosebank means supporting higher carbon emissions. We know that importing more oil and gas to fuel our country is expensive and more carbon intensive. This is insane. Why are we even considering this? I am sure that many Members in this House would be quite comfortable buying Putin’s oil instead—I say, “No, no, no.” Every barrel that we can produce locally benefits us here.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

Before the Government even consider taking revenue from Rosebank, does the hon. Member think that they should be increasing taxes on the British insurance companies that are currently providing maritime services to the movement of Russian gas?

[Douglas Lumsden]

I am here to discuss oil and gas, Rosebank and what is most important for my constituents in Aberdeen South. We have the industry; we should just get on and do it. We need Rosebank, and we need more exploration for the benefit of my constituents and of the nation. It is a mystery that this Government and the naysayers, such as the Greens, keep telling us that the North sea is empty, yet our neighbours, the Norwegians, keep drilling. If it is empty, why ban new exploration?

This Government need to approve Rosebank now. We cannot wait any longer. Let us get Britain drilling again.

14:49

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Twigg.

Rosebank will have a direct consequence for climate destruction and human life. It will impact trust in Government and weaken our global standing as leaders in climate protection. It will release 254 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, which is 70% of the current emissions for the whole UK. While previous permissions were granted, the courage of Greenpeace and Uplift in seeking a judicial review caused Government to rightly pause. Now, we have an opportunity to set the future pathway for energy.

As for Rosebank itself, the scale of gas and oil will have real climate impact, but it will also have an impact on human life. We know that, together, Jackdaw and Rosebank will lead to an additional 32,000 heat-related deaths by the end of the century and will have other impacts on the global climate. We know from the Supreme Court judgment that it is so important to assess the future impact of Rosebank, which is why the examination has been so important. It is ultimately a quasi-judicial decision, but it must also take on board the real crisis we face with the climate today.

The submission has been made, and it sits on the Secretary of State’s desk. The question is whether or not the future of our planet matters more than jobs, which could be better invested in the renewable sector for the long term. We need to ensure that we have sustainability for our planet.

[Douglas Lumsden]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Rachael Maskell]

I will not. It is really important that we make the right decision today in this debate, but also that the Minister does when he gets the opportunity.

14:51

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg.

We are reaching a point where a decision must be made about Rosebank. There are arguments on either side, but not every argument is equally valid. It is not true that Rosebank will help with energy security; the oil it produces will be overwhelmingly exported. Rather, we should invest in industries that actually do contribute, such as solar and wind. It is not true that Rosebank will reduce energy prices, and it is disappointing that people still put out that message for public consumption when it is quite clearly flat wrong. It is also not true that if we do not drill this oil, the Norwegians will. It is a geologically separate field; if we do not drill there, nobody does.

On the other side of the argument, drilling at Rosebank will not necessarily increase UK use of fossil fuels in absolute terms, although it would, as others have said, add to the total amount of world fossil fuel production. The international COP process is focused on reducing fossil fuel demand and not supply, and perhaps that is a problem. A further argument has been made that, although the state does not own Rosebank oil, it will benefit from taxation, but that is actually a very difficult thing to calculate. Profits can be offset against development and decommissioning costs, and depending on the exact timescale, much of the potential tax revenue might never reach the public purse.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[John Milne]

I will not. A new taxation regime, the oil and gas revenue levy, begins in 2030. Equinor will make most of its investment while the generous reliefs are switched on, but will generate most of its profit after 2030 when the windfall tax is no longer in effect. I ask the Minister what assumptions are being made regarding tax revenue—the rationale, not just the amount. Does the Minister accept that returns could be greatly reduced by clever accountancy? Can we be sure that Rosebank does not end up as a gigantic tax dodge?

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

I call Anna Gelderd.

14:53

[Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)]

Meur ras, Mr Twigg.

The climate and a thriving and resilient economy in which the cost of living works for my constituents are not independent issues; they are two sides of the same coin. These types of political and economic issues are national, international and deeply personal. My granddad Frank never got to know his Dad, a miner who died in an industrial accident deep under the North sea. The history of our national energy policy, from the industrial revolution onwards, is written by the jobs, families and people who built our great fossil-fuelled economy. However, we must now forge a new, practical path—one that includes the current use of oil and gas but ends at the prize of a secure, richer, renewable energy-fuelled Great Britain.

We live in an unprecedented era in which our energy security is more vital than ever and in which jobs and wealth must be protected and economic opportunities seized. On both of those points, Rosebank fails. The UK has sovereign rights to explore resources in the seabed of our continental shelf, but rights over the seabed do not give us sovereignty over the waters above it. Our energy security must consider that point. The biggest economic opportunity lies in renewable energy. I do not want to see us fall behind.

[Alice Macdonald]

On that point, does my hon. Friend welcome today’s announcement of a £12 billion deal for Vanguard wind farms off the coast of Norfolk, which will help support 2,400 jobs? Does she agree that our focus should be on investing in renewable energy projects and unlocking jobs for constituents such as mine?

[Anna Gelderd]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who is doing great work on behalf of her constituents. I do not want to see the UK fall behind while other countries race towards maximising the economic benefits of the energy transition. Government decisions send important signals to investors. Clear, consistent support gives renewable energy businesses and their supply chains the confidence to invest, expand and create the skilled jobs here in the UK. As the Government, we must provide stability and choose our signals to the financial markets wisely. There are opportunity costs in not doing so.

This weekend I talked to a local resident called Dave, who told me that his renewable energy business, which previously had over 80 orders a month, fell to just five when the then Prime Minister David Cameron indicated that he was minded not to support onshore wind. A few offhand comments—not legislation or Government investment, just signals from a Prime Minister—had a material effect on a thriving local business in Cornwall and on our ability to build the industries that we need for the future. We must do better. We must give renewable energy businesses the confidence to grow. We must give the North sea workforce the support to continue to build a more secure, cleaner and resilient energy future.

14:56

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg.

The SNP’s approach to Scotland’s energy future is grounded in pragmatism, climate responsibility and protecting our industrial workforce. We recognise the inescapable reality that the economy will continue to require oil and gas for years to come as we transition towards net zero. That is why we do not support the Government’s blanket ban on new exploration licences as set out in the Energy Independence Bill.

On major developments such as Rosebank, our position is both principled and rigorous. Decisions cannot be made on the basis of political posturing. They must be assessed individually against statutory emissions targets and climate compatibility. Where domestic production carries a lower emissions footprint than imported fossil fuels, it is entirely rational to consider it while demand remains. For as long as we need oil and gas, it is also ethically questionable to offshore our responsibilities to countries that have poorer environmental controls and, in many cases, very poor employment rights.

[Dr Arthur]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Graham Leadbitter]

No, I will press on. Scotland’s renewable potential is extraordinary. Our nation leads the world in offshore wind deployment, with renewable generation breaking new records. Yet our constituents are forced to endure the cruel absurdity of living in an energy-rich nation while paying some of the highest energy bills in Europe and suffering widespread fuel poverty.

For half a century, Westminster has treated Scotland’s energy reserves as a Treasury cash cow, squandering vast revenues rather than investing them for the lasting prosperity of our communities. We are determined that the north-east of Scotland, long the oil and gas capital of Europe, must become the net zero capital of the world. Yet our communities are caught between two failed Westminster extremes. Under the Conservatives, 70,000 jobs were lost while they pushed empty “Drill, drill, drill” slogans without building the renewables bridge. Now, Labour is pursuing the opposite extreme—imposing exploration bans and extending a punitive energy profits levy beyond all justification, threatening to repeat the industrial devastation that Thatcher inflicted in Scotland’s heartlands.

[Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Graham Leadbitter]

No.

Neither ignoring the cliff edge nor pushing workers straight over it are serious policies—

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Al Carns.

14:58

[Al Carns (Birmingham Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Before I address what the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) has passionately talked about, I want to be very clear that I agree that climate change is a security threat. It is something that we must collectively address, and I support the effort to reduce emissions. However, the hon. Member’s narrative worries me. I hear a great deal about what we should stop doing and far less about the economic, ecological and security consequences of those decisions.

Britain emitted 367 million tonnes of greenhouse gases last year. That sounds like a lot, but it represents less than 1% of total global emissions. That is less than 1%. That does not mean that we should abandon our responsibility to reduce them—far from it. But we must be honest about the scale of our contribution, the cost that we ask people to bear up and down the country and whether our policies actually reduce global emissions or simply move them elsewhere.

The reality is that Britain will continue to need oil for decades. That cannot be refuted. Refusing to produce it here does nothing on its own to eliminate that demand—it just does not. It simply increases our reliance on imports, which can carry their own environmental costs. In 2024, Britain spent nearly £52 billion importing oil and petroleum products, leaving us with a net trade deficit of £24 billion. Before Putin invaded Ukraine, Russia supplied around a third of our diesel imports. It could be thought that that experience might have taught us something, yet we are remarkably relaxed about making Britain more dependent on overseas supplies.

Next, there is the export argument, which we have heard a lot. We are repeatedly told that North sea oil is exported as though that settles the argument. Much of it goes to European refineries and returns to Britain as fuel. Commissioned research estimates that around 65% of UK continental shelf crude oil ultimately reaches the British market directly or through European refining. My final point is that before we embark on this journey, we must look people and businesses in the eyes and tell them that we are going to cancel it all.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

Excellent; that was right on time. I call Jim Shannon.

15:00

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) for setting the scene so well. She knows that she and I have very different opinions, but I respect her views and hope that she will respect mine as well.

The Minister and Government need to get the balance right. Other Members have spoken about that, and I recognise that there is significant demand. The Jackdaw gasfield was approved, as it should be, but we also need 10 billion barrels of oil between now and 2050.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

Order. Can the hon. Gentleman speak towards the mic?

[Jim Shannon]

Excuse me—can I start again? [Laughter.] Only joking.

Businesses, community and charity leaders all recognise the benefit of domestic production. Over 2,000 of them have added their support for Rosebank because of its importance. This oilfield will support hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs. On Monday, the Energy Secretary stressed that affordability is her “overriding objective”. With January expected to bring the biggest rise in bills in four years, action must be taken now to protect energy affordability. Rosebank is part of the solution to stability: by making better use of our own natural resources, we will no longer be largely beholden to geopolitical tensions in the middle east.

Closer to home, in Northern Ireland, energy prices continue to climb—that is why I am here as the MP. Home heating oil prices across Northern Ireland are rising, with 68% of households depending on it, and in my constituency of Strangford and on the Ards peninsula, that figure is 80%. That is why I welcomed last month’s long overdue decision to approve gas production at Jackdaw, which will secure energy supplies for homes and businesses.

Does the Minister agree that strengthening our energy security is of the utmost urgency, and if so, that lessons must be learned from the impact of the Jackdaw delays? Does he also agree that support should be given to the proposed Rosebank oilfield immediately? I urge the Minister and Government: do not delay taking decisive action to reduce our reliance on volatile international energy markets.

15:03

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Like many of my constituents, I am alarmed at the suggestion of even more carbon extraction from the North sea. Like them, I find it hard to believe that we can be considering this after the summer we had. According to researchers, this year’s heatwaves in the UK caused around 4,500 deaths, and the UN is now saying that we are on track for a 2.8° temperature rise.

The lowest-polluting countries are facing the sharpest impact, from Nepal to Bangladesh, Somalia and more. We are staring at climate breakdown, and it seems like madness that we are even having a conversation about more carbon extraction and more oil drilling, or about slashing the electric vehicle quota and unleashing more fossil fuel consumption. All of that is on top of the decisions to approve Jackdaw and cut heat pump subsidies.

Progress has been far too slow, but to reverse the gains that have been made on the UK’s green transition should be unthinkable and will not be forgiven by future generations. At this critical point, I worry that senior politicians have decided that the climate is a foregone conclusion and that we should take a lead from Trump and “drill baby, drill” for some short-term gains—but those gains would be diminishingly small.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Apsana Begum]

I will not be giving way.

We know that Rosebank and Jackdaw drilling will have no impact on prices at the pump or on household bills. Short-term gains are quickly overshadowed by the costs of the clean-up bill and climate damage. Rosebank will not provide long-term security for North sea jobs. We know that these projects—Rosebank and Jackdaw—will generate an awful lot of money for Shell and Equinor, so much so that big oil is threatening a capital strike. After hundreds of meetings with fossil fuel lobbyists, I suggest that the Minister should spend less time listening carefully to them and more time listening to constituents like mine who are telling us clearly, “No new oil and gas.”

15:04

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. Oil and gas is energy treasure. That is the reality. Oil and gas represents 80%-plus of all the energy that we use currently, and that will be the case for many decades to come—way beyond 2050. Any nation blessed with such energy treasure is trying to extract it as fast as they possibly can, and we should do the same. Quite rightly, the Foreign Secretary has allowed the extraction of oil and gas in the Falkland Islands, so the idea that we would not allow the extraction of oil and gas in the North sea, just outside the wonderful nation of Scotland, is completely bizarre.

The numbers are fantastic: more than £8 billion of GDP; 2,000 jobs during construction; and 500 jobs permanently—those are big, serious numbers.

[Dr Opher]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Richard Tice]

I will not give way, if that is okay, because so many want to speak.

That is hundreds and hundreds of jobs directly and indirectly. Frankly, it is financially gross negligence not to extract that energy treasure. That is the simple reality.

The myth is that because the oil is exported, we should not extract it. Guess what? It goes to refineries in Europe, because we were stupid enough to shut down our refineries in the past 20 years, only for some 65% of what is exported to come back to the United Kingdom, as a parliamentary Committee heard recently. We need to take advantage of this treasure.

[Dr Arthur]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Tice]

I will not give way, because others want to speak.

We have a growth crisis. This is a great opportunity for jobs, activity and investment. It is treasure, and we should extract every last barrel, every last drop.

15:06

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) for securing this timely debate. I begin by agreeing with her and acknowledging the facts that our climate is warming, our seas are rising and our landscape is on fire. That is why this Labour Government are pushing ahead with the transition, a move that, like the wildfires in the Cairngorms, is transforming the landscape and marine horizon in front of our eyes.

I am proud to be part of a Labour Government who are committed to renewables. There are 145,000 jobs in renewables, which is more than in the North sea now, at under 21,000.

[Dr Opher]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Torcuil Crichton]

I will not be giving way. That is why I support a pragmatic transition, utilising domestic oil production, rather than importing it, and supporting Scottish skills and jobs as we move the workforce across to renewables.

Let us be clear eyed about this: Rosebank, of course, would support jobs—as the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) pointed out—and yes, it would support £24 billion in economic activity and give us tax revenues, but let us not pretend that approving Rosebank will save the North sea, or that its refusal means the end of the North sea story. The North sea is a declining basin, with more than 70,000 jobs gone under the previous Government, and, realistically, jobs will continue to move away from the North sea as the sector is wound down.

Transition, however, is not the same as abandonment. That is why the energy wealth fund announced by the Chancellor and moving jobs across are so important. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) said, I believe that there should be no new licensing under the Energy Independence Bill. That makes sense. We will need gas for 2045, but without new licences, the reduction in North sea gas production will be 97%, and with new licences, 95%—we are fighting about that 2% in the transition.

We should actually be using the success of the North sea oil and gas sector in the growing renewables sector, and using the skills and supply chains developed over decades to give us the next generation of energy jobs. The worst thing we could do at this time is to switch off the North sea and to be foolhardy in our haste. The transition from oil and gas to clean energy has to be done, but we need to support the energy workforce, our domestic energy security and the transition.

15:08

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate on behalf of my constituents, who want to see our Government continuing to take the strongest possible approach to the climate emergency and continuing to show leadership on the global stage.

We are debating these issues as communities across our country are gathering to watch the national emergency briefing on the climate emergency. I have already attended a number of screenings of it, and I will attend another in my constituency next week. The briefing has been prepared by climate scientists and it is stark. I have not heard any dissent from this science. We are already in the danger zone of global warming significantly above 1.5°. The climate destabilisation that follows from this level of global warming will bring chaos and hardship to every corner of the globe.

It is already happening. The bleakest statement from the scientists in the film is that our current climate, which is characterised by increasing floods, heatwaves and storms, is as good as we will know in our lifetime.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Helen Hayes]

I will not give way, because of the number of people who wish to speak.

Things will inevitably continue to get worse. But the national emergency briefing is also hopeful: it tells the story of places such as Curitiba in Brazil, where city leaders, working intentionally over many decades, have transformed a city of 3.5 million people into a healthy, sustainable and resilient place. It also documents the ways in which investment in carbon reduction and climate adaptation creates jobs, contributes to economic growth, saves lives, improves living standards for everyone, and saves the huge costs of climate emergency responses and disaster recovery.

My constituents care deeply about the climate emergency: they want to see fossil fuels remain in the ground; they want there to be no drilling at Rosebank; and they want to see our Government continuing to lead on the global stage on the energy transition. I urge the Minister to take the views of my constituents and feed them back to the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero as she makes this crucial decision.

15:10

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.

Today, I urge the Government to take the same common-sense approach to the decision over Rosebank that it applied to the decision over the Jackdaw gasfield. Over its lifetime, Rosebank would contribute an estimated £24 billion to the UK economy and on average it would support over 500 UK-based full-time jobs, with £500 million making its way every year to the Treasury in tax revenue by the end of this Parliament. As someone who spends a lot of time thinking about the threats posed by Russia, Iran and other hostile actors, I believe that a decision to approve Rosebank will help to ensure that oil supplies for Europe are not constrained by the geopolitical choke-points that we have seen driving up the cost of living in recent years.

Let me be absolutely clear that I support the Government’s net zero targets and recognise the importance of bold, practical action on climate change. However, the transition must be delivered in a way that protects jobs, ensures energy security and carries public support.

[Dr Opher]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Luke Akehurst]

Sorry, no.

As the UK will continue to consume oil and gas for the foreseeable future, it makes little environmental sense to offshore production to other countries outside Europe, which often have higher emissions and additional transportation costs, only to import the same resources back into Britain. A decision to withhold the approval of Rosebank will not change whether we use oil in the short to medium term. Instead, it will determine whether those resources are produced responsibly here in the UK while we continue to invest in the clean energy industries of the future.

With a progressive Government in power that faces up to the challenge posed by climate change, we could even ensure that the Rosebank project helps to pull us towards our climate obligations and not away from them, through the energy wealth fund, which has already been announced and which will reinvest revenues from oil and gas into renewable energy. A decision to approve Rosebank could therefore move us closer to a clean energy system and create even more jobs on top of those directly linked to the Rosebank field.

15:12

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as the chair of the climate and nature crisis caucus.

If we measure both sides of the scales, it is obvious that the costs of pollution from Rosebank vastly outweigh any of its benefits. Those costs will fall on millions of people across the UK who are already struggling to make the sums add up at the end of the month. They will be the ones whose living standards will dive as farmers’ yields fall and food prices soar; they will be the ones whose health will suffer as our weather grows more extreme and the temperatures in our schools, hospitals and workplaces become unbearable; and they will be the ones who will pay the price of flooded homes and businesses.

Moreover, we know that the carbon pollution already in our atmosphere is disrupting the rhythm of England’s seasons right now, and that the stress of climate change is already killing England’s ancient oaks. On Armistice Day, when we remember those who fought and died for our country, it seems that we might be forgetting what inspired and sustained so many of them through the hell that they faced.

We say, “Lest we forget”, but what honour do we pay to the memory of Edward Thomas if we now pursue policies that destroy the “hawthorn-time in Wiltshire” that shaped him into a conscious Englishman? What worth is given to Rupert Brooke’s promise,

“That there’s some corner of a foreign field

That is for ever England”

if we exacerbate the climate-induced drought that is reducing the River Granta, which he loved, to a feeble dribble, such that no future generation can join him

“as swimmers into cleanness leaping”?

What sort of remembrance do we offer Robert Graves if, by extracting the last dregs of fossil fuel profits, we extinguish

“the quiet of an English wood”,

which he longed for in the trenches of 1915?

If those poets were with us now, what would they make of a proposal that threatens to wreck the landscapes, the sights and sounds, and the sense of home that made England so precious to them? That national inheritance is infinitely more valuable than all the revenues Shell and Equinor can promise us.

15:14

[Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. The wider context of the Rosebank decision is clear and cannot be stated firmly enough. The route to a clean, secure and affordable future lies in renewable energy, not in more drilling of oil and gas. I commend the Government’s work on driving the renewables transition so far, but on Rosebank, I will focus my point on energy security.

If I thought there was an argument that Rosebank would boost our energy security, I would take that seriously. The threats to our wider security and way of life from Russia, Iran and others are severe, and if we fail to keep ourselves safe, we will undermine all the societal, economic and environmental progress that we want to see at home. However, I do not see the energy security case for Rosebank. In the short term, it will not boost our domestic energy production, as 90% of its reserves are oil, not gas, and are likely to be exported. In the long term, it will drive up emissions and increase the very real security threats caused by climate change, from pressure on food systems to increased migration.

Frankly speaking, we are on a hiding to nothing to say that in a global context, the emissions from Rosebank are low and dwarfed by emissions from China or elsewhere. That does not absolve us of our responsibilities to do our bit to protect our planet. I would like to thank the many residents who have been in touch with their concerns ahead of this debate. I will quote one resident who summed it up nicely:

“My main concern is the future we’re leaving for our children. As a mum…I want to feel that we’re actually making progress and doing everything we can to limit the impact of climate change for future generations.”

I worry increasingly about this issue. As we know, the final decision on Rosebank rests with the Secretary of State. She will be privy to legal advice that I have not seen, but for me the question is whether Rosebank supports that transition to a clean, secure and affordable future for ourselves and our planet. I am not convinced that the answer is yes.

15:16

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) on securing a debate that is so incredibly important to my constituents.

Drilling at Rosebank would be a mistake for our climate goals and it would not accomplish the very things that many voices arguing in favour of it claim it would. I represent a community where fuel poverty is real; it is real in those rural homes that struggle with insulation and it is real for the families that come to my surgeries and tell me they struggle with the cost of heating oil. I do not believe that drilling at Rosebank would help those families; indeed, it would continue our destructive addiction to fossil fuels at the precise time we should be looking at the geopolitical situation and weaning ourselves off them.

I have not discovered this issue out of political convenience. I have always been a proud member of the environmental movement. My constituency is one where protecting our landscape is paramount. It is the land of Hadrian’s wall, swathes of peatland, the Tyne river and, until a few years ago, the Sycamore Gap tree. My constituents have been proud of the natural beauty of Northumberland for generations. Protecting and conserving what we have should not be a left-wing idea; it should be the oldest idea that we have.

Over the summer, I surveyed my constituents. Hundreds of people took the time to answer and 89% said protecting the environment and fighting climate change is a key priority for them. When I asked whether they would support granting new oil and gas licences or expanding current drilling, 98% said no.

[Dr Opher]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Joe Morris]

I am afraid not. I would invite anyone to check Hexham Matters to see whether 98% of my constituents agree on anything else.

Over its lifetime, Rosebank is projected to release emissions equal to about 70% of everything that the UK emits in a year. That is more than the combined emissions of the 73 lowest emitting countries and territories on Earth. Of those 73 countries, some are the poorest in the world and the most exposed to the effects of the climate change, and they are all to be outweighed by a single oil field.

I want us to be the Government who have the courage to say no to Rosebank. We came into office promising no new licences. I am aware of the technical arguments, but the public believe that Rosebank would represent a new licence. Conserving the natural world should not be a preserve of those of us on the left; it never was. However, there is a bloc in this country that wants a cleaner, fairer and more secure future, and it spans all parties and none. It includes the climate campaigners who come to my roundtable, as well as the constituents I meet regularly. I urge the Minister to listen to their voices.

15:18

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Governments are defined by their first few months in office. Whatever else they do on the environment, getting Rosebank wrong will shape the green credentials of this Government for years to come. They cannot afford to get this wrong.

Climate change is not just another problem; it is the stage on which the future of humanity will be played out. We are talking about a threat to billions of people, devastated food systems, whole cities becoming uninhabitable, a health emergency and a security nightmare. We are at this danger point because of decades of actions by fossil fuel giants; they knew the dangers of climate change that they were causing and they covered up the truth, all to keep the profits flowing. They continue to spread disinformation, putting profits before all else.

Let us be clear: Rosebank is not compatible with our climate targets—it is dangerous to pretend otherwise. Rosebank will not lower bills. Its oil will be sold on the international market by a private company at market prices, making it billions. People’s bills are higher because we are hooked on oil and gas. Renewables are the cheaper way to break that dependency. The International Energy Agency says that Rosebank will do very little for energy security, and OBR figures show that Rosebank will do almost nothing for tax revenues. Finally, Rosebank is a clear international law risk, because it will aid the flow of profits to a company that is operating in illegal Israeli settlements. For so many reasons, the Government must not approve Rosebank.

15:20

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)]

Over the last year, I have been holding regular MP forums with constituents who have written to me about different themes and issues. One such forum is the local eco-forum that I co-ordinate. At that event, my constituents ensure that their voices are heard, and I have promised to represent them in this Chamber as their local Member of Parliament.

I hope the House will indulge me for the next two minutes if I quote issues that my constituents have raised with Rosebank. First, Gerard from Lancaster said that this summer’s weather made it clear that

“the scale of Rosebank is fundamentally incompatible with any credible pathway to the UK’s climate commitments.”

Frances from Pilling told me:

“We can already see climate breakdown unfolding all around us.”

Barbara from Garstang highlighted:

“We’re already seeing the consequences in repeated and record-breaking heatwaves, devastating floods, failing harvests and rising food and insurance costs.”

Another constituent, Laura, said:

“As a young mother and a researcher whose work focuses on the effects of climate change on disease, I am deeply concerned about the future my daughter will face if we fail to act now.”

The impact on our climate leadership was another theme that emerged, with Michael highlighting that the UN

“has now said the world has failed to hold the Paris agreement pledge of keeping global temperature rises to under 1.5 degrees and that we must cut global emissions by 18% over the next four years to find our way back.”

Oscar from Barnacre told me:

“COP31 provides a huge opportunity that could define this government—to stand on the world stage and announce the rejection of the Rosebank oil field on climate grounds.”

Indeed, that is something I hope we see in the coming days.

The impacts on energy security and energy profiteering were also made clear, with various constituents stressing that this would not lower their bills or offer them the energy security they seek. I urge the Government to listen to my constituents and to recognise how unpopular a decision it would be to go ahead with the Rosebank development.

15:22

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. At the heart of every major economic and industrial decision should be one simple question: what does this mean for British workers? Will it create good jobs, develop skills, strengthen industry and bring investment to communities that are too often left behind? Will it give the next generation the chance to earn a decent living through skilled work? That is the British worker test, and it is my view that approving Rosebank passes it.

First, on energy security, we cannot surrender domestic production while continuing to consume imported oil and gas. That is not energy independence; it is an industrial retreat that does not pass the British worker test. Secondly, on jobs, Rosebank represents a major investment opportunity that will bring thousands of jobs. Behind those figures lie real people—engineers, welders, electricians, technicians, offshore workers and those employed throughout the supply chain. We cannot rebuild our industrial economy by turning our backs on the industries capable of sustaining it.

Thirdly, it is about our communities. I represent Hartlepool, which is a town with a proud industrial heritage and a future that should be built around engineering, advanced manufacturing and energy. We are pursuing nuclear investment, developing our skills base and working to attract industries that will create opportunities for the future. Jobs in Hartlepool rely on renewables, they rely on nuclear and they rely on oil and gas. That is my frustration with this debate: too often it is about political ideology. Whether it is the representatives of Reform who would destroy renewable jobs, or the Greens who would destroy nuclear jobs and oil and gas jobs, that all means job destruction in my community. Instead, we should do it all. That protects Hartlepool jobs, it protects jobs throughout this country, and it passes the British worker test.

15:24

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

I recognise that we will need oil and gas for decades to come, but I must think about Scotland’s future. I am an environmentalist because I am a realist, and I believe that, when confronted with facts, we must face them. The North Sea Transition Authority projects UK oil production falling from 650,000 barrels a day today to just 60,000 by 2050—a decline of more than 90% within 25 years—and those projections account for discoveries such as Rosebank.

Employment has tracked production downwards. How can I look Scots my age in the eye and tell them Rosebank offers a secure career to raise a family and retire if it is 90% smaller when we retire? I cannot do that. Scotland has been here before. Our transition away from coal devastated communities, including Newcraighall in my constituency. We must not repeat the mistake of marooning workers in a sector ineluctably in decline.

Edinburgh has the energy transition on our doorstep, and I regularly meet constituents on six-figure salaries travelling the world working in renewables. That is where the jobs of Scotland’s future lie. Scotland industrialised early, and although we did not know the effects of climate change then, we know them now. How can we advocate that countries such as Nigeria and Bangladesh reduce their emissions, if Scotland cannot take the steps to do so? Those countries will be the biggest markets for our renewables expertise. I oppose Rosebank because I back Scotland’s energy sector and I want it to thrive for decades to come.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

I call Perran Moon.

15:26

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Ind)]

Meur ras, Mr Twigg. It is an honour to serve under your chairship. I was proud to be elected on a manifesto that pledged to ban the approval of new oil and gas licences in the North sea. Rosebank would be a futile final bone thrown to the oil industry. The proceeds of Rosebank will not be felt in energy bills, given that the oil will be sold on the international markets with no guarantee that it will be reimported back into the UK and will barely tweak the Treasury’s revenue needle.

Had we set up an energy wealth fund, as the Norwegians did while the UK endured the Thatcher years—and as the Chancellor did in the Budget two weeks ago—the UK would have benefited from these proceeds, but we long sold off control and therefore the ability for Rosebank to benefit our communities.

We should instead be investing in renewables, much in the same way that the National Wealth Fund has invested £1 billion in offshore wind projects announced today. We will create good, productive jobs, bolster energy security and tackle the cost of living. These benefits will be felt prominently in post-industrial communities such as Cornwall, where we have remarkable opportunities in critical minerals, geothermal, floating offshore wind and solar.

But there is another massive decision on the Government’s doorstep today that has the potential to dwarf even Rosebank. If the Government choose to reduce the 2030 target for zero emission vehicles to 50%, with flexibilities extended, that would create a demand for petrol equivalent to double annual Rosebank production. It is really important that Members understand this. Failing to transition to electric vehicles would come not only with a catastrophic environmental cost, but the loss of 127,000 jobs and £70 billion in gross value added. I therefore urge Members to galvanise their opposition against the changes to the ZEV mandate. I would be happy to discuss this with any Members after this debate.

15:28

[John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) for securing this important debate. Indeed, no debate is more important than one that discusses the consequences of our heating climate. In the Derbyshire Dales, the climate crisis is no longer something happening elsewhere or something for future generations.

Over the summer, I spoke to anxious residents in Thorpe who were terrified of a wildfire occurring at Dovedale. I spoke to farmers having to use their winter stores to feed their livestock. I have been to six showings of the “People’s Emergency Briefing”, each of which was packed out, showing the level of concern. That concern is reflected by the latest science.

The global temperature has increased by 0.4°C in the last decade alone. We all know that we have unofficially already breached 1.5°C. This summer has made the climate emergency very real. The National Heat Risk Commission estimated that the week commencing 22 June alone cost the economy £1.15 billion in lost output. That could potentially rise to £25 billion a year by 2030.

[Martin Wrigley]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[John Whitby]

Sorry, I do not have time.

I accept that Rosebank will not blow our carbon budgets, because much of the 254 million tonnes of carbon emissions will be created in other territories. But the planet does not care where the carbon comes from: it all ends up in the atmosphere or the sea and affects us all. Production of the oil will not make life any cheaper for people; the price will be set by global markets.

The Government made a commitment to no new oil and gas for a very good reason: we must retain our authority and global leadership on the climate. We cannot do this by ourselves.

[Samantha Niblett]

Does my hon. Friend agree that saying we contribute only 1% to global emissions does not give weight to the size of our influence? We might be small, but we are mighty. If we are flippant about our commitment to renewables and reducing our carbon emissions, that sends an awful message to the rest of the world.

[John Whitby]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour.

On Rosebank, we cannot keep kicking this planet-sized can down the road. We need to draw the line somewhere—and I say we draw it here.

15:30

[Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) for securing this vital debate, because my constituents in regularly flooded Shrewsbury are incredibly concerned about the environmental impact that could come from approving the licence for Rosebank, and several local environmental groups and many residents got in touch to tell me so. People such as Diane, Amy, Hannah, Ian, Jamie and Phil want our Government Ministers to know the strength of feeling against fossil fuels, which belong in the past and not in our future. In fact, Hannah described Labour’s manifesto commitment not to approve any new licences as

“lighting a beacon of hope for a better tomorrow”.

The Government have already approved the Jackdaw gas licence—described as a “balanced decision”—promising to ringfence the £1 billion tax revenue for the energy wealth fund so that we can move forward with our investment in Great British Energy renewable projects to guarantee our national energy security. However, I would urge the Minister and our Secretary of State not to make a decision in favour of Rosebank and not to add further to our climate emergency.

[Dr Opher]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Julia Buckley]

I am sorry; I will not.

Instead, can we show our international leadership on the environmental emergency and use the Rosebank moment as an opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to climate resilience, rejecting the oil licence in favour of renewables so that we can uphold our net zero promise and relight that beacon of hope for a better tomorrow?

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

I hope to call the Lib Dem spokesperson at 3.34 pm. In the meantime, I call Abtisam Mohamed.

15:33

[Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Twigg. I will keep my contribution brief.

Like many others, I have signed the StopRosebank pledge on behalf of my constituents in Sheffield Central because we do not have an alternative to survival. There is no moral argument in developing more oilfields as climate breakdown continues. Unless we act now, we will be known as the generation that knowingly ushered in climate catastrophe.

Rosebank fails on every test. It will not benefit taxpayers, who will shoulder the vast majority of the development costs. It will not strengthen our energy security, because most of the oil will be sold on international markets. And it will not reduce energy bills for our constituents, who will remain exposed to volatile fossil fuel prices. I want us to show the courage to invest in renewable energy for a cleaner future, which will allow us to show real climate leadership.

15:32

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I join everybody else in thanking the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) for securing this important and timely debate. And it is timely, as we have heard powerfully from Members across the room, and at the multiple people’s emergency briefings in my constituency and across the country following a summer of record-breaking heatwaves, droughts and wildfires.

[Martin Wrigley]

The summer has been so hot and the storms so bad in my constituency that we are in a state of severe drought and flood warnings at the same time. Can we really consider allowing Rosebank to go ahead and look the next generation in the face?

[Pippa Heylings]

It is very hard to look my children and the next generation in the eyes as we debate this issue. The Met Office has confirmed that, as a result of burning fossil fuels, we are now living in a changed climate.

The UK’s independent climate advisers acknowledge that the UK will continue to need some oil and gas until it reaches net zero, but they are clear that

“this does not in itself justify the development of new North Sea fields”.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Pippa Heylings]

I will not.

Instead, those advisers said that limiting the expansion of fossil fuel production must be a key priority. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has set a new objective to support

“a globally standard-setting, 1.5°C and climate science-aligned approach to future oil and gas production.”

[Dr Opher]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Pippa Heylings]

I will.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

[Dr Opher]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Does she agree with me, and about 150 constituents who have written to me, that instead of investing in the exploration of oilfields such as Rosebank, which would cost £4.1 billion—it is a difficult field to explore—and would not lower bills, we should invest £4.1 billion in renewable energy?

[Pippa Heylings]

It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman that not only did I allow him to speak, but I agree with him.

The decision on Rosebank will be the first major test of the Government’s new approach and the UK’s climate commitments. We need energy security now more than ever in this unstable world. Although we could have properly invested in our transition towards cleaner, cheaper, more efficient energy, successive Governments have instead left the UK in a state of energy insecurity. Because they scrapped zero-carbon homes and insulation schemes, the Conservatives built around 1.6 million homes to lower efficiency standards, costing families in those homes an extra £5 billion in energy bills between 2017 and 2025, and leaving those off-grid exposed to heating oil price spikes, as the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) described. The Conservatives have pledged that they would continue doing the same if elected.

The sad truth is that Britain has not moved anywhere near fast enough when it comes to reducing the demand for gas and oil in our homes and transport, so we need some North sea oil and gas as part of our energy mix for decades to come. However, accepting that reality does not mean supporting every new oil and gas development. When it comes to Rosebank, we Liberal Democrats are clear that the evidence does not meet rigorous climate tests. As my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) stated, around 90% of Rosebank’s reserves are oil, most of which will be sold into the global markets, not reserved for British consumers. Rosebank will not necessarily shield households and businesses from the volatility of global energy prices, and so will not bring down people’s bills in my constituency or other constituencies.

The oil and gas workers who have powered our economy for generations deserve our gratitude and respect, and they are rightly angry that the number of jobs supported by the North sea over the past decade has more than halved, with no transition in place. That is why we Liberal Democrats are calling for the Just Transition Commission to put them at the heart of the new transition.

Ministers must also confront a wider climate issue, as the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) powerfully highlighted. Following the Finch judgment, the full climate impact of oil and gas production can be properly assessed. Rosebank’s projected scope 3 emissions are around seven times greater than those associated with Jackdaw, equivalent to roughly a quarter of the UK’s sixth carbon budget. The Government have stated that the approval of Jackdaw is in line with our legally binding net zero targets, but that is because our net zero targets do not include scope 3 emissions. Will the Government therefore comply with their own policy, following the Finch judgment, that mitigations will be required for scope 3 emissions? None has been set for Jackdaw.

Rather than pursuing projects such as Rosebank, we should focus our efforts on accelerating the transition to clean, home-grown energy and to electrification, so that we can use up all this good, clean energy. Will the Minister therefore support the Liberal Democrats’ calls for a national electrification strategy?

This debate is about the choices we make for our energy future. Rosebank will not lower bills, it raises serious questions about tax revenues, it will not increase our energy security, and it will not save the North sea—but it will wreck our climate.

15:40

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) for securing the debate.

I start by paying my respects to Sir Jim Milne, whose death at 85 was announced today. Sir Jim was a giant of the oil and gas sector. Born and raised in Aberdeen, he went on to be one of the north-east’s most renowned energy sector entrepreneurs. My condolences, and I am sure those of many others, go to Sir Jim’s family, friends and many colleagues, who will miss him greatly.

This debate is not about whether we need oil and gas. We do, and we will for decades. It is about where the oil and gas we need comes from, and whether we get the economic benefits from producing it ourselves. While we need oil and gas, and while we have oil and gas, we should be prioritising using our own oil and gas. But—madly—we are not.

When the Government permitted Jackdaw a few weeks ago, they said it would be good for jobs, good for business and good for energy security—and they were right. But those same arguments apply for Rosebank. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) and others have highlighted, Rosebank will support thousands of jobs, directly and in the supply chain. It could deliver tens of billions of gross added value to our economy and around half a billion pounds annually in direct tax revenues. No serious Government would be prepared to walk away from that.

Rosebank is primarily an oilfield, but it contains a notable amount of gas. Although Jackdaw is expected to produce the equivalent of 6% of the UK’s gas needs, Rosebank could contribute a further 4%, and the Government permitted Jackdaw on the basis that it was good for gas supplies this winter and good for energy security. The same reasons therefore apply to Rosebank.

One of the principal arguments made against Rosebank in this debate is that the oil will be exported, so let us deal with that face on. About 90% of the crude oil that we extract in UK waters is refined in the UK or exported to Europe, with approximately 65% of that, as we have heard, returning to the UK as refined products—products that we need every day. The extraction of oil from the UK is good for our energy security. It is far better than importing oil from the other side of the world, where supply is vulnerable to disruption at choke points such as the strait of Hormuz.

Let us be completely honest: the export argument is incredibly superficial. We are an exporting nation; we are the fourth largest exporter in the world, and trade accounts for 60% of our GDP, so why has that suddenly become an argument against Rosebank? Those who are concerned about the oil being exported should ask themselves why the UK has lost a third of our refining capacity in the last two years and whether they will support our proposals to scrap carbon taxes and restore the competitiveness of domestic refineries—but, sadly, I doubt that many will.

The reality is that the alternative to not producing our own oil and gas here is not using less; rather, it is importing more. Those imports are more carbon intensive, extracted under different standards and shipped miles around the world to get here. So why are we deliberately replacing domestic production with more high-emission imports? That is the choice that those opposing Rosebank in this debate are making.

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Lady recognise that any oil extracted from Rosebank would have to be exported to be refined? We do not have the refining capacity, as she just mentioned, so it would represent more carbon emissions, increased costs and very little coming back to us.

[Harriet Cross]

We are exporting to Europe now and bringing it back—Rotterdam is a lot closer than, for example, Canada, Nigeria or Algeria, where we are importing a lot of our oil from.

There are some questions on the financial forecasts that I would like the Minister to address. Last year, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury confirmed that the OBR’s forecasts do not provide a breakdown of individual fields, yet Rosebank was specifically referenced in this year’s forecast accompanying the Budget. Can the Minister explain why? Was the OBR given assurances by the Government that the field would be permitted? If Rosebank does not proceed, will the forecast need to be revised?

I would also like the Minister to clarify another inconsistency. Last month, the Foreign Secretary signed off the Sea Lion oilfield in the Falklands, which is twice the size of Rosebank. Both Sea Lion and Rosebank have published their scope-free calculations, so why has one been allowed while the other is still stuck in limbo? Why are the Government supporting jobs and growth in Port Stanley, but not in Aberdeen?

The debate on Rosebank should not be about climate change, emissions or use of oil and gas, because not permitting Rosebank will not mean that our demand for oil and gas disappears overnight. This is a debate about jobs, business and UK industry. Businesses need confidence, and oil and gas operators and supply chains are no different, yet the Government are sending completely contradictory signals. One minute, they recognise the importance of domestic production and jobs by permitting Jackdaw; the next, they continue to delay Rosebank and press ahead with their plan to ban new oil and gas licences.

It should not even need saying, but sadly it does: no business—oil and gas or otherwise—is obligated to invest in the UK. Firms can put their money, employ people, grow their businesses and produce their energy elsewhere, and increasingly they are choosing to do so. That is bad in so many ways for the UK—there is no plainer way of saying it. The Government are pushing investment abroad, driving down production and with it our energy security, sacrificing tens of thousands of jobs and skills that have taken more than half a century to develop, and—knowingly and deliberately—making us increasingly reliant on more carbon-intensive imports, precisely when we have seen how fragile international supply chains are.

[Olivia Blake]

Between 21 and 28 June this year—just eight days—there were 2,124 heat-associated deaths, which is 620 more deaths in one week alone than in the whole summer of 2025. How many health risks or deaths are needed before the Opposition get back around the table and rejoin the consensus that action on climate is not only critical, but necessary, and not a nice-to-have?

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

Order.

15:45

Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.

16:10

On resuming—

[Harriet Cross]

The oil and gas sector is much more than just Jackdaw or Rosebank. This is an industry that employs over 100,000 people and supports a supply chain that is so important to the roll-out of renewables, nuclear or other defence and energy technologies. It is a sector that the UK cannot do without, so we really need to look at the way in which it is undermined, talked down and seemingly penalised by politicians and the public when they do not believe that we need oil and gas, or believe that we can keep going as we are with oil and gas.

Can the Minister please address how any credible Government can justify legislation to ban oil and gas licences when we need it, have it and will otherwise just be importing it? It will make us weaker, it will make our economy poorer and it will make too many people unemployed. That is the choice being made by this Government, and it is a choice that they are making through the Energy Independence Bill. They must know, deep down, that it is the wrong choice for the UK.

16:11

[The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)]

Thank you for your expert chairing and timekeeping in this debate, Mr Twigg. I thank most Members for returning to hear the closing speeches, I thank the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) for securing the debate, and I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their participation.

I echo the comments of the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), about Sir Jim Milne. He was a titan of industry in Aberdeen and was the founder of the Balmoral Group, which is a good example of what we are talking about today: the group was largely set up in oil and gas, but is increasingly doing work in renewables. My thoughts are with his family.

I want to be clear at the outset about one thing, which may disappoint many Members present. Rosebank is subject to an ongoing regulatory process. In due course, the Secretary of State for Energy has to decide whether or not to agree the grant of that consent. If she decides to do so, the North Sea Transition Authority then has to make the final decision. The environmental effect of the project will be considered and weighed alongside other relevant considerations in reaching a decision, including the potential advantages of the project proceeding. I stress that this Government will not make decisions for this country that are not compatible with our climate obligations, but I cannot and will not undermine the regulatory process that is currently under way by discussing the merits or demerits of the Rosebank project today.

However, I want to pick up some of the more general issues that have been raised in the debate. Of course, consideration of the Rosebank decision follows the decision taken by the Energy Secretary to approve the Jackdaw gasfield just a few weeks ago. The Jackdaw decision will support the country’s energy security, protecting hundreds of jobs and adding an estimated £2.9 billion to the UK economy; the decision document outlines more details on that. The decision was fully in line with our climate commitments, and we expect that in the coming days gas will start to flow from the field to meet demand right across Britain.

I want to set out once again the Government’s wider energy, North sea and climate policy. I will begin where the hon. Member for Bristol Central began: on climate. She is right to say that it is imperative that we tackle the climate crisis. The heatwaves, droughts and extreme weather events that are becoming all too frequent are a reminder to people right across this country that climate change is not some future, theoretical threat, but a very present reality that we are living through.

This Government are absolutely committed to tackling the climate crisis, supporting bill payers and bolstering our energy security by moving to the clean, home-grown energy system that we need and that we control. First, the recent heatwaves and extreme weather events that we have seen demonstrate why this is of critical importance, and that we must pick up the pace in the transition to clean energy. Secondly, recent rises to the energy price cap have largely been caused by the war in Iran, showing that we have to move off the ruinous reliance on global fossil fuel markets that we can never control.

The hon. Member and others rightly pointed out that new drilling in the North sea will not take a penny off bills, and we should be honest about that. Producing the energy that we need at home is vital to moving away from fossil fuel dependence, and the transition to clean energy remains a central priority for this Government. However, we have always been clear that the UK will still require oil and gas as part of our energy mix for decades to come, even on our path to net zero.

It is a basic truth, which we must be honest about, that until we increase our electrification and move away from a reliance on fossil fuels, we will still require them to heat homes, power the country and power industry, but it is right that we take a pragmatic approach. In short, we are not a turn-off-the-taps Government, as our critics accuse us of being, but nor can we justifiably be a drill-every-last-drop Government. We have to manage the transition and build for our energy needs of the future as quickly as possible, and that is baked into the legally binding climate commitments that we have in order to reach net zero by 2050.

Just last week, we introduced the Energy Independence Bill to Parliament, making good on our commitment to introduce legislation to end new exploration licences. We will be the first major G7 producer country to take that step, making sure that we signal a commitment to the global 1.5°C climate goal and demonstrating global climate leadership at a hugely important moment for the world. Furthermore, North sea oil and gas production is already in natural decline. Production in 2025 was 75% lower than in peak years. Further licensing will not reverse that natural decline or change the UK’s status as a net importer of oil and gas. It is a basic fact that, while oil and gas will continue to play an important role in our energy system for decades to come, that has to be alongside our move, as quickly as possible, to the deployment of renewable, new nuclear and other low-carbon technologies.

[Richard Tice]

If we are the only G7 country to ban the drilling of new oil and gasfields, does the Minister think that other G7 countries will follow us, or does he think that they will laugh at our naive stupidity?

[Michael Shanks]

First, let me be very clear, because there has been a lot of confusion on this: new production from the North sea is not the same as new exploration licences. We have been very clear on that. Secondly, if we look at the history of the Climate Change Act 2008, for example, it has driven a global consensus to action on climate change. Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman rightly talks about the role that Britain should play in leading in the world, and then retreats at the very moment when leadership is important. This is a moment to stand up and fight for Britain’s influence in the world. I am very proud that we are there at COP and in other places trying to encourage the world in this transition. I hope that he would do likewise.

[Richard Tice]

No chance.

[Michael Shanks]

Also in the Energy Independence Bill is a commitment to support the management of existing fields by introducing transitional energy certificates. Those will enable some oil and gas production in already explored areas that are near licensed fields linked by a tie-back. At its heart, this is about taking a pragmatic approach to the North sea, providing long-term stability, maintaining jobs and ensuring that the sector continues to make an important contribution to the UK economy. I am sorry that the SNP seems to have changed its position from supporting that exact climate-leading position. I am not quite sure what its position is from one week to another, but I am sure that when this much-vaunted energy strategy is published at some point—we have only been waiting three years—we will know what the SNP’s real position on this is.

Many right hon. and hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) and for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), made powerful comments about the importance of jobs being at the heart of this transition. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar rightly made the point that we need an energy mix, which means not “or” but “and”: having oil and gas alongside the push to renewables as quickly as possible. Those jobs are critical to what we need to do in the energy transition, and we have to hold on to them in the UK.

We have been ambitious about the number of clean energy jobs that we can deploy, tripling them in Scotland and at least doubling them in Wales, Northern Ireland and almost every region of England, supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs across the UK by the end of the decade. These are not jobs arriving at some point in the future. Sumitomo opened the first UK high-voltage direct current subsea cable factory with more than 200 jobs; more than 1,500 jobs have been created in the electricity network sector in Scotland; and today we saw two new projects at Vanguard East and Vanguard West, with 2,400 jobs, as well as new jobs from SSE investment in Berwick Bank. These jobs are being created right now in communities right across the country, and we need to support even more of that investment in clean energy into the future.

A number of points have been raised today about the either/or choice between oil and gas and our move to renewables. I want to be clear that our pathway must be towards the deployment, as quickly as possible, of clean power right across the country. Every single day we remain exposed to fossil fuel markets is a day our constituents pay the price in their bills—and in a very uncertain world, we no longer have the energy security on which we once relied.

The long-term future of this country does not lie in fossil fuels from the North sea. The Government seek to make decisions that take a genuinely pragmatic view of the coming decades, in which we will require oil and gas in our energy mix, and ensure that we get as much economic advantage as possible. Renewables and nuclear is the economic opportunity of the 21st century. It is also a route to protecting bill payers and energy security and to meeting our hugely important climate commitments. Regardless of what decision the Energy Secretary makes on Rosebank, that transition will remain central to this Government’s objectives.

Since we came into office two and a half years ago, we have consented enough clean energy to power more than 20 million homes. We have kicked off a new golden age of nuclear. Some £110 billion of clean energy investment has flowed into clean energy industries. We have saved millions of pounds every single day on oil and gas purchases that we no longer required, as the strait of Hormuz closed, because we could rely on home-grown, secure power here in the UK. I am proud of that record. There is much, much more to do and we are absolutely determined to do it.

16:21

[Carla Denyer]

I thank the Minister, the shadow Minister, the Lib Dem spokesperson and all colleagues who have contributed. It is heartening, frankly, to see so many of us across the House united in opposition to new oil and gas.

I absolutely hear the concern that some Members have raised about their constituents’ jobs, but the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray)—not my constituency neighbour, but my neighbour in the room today—answered those points very clearly when he pointed out that jobs in the North sea are in terminal and steep decline and that we will lose 90% of them in the next 25 years, whether or not Rosebank is granted. Surely the best thing we can do for those workers is to ensure that they are supported with a fully funded transition support programme like the one I proposed in my energy jobs Bill.

I thank the hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby), who cut through our arguments over exports and imports by reminding us that the planet does not care where the carbon emissions come from. I thank the many hon. Members who brought to the fore the stark impacts of the climate crisis falling on their constituents right now—including the hon. Members for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake), who talked about heat deaths this summer. I have been struck by the huge passion and eloquence in the room. I also thank the thousands of people who have written to their MP ahead of today’s debate. I pay tribute to Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Uplift, Zero Hour and others who help to make sure that we MPs understand the public’s strength of feeling on the issue.

Having covered the economic and climate cases in my opening speech, I will close with just a few words about the political case against Rosebank. Today’s debate has happened in the context of a political situation in the UK in which climate deniers and delayers on the hard right are trying to discredit climate action. Perhaps that is because they are out of touch; perhaps it is because they do not actually care all that much for the communities that they claim to represent; perhaps it is because they are bankrolled by fossil fuel interests. They push a narrative that is as misleading as it is dangerous. Sadly, we have seen it take hold, especially the misconceived idea that climate action is unpopular with voters and that rowing back on climate commitments is a winning strategy, as the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and I fear may be about to happen on electric vehicle targets.

The evidence simply does not bear out that idea. The UK public overwhelmingly support strong climate action. If we retreat from that truth, and from the truth of the climate science, the results will be disastrous. We cannot in good conscience look the other way. We must do everything possible to prevent the go-ahead being given to this action of climate vandalism. Once again, Mr Twigg, I thank you, the Minister and all colleagues who joined the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government policy on Rosebank oilfield.

West London Orbital Rail Project

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Westminster Hall

16:25

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

I will call Ruth Cadbury to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for the West London orbital.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, and to speak on an issue that is of particular relevance to Members from west London: the proposed development of the west London orbital rail line. This valuable strategic rail project will connect Hounslow in the west to Hendon in the north-west, avoiding the need to go into central London.

Back in the 1830s, during Britain’s first railway boom, parliamentary Committees signed off thousands of miles of new rail tracks in short order. I am not proposing that we do that today, but I hope to show why the proposal has broad and deep support from councils led by different political parties, a broad range of civic society organisations, the business community, MPs, the Greater London Assembly and the Mayor of London. The Government also supported it in the Budget two weeks ago.

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. I am so excited, because Neasden in my patch in Brent will be connected to the WLO. Does she agree that it will make London more economically sustainable, and will bring housing and jobs? What is not to love?

[Ruth Cadbury]

Exactly—and what is more, it will make it so much easier to get to Wembley stadium in my hon. Friend’s patch.

I thank the West London Alliance of local authorities, which has done so much to work up and promote the scheme, and to bring business and local government leaders together—some are in the Public Gallery watching the debate. But let me first set out some background about the scheme. The West London orbital route would start—or finish, depending on where you are—in my constituency at Hounslow station, passing through Isleworth, Syon Lane and Brentford stations. There would be a new station at Lionel Road, by Brentford football club’s ground, and it would then go through Acton and Old Oak Common, allowing an easy connection to High Speed 2 and the Elizabeth line, before continuing via Harlesden, Neasden, Brent Cross and finishing in Hendon. The route would connect west London with north-west London, significantly cutting journey times.

[David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this incredibly important debate, and I share her excitement. Does she agree that the project would not only supercharge economic growth and connectivity in west London, but benefit north London? It ends in my constituency, as she says, and it would bring benefits to the whole of north London and the borough of Barnet.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I absolutely do, but from a West London Alliance perspective, Barnet is in west London, so when I say “west London” I of course include Barnet.

My constituents and I will get to Wembley stadium in less than an hour, with a much better journey. The line will link 450,000 additional people to Old Oak Common within an hour, massively boosting the benefit that HS2 will bring to outer London.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, my constituency neighbour, for giving way. Old Oak is in my seat. This huge thing that we were promised has still not quite happened, and it seems to be going over budget. Does she agree that we need a comprehensive traffic survey? Obviously, the benefits are great—it will be very quick to go to Brent Cross, for example—but several level crossings in Chiswick, which we used to share, will be down permanently, so where will that traffic go? Will it evaporate? The Old Oak link sounds great.

[Ruth Cadbury]

There is clearly a lot of work to be done, particularly on alternatives to the level crossings. I have one in my constituency, and I know that my hon. Friend has more. However, I am absolutely sure that the local authorities, which definitely want this scheme, and Transport for London—ditto—will work together to find effective solutions that do not disbenefit local areas in ways that can be avoided.

What is important for many of us and our constituents is the direct link to the Elizabeth line. That would allow my constituents to access another route both into central London and out to Heathrow without needing to get a bus up to the Elizabeth line stations.

The real magic of the scheme is that it makes use of existing rail lines. They have capacity, with some parts currently used only by freight, such as the Dudding Hill line and the stretch between South Acton and Kew Bridge. Only four new stations would be needed, and no elaborate new tunnelling is required, so it is more or less a shovel-ready scheme.

London’s existing tube and rail network was mainly developed by private companies in the 19th and 20th centuries as London was growing, but without much strategic thinking. Outer London boroughs do not have great connectivity in many parts, and what there is generally follows the radial rail routes going in and out of central London. There are exceptions that actually demonstrate success, such as the Mildmay line—until a year ago, we knew it as the North London line. That is an orbital route.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this incredibly important debate. Although we welcome the additional connectivity that the West London orbital will bring, TfL has refused to extend the line to provide connections for other underserved areas, such as Whitton and Twickenham. The hon. Member mentioned Wembley stadium; there are opportunities to provide better rail access to Twickenham stadium, but also for the Ivybridge estate, which sits in her constituency. Does she agree that TfL should reconsider its refusal to extend the service to those underserved areas of London?

[Ruth Cadbury]

The hon. Member makes an important point. I have been asked by my constituents living in Whitton whether the line, at its western end, could continue beyond Hounslow, around the Hounslow loop line, to Whitton, Twickenham, and so on.

Particularly as we face the prospect of more events at the Twickenham rugby football union stadium, I am aware that there may be capacity challenges on the routes through Twickenham, but I hope that South Western Railway and TfL can look at what extra services would help connectivity for not only my constituents in Whitton but those on the south side of my constituency in Isleworth.

I will now move on to the wider benefits to the city region. West London is a powerhouse for economic growth in the UK, second only to central London in productivity and GDP per head. We have strong growth sectors: tech, arts, logistics, food manufacturing, the creatives and tourism, with many world-leading brands and businesses. However, the sub-region is held back by poor intra-regional transport links. That is why the west London orbital is so important.

It is projected that, for west and north-west London, the scheme will help to deliver 25,000 new homes and 11,500 new jobs, and will bring more than 3 million jobs within a 45-minute commute. That is so important for our economy here in London. Some 200 businesses have recently confirmed that they back the project, because they know that new public transport services are good for growth; they open up formerly inaccessible industrial areas and cut congestion on our roads.

Providing more public transport services also supports London’s net zero and climate change ambitions, improves our air quality and improves access to jobs, training, healthcare, leisure and cultural opportunities—especially for Wembley, as I have mentioned. Recently, there have been attempts to talk down London, but a strong capital city makes for a strong country, and strong growth in London means strong growth across the UK.

Where is the proof of the value of new services such as this? That proof is in the Elizabeth line. I remember when it was Crossrail, that much-maligned project, but since it opened to passengers in May 2022, the Elizabeth line has been a huge success. Some 90% of users say that it has improved their area, and within a couple of months it will transport its billionth passenger, way ahead of projections. More than that, though, the Elizabeth line has been responsible for thousands of jobs and homes along the line. Abbey Wood in the east has become one of the biggest regeneration areas in London. Build it and they shall come.

The Elizabeth line teaches us not only to go ahead with new transport lines, but to look at innovative ways of funding them. We were so pleased that at the Budget the Chancellor gave the Mayor of London greater power and control over spending income tax in London, along with powers to enable the WLO to be funded through the business rates regime. That, in turn, will benefit from the uplift in land value in and around the new line. That was the model we used to fund the Elizabeth line. We know it works. I want to thank the Chancellor and the Government for engaging with London MPs, the mayor and local authorities on this issue.

I move on to some questions for the Minister. When will the Government publish further details about proposals for fiscal devolution mechanisms, and when could the new funding powers become available? Will the Department for Transport co-ordinate work with TFL, the mayor, Network Rail and local councils on how the fiscal devolution mechanism can work to fund this project? What work is being undertaken with partners to establish a viable funding package following the announcement in the Budget?

The next stage of design on the WLO has been commissioned and will be worked on throughout 2027. Will the WLO, as a test case, enable local partners and the Government to work through what a funding package would look like during 2027? What needs to happen to keep the scheme on track for possible operation by 2035 and are there any Government-controlled obstacles? The WLO uses existing network freight lines, so its progress depends on work with Network Rail, including on level crossings. Will the Minister ask Network Rail to actively work with TfL on the next stage of design? Will he agree to meet TFL, the West London Alliance, local MPs and other partners to discuss how the Government can help bring the scheme forward? Finally, what lessons has the DFT learned from previous infrastructure projects, such as Crossrail, HS2 and the expansion of the London Overground network?

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and I hope we can build on the really positive announcements from the Budget. This project is a huge opportunity to increase connectivity, decrease journey times and bring extra investment into west London. I hope the Government can work with TfL, local councils, the West London Alliance and so many other organisations that are working together, committed to making this proposal a reality for my constituents and everybody else in west and north-west London.

16:38

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Justin Madders)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) on securing this debate and for setting out so clearly and comprehensively the importance that she attaches to improving transport connectivity across west London. I also recognise that she has considerable support among colleagues, including my hon. Friends the Members for Brent East (Dawn Butler), for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) and for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) and the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor). There is clearly a united front on this issue.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth would expect, the Government recognise the importance of a reliable, accessible and well-connected transport network. That is particularly important in a global city such as London, where a transport network supports not only the capital’s economy, but the wider UK economy.

As we have heard today, the west London orbital is a proposal for a new London Overground passenger service between Hounslow and Hendon, making use of existing rail infrastructure, including lines currently used for freight, as my hon. Friend mentioned. Transport for London estimates that the scheme could support more than 25,000 new homes and about 11,500 jobs. As my hon. Friend said, that will improve connectivity and links between important areas of economic development, including Old Oak and Park Royal, Brent Cross and the great west corridor. She also discussed connectivity with Brentford Football Club and said on a number of occasions that she hoped there would soon be a direct link from the club to Wembley—

[Ruth Cadbury]

Wembley stadium.

[Justin Madders]

As a Brentford supporter, she might be a little over-optimistic in that regard, although I recognise the irony of my making such a comment. Nevertheless, I am sure that we would all benefit from regular trips to Wembley.

[Dawn Butler]

Lots of things happen at Wembley stadium, and we welcome people coming to it.

I thank the Minister for his comments. The reality is that after years of under-investment by the previous Government, we now have a Government who have recognised that situation and are investing in London. Will he join me in welcoming the devolution of powers to London? Those powers will enable the unlocking of schemes such as the WLO, which will bring about £300 million of investment into our economy.

[Justin Madders]

It is clear that the direction of travel under this Government is to empower local areas to control their own destinies; we think that is really important. We hope to see the mayoral model being replicated around the country, but there is already proof of concept in London. I will say a little more about the fiscal devolution proposals in a minute.

As Members will know, transport is devolved to the Mayor of London and Transport for London: it is for them to determine and prioritise which projects they want to support. Nevertheless, we work closely with Transport for London to understand the long-term needs of London’s transport infrastructure and where there are opportunities to enhance the network, including through major projects such as the one we are discussing today.

The Government have already provided significant support to Transport for London, including more than £6.5 billion in revenue funding and capital funding between 2020 and 2024. At the 2025 spending review, the Government also confirmed nearly £2.2 billion in capital funding for Transport for London over the four years from 2026-27 to 2029-30, to support major rolling stock, signalling and road renewal projects.

[Dr Huq]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Minister can allay some fears that I heard about on the doorstep last weekend about South Acton station in W4. People were saying that unless we sort out the level-crossing issue and find a better way of doing them, communities will be cut in half and there will be permanent gridlock. They were also saying that this project will never happen, because the money is not there. Can he elucidate?

[Justin Madders]

We can say with confidence that we will give the Mayor of London the powers and tools to make the project happen; it will then be a question for him to decide whether it actually happens. However, I am sure that, given the support in this Chamber, he will make the project a major priority.

I understand my hon. Friend’s point about level crossings. There is a consultation at the moment, which I hope will be able to identify and deal with some of the particular issues that she mentioned.

I want to say a few words about future fiscal devolution. The Chancellor set out in the Budget his plans to put power into the communities of our country, to get good growth in every postcode. We are moving away from the fragmented and restrictive central Government grant regime to give local leaders greater funding and certainty, with a stronger reward for local growth. That is why alongside the Budget we published a fiscal devolution road map, which sets out a reformed funding model for English regional and local government. Under fiscal devolution, all mayors will receive a share of business rates from 2027 and a share of local income tax from 2028, in place of central Government grants. For local authorities, a key part of our reforms is the commitment to make business rates a fully locally retained tax by the end of the decade.

For London in particular, the Chancellor committed in the Budget to legislating to enable the Mayor of London to establish a successor to the Elizabeth line business rate supplement. Such mechanisms will help the Greater London Authority to finance future transport infrastructure projects such as west London orbital—or indeed other schemes, potentially. Full details on fiscal devolution will be set out at the spending review in 2027.

The Prime Minister has made it clear that it will not be for central Government to decide where London invests; that will be, of course, for Londoners themselves. That means that the Mayor of London will have the tools to deliver the transport links that the capital needs. Along with No.10 North, we will work with the mayor, the GLA, Network Rail and local councils on how fiscal devolution can fund this project.

The west London orbital is at a development stage. As I have already said, Transport for London’s first public consultation is currently under way and will remain open until 18 November. The consultation seeks views on the proposed route, new stations, and the potential impacts and benefits of the new scheme, which will hopefully deal with the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton has just referred to.

Once the consultation has concluded, Transport for London will need to consider the feedback alongside the wider evidence as it continues to develop its proposals. Although the scheme is not yet at a funding package stage, we will continue to engage constructively with the mayor and Transport for London as the proposals develop and we continue to unlock funding that will enable the mayor to deliver the scheme should he choose to.

The Rail Minister, my noble Friend Lord Hendy, regularly meets Transport for London and the Greater London Authority to discuss their transport priorities. I am sure he will be happy to meet them again to discuss this further. Of course, it is for Transport for London to determine the timetable for the scheme and keep it on track for possible operation by the mid-2030s. Should Transport for London choose to progress it, we will of course work with them to ensure that there are no Government-controlled obstacles in their way. As with any scheme, we will work with both Network Rail and Transport for London on resolving issues, including on capacity, given that passengers and freight services would share the line.

In closing, I reassure hon. Members that the Government understand the importance of improving connectivity and supporting sustainable economic growth in London. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth for securing this debate and for the passion and clear-sightedness with which she has advocated for this particular line.

Question put and agreed to.

16:45

Sitting suspended.

Safety of Emergency Workers

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Westminster Hall

16:54

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the safety of emergency workers.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg.

Our emergency workers run towards danger when the rest of us would instinctively run away. When someone is injured, trapped at sea, frightened or in grave danger, our emergency workers do not ask first who the person is, where they come from or what their political views are; they simply act. They do it because it is their duty, and because they care. In the case of organisations such as the RNLI and the coastguard, they volunteer their own time to save complete strangers. The very least they should expect in return is to do their job without being assaulted, threatened or intimidated.

Because of the nature of their roles, however, emergency workers often do not have a voice. They are expected to get on with their job and absorb the abuse. I wanted to hold this debate to give them a voice and secure action to protect them. Sadly, recent events in and around Portsmouth have shown that that cannot be taken for granted. On 6 September, protesters gathered at Eastney pier in an attempt to prevent migrants rescued from a small boat being taken out of the area. Further protests followed in neighbouring Gosport on 22 September and 4 October. There have been convictions for violent offences connected to those protests, and other cases remain before the courts—I will not comment on those proceedings.

The cases that have concluded give the House a very disturbing indication of what emergency workers faced. On 22 September, Shannon Dodds concealed her identity with a mask and sunglasses before spraying a noxious substance into the face of two police constables. Sally Pearson punched an officer, causing a suspected ligament injury that has left him unable to work for three weeks, and she then directed racial abuse at another officer. Behind those assaults are real people—officers who went home injured, families worried about their loved ones and colleagues left to pick up the pieces.

It was not just the police. I have spoken to emergency services representatives who were on the frontline. Ambulance crews trying to reach people in need of medical assistance were abused. Protesters rocked their vehicles, banging on the sides, and pushed phones aggressively into the workers’ faces, filming them and sharing the images online. The coastguard vehicle had every tyre slashed, police vehicles were damaged, and emergency workers and volunteers were followed, filmed and intimidated. Their message to me was simple: “This is not what we signed up for.”

Videos from the Eastney disorder showed protesters shouting, “Effing traitors,” and, “I hope you effing lot sink,” at the RNLI boats. Those words were directed at people whose only purpose is to save lives. The intimidation extends beyond the protests: I have heard reports of RNLI crew members’ children being harassed, and volunteers and staff being advised not to wear service-branded clothing in public for fear of abuse. What does it say about us if lifeboat volunteers cannot safely wear the badge of an organisation dedicated to saving lives? What sort of patriotism attacks British officers, obstructs British paramedics, damages coastguard vehicles and intimidates RNLI volunteers? Wrapping yourself in a flag does not make your actions patriotic. Real public service is someone putting on a uniform, answering an emergency call and helping someone they have never met.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend for securing this really important debate. She represents a coastal seat just along from mine in Portsmouth, so she knows the value of the RNLI and the lifeboats. Does she agree that those who have dressed up what they have done as some form of righteous activism are both misguided and utterly irresponsible? In addition to some of the events she described, some children of RNLI volunteers were bullied at school. Does she agree that that crosses a line, and will she join me in full support of our RNLI volunteers and their families, who have paid a price for this?

[Amanda Martin]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. As a teacher, I say that bullying has no place in school, especially from people pretending to be patriotic who are just doing harm to the people helping us in our society.

I will be absolutely clear about the right to protest. I respect that right—I have been on many demonstrations. It is fundamental to our democracy, and I will always defend it. Many people who attended these demonstrations were local residents with genuine concerns about immigration, the asylum system and the impact on our communities. Some of them felt very intimidated by the turnout of protesters in balaclavas. Their concerns deserve to be heard, not dismissed. People should not be made to feel that expressing concerns about immigration makes them extremist or less entitled to have a voice. I understand the anger many constituents feel about illegal immigration, and I share their determination to stop dangerous small boat crossings.

People are entitled to demand secure borders, an effective asylum system and firm action against the criminal gangs that profit from putting lives at risk. They are also entitled to be frustrated by years of political rhetoric and promises from Governments who have had the opportunity to act but have not. There has been progress under this Government, but the job is not finished.

But there is an unmistakable line between peaceful protest and criminal disorder. Assaulting officers, obstructing ambulances, damaging emergency vehicles and intimidating rescue volunteers is not protest; it is criminal behaviour. We must also recognise that alongside concerned residents, there was an organised far-right element to these demonstrations. Hon. Members will be familiar with so-called Danny Tommo and the Patriot Platform. Through his network, far-right activists were mobilised from across the country to come to Portsmouth, often with their faces covered, to exploit local concerns, stir up division and contribute to disorder and hate.

Such people are creating a protest tourism industry, bringing chaos to communities and seeking to profit from public anger. We should never allow those who exploit legitimate public anxieties to claim that they speak for everyone who attends a peaceful demonstration. My first question to the Minister is: what is being doing to improve intelligence sharing between police forces when organised agitators travel between areas, and what more can be done to hold organisers and online instigators accountable?

Sadly, Portsmouth’s experience is not unique. The RNLI told me that it saw 140 reports of abuse and aggression across the country in September alone. The Association of Ambulance Chief Executives recorded over 22,000 incidents of violent abuse between 2024 and 2025—the equivalent of 62 incidents every day. A survey by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine found that 96% of emergency department staff had experienced violence or aggression from a patient or member of the public. Before these protests, I was already hearing from hospital staff in my city that they were facing racial abuse at work. These flashpoints are part of the wider problem of how we treat the people who provide essential public services.

We must consider how these attacks can be prevented. One issue that is raised repeatedly in Portsmouth is the use of face coverings by people intent on causing disorder. There are legitimate religious and medical reasons for wearing face coverings, and those rights must be respected, but there is a clear distinction between those reasons and deliberately concealing one’s identity to commit offences and evade identification. At a subsequent protest in Portsmouth, which the Minister is aware of, police used powers to require the removal of these face coverings. Arrests were reduced dramatically and residents were able to express their views peacefully. Can the Minister explain how the Government are supporting local forces to use existing powers, and whether those powers need strengthening, particularly where police have not received prior notice of a protest?

I also want to address online intimidation, misinformation and disinformation. Local workers and volunteers have been doxed, with photographs of their personal information, including home addresses, shared online. Far-right accounts have labelled them traitors and encouraged hostility towards them. People have received death threats and letters sent to their homes. One worker said that by the time he had left the protest after his 25-hour shift and gone home, he saw his address all over X. He was very distraught about that and what it would do to his family. I have also heard of one worker who has not been home since June because they were misidentified online. People who have done nothing more than their jobs are being left frightened about being in their own homes.

The Hampshire Police Federation told me that officers understand the physical risks involved in policing protests, but after a 24-hour shift or a cancelled day of leave, it is going home and finding their face online that hits them hardest. Emergency workers are increasingly scared to use personal social media accounts to share pictures of their children with family, because they fear that agitators will infiltrate their accounts. New technologies are making this behaviour easier. The RNLI has had agitators entering its stations wearing Meta glasses and uploading footage online to cause further intimidation.

A consistent problem is how difficult it is to get personal information and videos taken down from social media. Social media companies do not have good enough procedures to deal with this—we must press them to do better, and quickly. I have written to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport about tackling doxxing. Although I recognise that digital policy sits with other Departments, will the Minister explain the work taking place across Government to protect emergency workers from online intimidation, and to ensure that harmful personal information is removed quickly?

Alongside direct threats, we must challenge deliberate misinformation about the role of our emergency services. When those organisations put out factual statements explaining their work, they are often accused of lying, with hostility towards their staff and volunteers amplified as a result. The RNLI has a legal, moral obligation under international maritime law to assist those in distress at sea. Its crews are not political activists but specialist rescue workers, many of whom volunteer their time. There is a particularly important example from Eastleigh. While rescuing people from a small boat, RNLI crews also helped to ensure the safety of protesters who had gone into the water—the very people protesting at the RNLI’s involvement were saved by its crews.

I am also concerned that elected politicians have helped to amplify misinformation and hostility towards our emergency services. Councillors both locally and nationally amplified information by livestreaming and sharing videos, and by ignoring hostile comments on their social media posts, while emergency services were carrying out their duties. Elected officials and politicians carry responsibilities that should never be used to legitimise intimidation or encourage hatred.

Will the Minister raise with colleagues the need for a stronger standards regime for councillors, including how they can be held accountable when they use their position to encourage abuse or spread dangerous misinformation? What more can the Government do, working with social media platforms and trusted local voices, to challenge false claims before they translate into real-world intimidation or violence?

I was delighted that Portsmouth city council yesterday agreed to grant the RNLI the freedom of the city, following the protests. It was disappointing to note, however, that every Reform councillor abstained. This debate is ultimately about the kind of country we want to be. We can disagree passionately about immigration—we can protest and challenge the Government and we can demand change, and we should defend the rights of people to do so peacefully, even when we profoundly disagree with what they say—but none of that justifies the assault or intimidation of the people who keep us safe, nor should legitimate public concerns ever be exploited as an excuse to spread hatred.

The emergency workers we see being abused today may be the very people our families depend on tomorrow. Their duty is to help whoever is in danger; our duty is to make sure that they do it safely. Those workers do not ask whether somebody deserves to be saved, where they are from, their political background or what they have done. They simply answer the call.

We must defend the right of people to protest, but we must also defend the right of those who serve our communities to do so safely. I hope the Minister will set out how the Government will protect emergency workers from violence, strengthen the response to organised disorder, tackle doxing and misinformation, support those suffering trauma, and ensure that anyone who attacks or intimidates an emergency worker faces swift and serious consequences. Our emergency workers stand up for all of us, regardless of who we are and what we believe. It is time we did the same for them.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

Order. To get everybody in, it would be helpful if Members kept their speeches to around five minutes.

17:08

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for drawing this issue to our attention. I also congratulate her on the way she represents her constituents in this Chamber and in the main Chamber. They are fortunate to have her. When they listen to her contributions, they will know how important that is.

For emergency responders, being subject to physical violence and verbal abuse has become part of their daily routine. From 2024-25, there were 22,500 incidents of violence and abuse directed at ambulance workers across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a rise of 15% on 2023-24. Any level of abuse is of course unacceptable, but we must recognise that the number of incidents is dramatically on the rise, having reached the highest on record over those years. Female ambulance workers are most likely to be targeted by the public. Senior ambulance officials believe that the true number of incidents is even higher than reported.

Other frontline forces, such as the police, regularly face abuse, with attacks on police happening an average of 100 times a day in the United Kingdom. Our officers now report that they are used to being punched and kicked but are growing increasingly concerned as abuse becomes more extreme and frequent. Hon. Members can get an idea from dashcam videos and police programmes showing motorway police on chases; they are attacked far too often.

Firefighters are no exception. Firefighters from the Northern Ireland fire and rescue service have been attacked on a number of occasions, as indeed have the police, by people high on drugs or drink, or with their own particular problems. Data from the London Fire Brigade shows that on average there were two incidents of physical or verbal abuse every week from 2019 to 2023. Such behaviour can never, ever be accepted as an occupational hazard.

These incidents have consequences beyond the emergency workers themselves, delaying responses and putting public safety at risk. Estimates suggest that more than 1,000 patients a day in England suffer potential harm from ambulance handover delays—these things are sometimes unseen, but they are none the less important.

I will give an example from last week in Northern Ireland. On Saturday, a serious assault on a paramedic happened at Altnagelvin hospital. I read about it in the paper on, I think, Monday morning. The lady sustained injuries to the back of her head, neck, face and hands during the attack. She was beaten to the ground and then attacked when she was on the ground. This kind of behaviour towards our emergency workers, who carry out their duties with such compassion when helping those in need, is utterly unacceptable.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for securing this important debate. The Rapid Relief Team does vital work by supporting frontline staff to ensure they can work safely during demanding shifts. For example, Surrey fire and rescue service worked all night to contain a fire in Grundon waste recycling centre in Leatherhead, and the volunteers mobilised to provide the crew with encouragement and warm food, which is particularly important when they face abuse and attacks. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that we support such organisations?

[Jim Shannon]

Yes; we are thankful to the group that the hon. Lady mentions, as well as to the general public. We should never forget what they do.

I call on the Minister and Government to work to ensure long-term mental health support is available to our emergency workers. We need to be aware that the guys sometimes carry the trauma and the post-traumatic stress beyond what happens from the physical impact. The psychological effects of these horrific incidents last long after they have taken place.

The uniform worn by our emergency workers is not a shield against physical or verbal abuse. Behind every uniform that I or anybody sees is a real person, with real feelings and emotions. The trauma caused by these incidents cannot simply be taken off with the uniform at the end of the shift. When someone’s uniform is off, and they are sitting on the sofa, they still have to deal with what happened to them during the day. We must stop treating such abuse as an inevitable part of the job and recognise its lasting impact on those who work to save so many lives.

17:14

[Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for securing such an important debate on the safety of emergency workers.

Violence, intimidation and hatred should never be seen as just part of the job, and must be called out, with the right legislation, so that perpetrators face real consequences. Like Members across the House, I have heard of incident after incident involving emergency workers with intimidation, threats, racism and discriminatory hatred, far too often involving physical violence, directed at people who are simply trying to do their jobs. I recently met colleagues from the Black Country integrated care board and heard deeply concerning accounts of the increasingly audacious abuse directed at NHS staff, particularly non-white and migrant colleagues on the frontline, who are caring for and helping our communities.

Nobody should feel unsafe or targeted because of the uniform that they wear, whether they are a police officer already responding to a violent incident, a paramedic attending an emergency call, a firefighter being pelted with bricks as they attend a dangerous situation, or an NHS worker attempting to treat a patient but facing a barrage of abuse. These are incredible people carrying out vital public service roles in difficult circumstances.

Parliament has taken important steps to strengthen the law, but the scale of the problem remains stark. A Royal College of Emergency Medicine survey of emergency department staff, published just this September, found that 96% had experienced violence or aggression from patients or the public, 73% had experienced or witnessed it daily or weekly, and 63% had faced discriminatory abuse, including racism. Just 4% always felt safe at work. Closer to home, 3,336 assaults on emergency workers were recorded across the west midlands in 2025-26.

The Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 created a specific offence, and the maximum sentence was subsequently increased to two years. Sentencing legislation also treats offences against emergency workers as an aggravating factor, and the Crime and Policing Act 2026 introduces further protections against threatening and abusive behaviour. Despite those changes, the scale of the problem remains deeply concerning. We have to ask: if Parliament has strengthened the law and increased penalties, why are we still seeing figures at this level? This damages morale, undermines staff retention and puts even greater pressure on already stretched public services.

The law must send an unmistakable message: violence, threats, racism and abuse against emergency workers will not be tolerated. Minister, will intelligence sharing help to ensure that perpetrators face real consequences, so that emergency workers can do their jobs free from violence, racism and discriminatory abuse? We cannot keep thanking these workers for their courage while expecting them to tolerate violence, intimidation and hatred simply as part of doing their jobs.

17:17

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Ind)]

Meur ras, Mr Twigg. It is an honour to serve again under your chairship.

I invite Members to use their imagination and picture me as an 11-year-old tearaway on Sunday 20 December 1981, walking down Causewayhead in Penzance. We had had a storm the night before, but everything seemed very still the day after it, and I remember seeing a grown man crying for the first time ever. I knew something terrible had happened. It was not until we went to school the week after that I learned of the Penlee lifeboat disaster, in which the eight crew of the Solomon Browne had perished, along with the eight people on board the Union Star.

That disaster had a profound effect on me, but it also had a big impact on lots of my friends. Over the next few weeks, we learned who those eight men on the Solomon Browne were and where they lived in our communities. We also learned about the work of the RNLI. Even to this day, at the end of December in the village of Mousehole, the lights are dimmed to remember the crew of the Solomon Browne.

We not only learned who they were and what they did, but that the RNLI does not differentiate according to the colour of a person’s skin, or their creed; it goes out to help anyone in peril on the sea. People who live in coastal communities see the RNLI saving lives on a weekly basis. Across these British Isles its volunteers save thousands of lives every year. I have nothing but the highest, deepest admiration for these volunteers. They will always have my unequivocal support.

Those volunteers are truly the best of British. Those who abuse and bully those volunteers are, without a shadow of a doubt, the worst of British. They are not patriots. I ask the Minister: what powers can be used to punish those who abuse our heroes—the heroes who week in, week out think not of their own safety, but go out to sea to save people in trouble? The RNLI volunteers act selflessly when we need them to protect us; at this time, we need to do all we can to protect them.

17:21

[Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for securing this debate. Every day, across our country, police officers, firefighters, paramedics, ambulance crews, nurses, doctors and, as we have heard today, lifeguards put themselves in difficult and dangerous situations to protect and look after us all. They are there for us on our worst days and they have dedicated their lives to serving their communities.

This summer, our firefighters in Suffolk demonstrated the very best of us when they responded to the fire at Dunwich Heath. They put themselves in harm’s way working long, brutal hours to protect our communities and our precious environment. Their work was nothing short of heroic. Far too many emergency workers are subject to violence, abuse and intimidation on a daily basis. In 2025, nearly one in five respondents to the Norfolk and Suffolk NHS foundation trust staff survey said they had personally experienced violence at work and almost 30% had personally experienced harassment, bullying or abuse. Furthermore, staff from ethnic minority backgrounds experienced disproportionately high levels of abuse.

I am afraid to say that the figures for the East Suffolk and North Essex NHS foundation trust, which runs our hospitals, were little better. Around 15% of our staff experienced violence, and more than a quarter of those experience harassment, bullying or abuse. Those figures are already shocking, but they are especially shocking when we consider who is on the receiving end. These are people who give so much to others every day: nurses caring for patients throughout the night, mental health professionals supporting the most vulnerable people in our society and doctors providing essential day-to-day care. No one should face abuse or violence simply for going to work.

I have seen their dedication first hand. Earlier this year, I joined Sam and George from the East of England ambulance service as they responded to calls from people across Ipswich. Throughout the morning, I saw the professionalism, compassion and dedication they brought to every call, but I know people like Sam and George continue to face unacceptable levels of abuse. In 2023 alone, there were nearly 1,500 recorded attacks on East of England ambulance service staff.

Police officers in Suffolk face increasing levels of violence, too. In the 12 months leading to April ’26, Suffolk police officers were assaulted at least 622 times. That includes hundreds of physical assaults, verbal abuse and intimidation. These people went to work to help people, not to become victims themselves.

If we are honest, the likelihood is that the true figures are much higher. Incidents go unreported because it is deemed to be part of the job, but abuse should never be part of the job. No one should expect and accept harassment as part of their day-to-day life, no one should accept violence as something they have to put up with, and no one should accept intimidation as something that is normal.

That is why the measures introduced in the Crime and Policing Act are so important. For too long there was a glaring loophole in the law. Our changes will ensure that the same protections apply in all settings, and that those who abuse our emergency workers face serious consequences. That sends an important message: abuse is abuse, wherever it happens, and emergency workers deserve our protection, wherever they serve.

Whether they are ambulance crews, NHS staff, police officers, firefighters or lifeguards, our emergency workers want to be able to do their job safely and return home to their families at the end of their shift. That is not an unreasonable demand. Those people take huge risks to keep us safe, and we ask an extraordinary amount of them. They deserve our protection. I hope this debate serves as a reminder not only of the challenges that emergency workers face, but of the immense debt of gratitude that we all owe them.

17:25

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. My thanks go to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for securing this important debate and bringing this issue to Westminster Hall.

In July 2022, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is part of the World Health Organisation, concluded that the occupation of firefighting is carcinogenic, linking it to firefighters’ exposure to toxicants present in fire effluents. Only six months later, a University of Central Lancashire study on Scottish firefighters, commissioned by the Fire Brigades Union, showed that firefighters have higher cancer and disease mortality rates than the general public. Tragically, many firefighters with rare cancers are diagnosed at the terminal stage.

Firefighters are directly exposed to potentially large quantities of toxins and fire effluents on a regular basis. Fire effluent is a cocktail of toxic, irritant and carcinogenic species, which vary depending on the specific materials burning and the fire conditions at an incident. Exposure through inhalation, ingestion or dermal absorption is likely to be a significant risk factor for acquiring cancers and diseases. Research has found that such toxins are often unknowingly transported back to stations and firefighters’ homes, further increasing their exposure. Even if the levels of contamination at fire stations are much lower than the levels at the incidents, prolonged exposures to potentially harmful contaminants add up over a lifetime of service, with significant health consequences.

One example is exposure to soot. Some 93% of firefighters have noticed soot in their nose after an incident: 30% said that it remained until they washed, 32% said that it was still noticeable for a few hours after washing, 23% said that it remained for up to a day and 6% said that it remained for more than a day. Only 6% reported not noticing soot at all.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the health and safety issues that our firefighters face. This summer, Dorset and Hampshire experienced wildfires, but firefighters in Dorset and Wiltshire fire and rescue service do not have the lightweight protective gear that their counterparts in Hampshire do, meaning that they are more vulnerable to issues such as heat exposure. Does he agree that all fire services should have access to the personal protective equipment that they need for their job?

[Brian Leishman]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. It is imperative that we seek equality, and that means improving PPE for firefighters right across the nation.

To finish on my point about soot exposure, compared with the general public, firefighters are twice as likely to be diagnosed with cancer if they have noticed soot in either their nose or throat.

The FBU has backed not only the devolution of relevant employment injury assistance benefits, but the creation of a Scottish Employment Injuries Advisory Council, to review and modernise any Scottish benefits. Frankly, it is unacceptable that six years after the industrial injury scheme was devolved to Holyrood, the SNP Scottish Government is still not ready to roll out work to deliver the Scottish employment injury assistance scheme. The FBU has strongly advocated for the creation of a Scottish Industrial Injuries Advisory Council to ensure that employees have a permanent seat on the body responsible for reviewing and amending what illnesses, injuries and diseases would be recognised under a new Scottish scheme.

Firefighters have been atrociously let down, as a previous Bill to deliver that body was voted down in Holyrood, delaying this vital piece of work. Firefighter cancers and diseases are recognised with presumptive legislation and/or compensation schemes in more than 50 countries across the world. The way the SNP Government treat our fire service leaves firefighters and communities less safe; it is nothing short of a national disgrace.

17:30

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for a second time today, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) on securing this important debate. I echo the language from many of my hon. Friends about the volunteers at the RNLI. As my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) put it, those who have sought to intimidate, persecute and penalise the wonderful people who volunteer and their families really are the worst of the worst. We should all pay tribute to the volunteers for their sacrifice, their service and their courage.

I want to speak about some of the circumstances that emergency responders face in my constituency. Safety is not abstract idea there; my constituency is a remote, sparsely populated place, and parts of it are a long way from the nearest responder. A fell runner who breaks their ankle in the countryside near Haltwhistle; a family who is a cut off by flooding; a driver in a wrecked car at 2 o’clock in the morning: for all of them, the first person to arrive is someone who has chosen that job, who has given up their evening, their weekend or their sleep, possibly even for free in some cases. They ask for very little—they only ask that we do not make their jobs more dangerous than they have to be.

The rising violence and abuse that we have seen against emergency service workers in recent years should never a part of the job and should not be something that we tolerate as a society. Assaults on those workers should carry penalties that mean something, and we should consistently assess those sentences and make sure that they remain a complete deterrent to those taking part in them. Employers and the Government must invest in the training, equipment and protection of those workers. The mental health and trauma support that are essential after serious incidents should be prioritised. Staffing shortages are also a danger, because a crew that is stretched and exhausted is a crew that is more likely to be hurt.

The Police Federation tells us that sentences for assaults on emergency workers are often too lenient. The Fire Brigades Union has condemned attacks on crews on Halloween and bonfire night, and rightly says that anyone who targets firefighters on their way to an emergency is putting a whole community at risk. The Association of Ambulance Chief Executives report physical assaults on paramedics and care assistants and threats and abuse often linked to alcohol, drugs and mental health crises.

We would not accept it in any other workplace. Every service describes the toll of repeated exposure to traumatic incidents. A paramedic does not forget a critically ill child. A firefighter does not forget a cut-out. A police officer does not forget a serious road collision. We cannot keep asking people to carry the mental and emotional toll of those things and believe that just offering them a leaflet is adequate. Mental health support after those serious incidents should be as routine, as quick and as well funded as anything else.

In Northumberland, we cannot discuss emergencies without discussing the A1; I know that the Minister will not be aware of all the ins and outs of the case, but I would like her to press it with the Department for Transport and the Treasury. The single-carriageway stretches of the A1 in Northumberland have a long and well-documented record of serious collisions; this year alone, there have been 12 deaths on them. I want to see the A1 dualled, and I know that all my hon. Friends from Northumberland do as well. I have worked with all the Northumberland MPs, the North East Mayor and other key stakeholders to press the case, and will continue to do so.

Each one of those collisions has a victim and a family, and we will never forget that, but each one of them also sends emergency responders on to the road: police officers to manage the traffic, firefighters to get people out of vehicles, paramedics to work on the live carriageway, and recovery and highway crews to operate just feet away from passing lorries. The danger on roads like that to people who respond is recognised nationally, especially when there is little room to separate moving traffic from people who are trying to help. Each time they are called out, they are asked to work next to fast-moving vehicles, often in the dark and the wet, and do the worst job of their working week. As I have said, I hope that the Minister can bring up the importance of the A1 to colleagues. The argument around dualling is well rehearsed. Because of the tragedies, the economic benefits and the risk to emergency workers, it is essential that we see that road dualled.

I also pay tribute to firefighters and the Fire Brigades Union. When I meet them, I regularly hear about growing risks in my constituency, from flooding, wildfires and climate-related emergencies to antisocial behaviour-related risks to their team. On bonfire night, Northumberland fire and rescue service control handled 266 emergency calls in 24 hours, and the busiest stretch, between 4 pm and 10 pm, saw crews attend 49 incidents across the county—bonfires, bin fires, road collisions and false alarms—with control staff also helping neighbouring services who were struggling with demand that evening. I pay tribute to them and thank the FBU for its consistent engagement with me since I was elected.

I want to widen this debate to include the mountain rescue service. A couple of weeks ago, I was privileged to meet mountain rescue service volunteers in Wylam in my constituency. Northumberland national park mountain rescue and the North of Tyne mountain rescue work in partnership. Between them, they cover about 5,000 square km—all of Northumberland and Tyne and Wear, from the Cheviots to the Tyne bridge. They are on call 24 hours a day, 365 days a year—they are not paid at all.

They told me that they search for walkers, fell runners and climbers who are overdue or injured, and they search lowland areas for people who are vulnerable or missing from home. They also go into places that statutory services cannot easily reach. After meeting with them, I heard that storage of their equipment is a sharp problem that they have to deal with. Rescue kit is expensive and must be ready at a moment’s notice. I wrote on 30 October—

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

Order. Sorry, but I have to stop you there and call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson now.

17:35

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) on bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall.

Emergency workers are heroes who carry this country on their shoulders. They may be there with someone in their final moments, they may have to put their life on the line to rescue someone in harm’s way and, sadly, they may also witness extraordinary abuse and violence—all in a day’s work. They are heroes because they take that mantle on with pride and commitment. They are the best of us because they cope with the unbelievable stress of constantly having to expect the unexpected.

What they should not have to expect, however, is extraordinary abuse, violence or risk to life and limb to be targeted at them for doing their jobs. It is not part of the job to be insulted. It is not par for the course to be assaulted. There is no excuse for this vile and disgusting behaviour—yet it is on the rise. There were 22,536 incidents of violence, aggression and abuse against paramedics and other ambulance workers in 2024-25, up 15% from a year before, according to the Association of Ambulance Chief Executives. Since many incidents go unreported, that number is likely an underestimate.

The latest NHS staff survey found that nearly one in seven workers in England were physically attacked by patients or the public last year—the highest level in three years. I recently met with representatives from the Royal College of Nursing, who told me about the scale of the challenge their members face, often on top of incredibly difficult working conditions. They pointed out that some trusts have had to take the extraordinary step of launching awareness campaigns encouraging patients not to abuse nursing staff, such as Chelsea and Westminster hospital’s “I Am Human” campaign. Could there be a sorrier reflection of the state of affairs than a campaign asking people not to harm those who are there to help them?

This entire debate is taking place in the context of the outrageous scenes we saw earlier this year in Portsmouth and across the south coast, in which thugs—that is who they are: thugs—targeted RNLI volunteers and staff for daring to comply with the law, their mandate and simple human conscience. The RNLI is a British institution, and those who take on this difficult work sum up what is best about this country, not least the Dunkirk spirit of ordinary people performing brave feats of rescue at sea; yet these heroes were subject to abuse both in person and online. They were confronted in public and doxed online, their children were bullied at school because of their parents’ rescue work, and they were forced to pause their services in Portsmouth altogether—all of that due to a handful of small people with small hearts and an even smaller and warped worldview whipped up by the extreme right.

The Liberal Democrats are clear that the targeting of emergency workers in the RNLI and across the emergency services is egregious on a human level, dangerous at a public health level and a critical risk to wider faith in public institutions at a Government level. It is egregious on a human level to do what those committing these crimes are doing—namely, refusing to see the human being behind the uniform or disregarding their right to go about doing their job safely. There is never an excuse for this kind of behaviour, and it is right that a specific offence was created in the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018.

It is dangerous at a public health level, because when threats, intimidation and violence go up, the attractiveness of a career in the emergency services predictably declines, compounding existing shortages in policing, paramedics and nursing. To take policing alone, when officers are already overstretched, these issues only compound the strain of facing the work day and lead to sickness-related absences. Between the challenges facing police officers and the fact that in London alone there are currently 189,000 rest days owed to officers, this gruelling picture is clear.

That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for funding so that police services can offer their officers proactive mental health and wellbeing check-ups every six months, as well as a package of policies to recruit more officers to ease the burden on the existing workforce. It is why we supported and continue to support the 2018 Act that created a specific offence for assault of an emergency worker, and why I call on the Government to foster stronger links between hospital staff and local police so that they can work towards a stronger, more assuring police presence in medical settings, where appropriate and necessary.

It is also why we continue to publicly and proudly stand up for the RNLI by calling out the dangerous and un-British extremists who have targeted it, enflamed by the dehumanising rhetoric that too many on the right of politics espouse. Particularly dangerous are the repeated descriptions of the RNLI as a “taxi service” for migrants: a disgraceful misrepresentation of the role of those heroic volunteers and other staff. I am sad not to see Reform Members in this debate to condemn and to withdraw completely those remarks.

With all that in mind, we Liberal Democrats are keen to hear what specific additional steps the Government are taking to home in on the perpetrators of these crimes and to tackle the broader set of challenges facing our emergency services. I hope the Minister will give specific indications of what the Government plan to do.

17:40

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for securing the debate.

Our emergency services repeatedly put themselves in harm’s way to protect, serve and save our communities. Whether confronting criminals, responding to medical emergencies, rescuing people from danger or entering burning buildings, they carry out extraordinary acts of public service, often in the most challenging and dangerous circumstances. They should never have to accept threats, harassment or physical violence as simply part of the job. It is not what they signed up for and it is criminality. When they go to work to protect us, we have a responsibility to ensure that they are afforded the protections, respect and security they deserve.

We have heard in this debate about the scale of the problem. The statistics discussed demonstrate how torrid the situation is. The experience of the RNLI is particularly horrifying and completely unforgivable. Those figures represent more than just physical injuries. Violence and intimidation can lead to trauma and, in some cases, to people questioning whether to continue in a profession that they once felt was a calling. There is also a cost to the public. Every minute spent dealing with an assault, reporting an incident or recovering from an injury is a minute that could have been spent responding to an emergency and protecting someone in need.

That is why the Conservative Government backed the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 and then, through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, doubled the maximum penalty for such assaults to two years’ imprisonment and introduced Harper’s law, under which anyone who kills an emergency worker while committing a crime faces a life sentence. That was important recognition that assaults on those serving the public are abhorrent and that the law must deter them.

However, legislation is only as effective as its implementation. It is not enough to increase maximum penalties, as we did, if the sentences actually handed down do not reflect the seriousness of the offending. Sentencing Council data indicates that 25% of offenders or fewer receive immediate custody. Of course, not everyone should face imprisonment; it is not always appropriate. However, we must question whether judges are handing down sentences sufficiently strong to be a deterrent. Where someone deliberately assaulted an emergency worker carrying out their duties, the judge must impose a sentence that reflects the gravity of that, because the message should be sent that it will not be tolerated. No emergency worker should feel that reporting an assault is pointless or that they are left alone to deal with the consequences.

I also pay tribute to the volunteers who stand alongside our emergency services. Two particular groups protect the communities I serve. Rutland Community First Responders give their time freely, around the clock, to attend medical emergencies on behalf of the East Midlands ambulance service. In our rural communities—the hundreds of villages that I serve—those first responders can be the difference between life and death in the first critical minutes. They also teach residents how to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation. It is impossible to raise the subject of Rutland Community First Responders without mentioning the indefatigable Barbara Crellin, who is a real heart of our communities and the heart of that service.

The Leicestershire and Rutland 4x4 Response volunteers use their own vehicles to keep vital services running in severe weather. During the pandemic they delivered more than 1,000 pieces of medicine and protective equipment. They ask for nothing in return. I thank them for what they do. They deserve the same protection and respect as every emergency worker spoken about in this debate.

This debate is very simple, and we should advance a simple principle: those who put themselves in harm’s way to protect the rest of us should not have to fear becoming victims themselves. They deserve our gratitude, but our gratitude alone is not enough; they deserve protection and assurances that the law will stand behind them

I would be grateful if the Minister would answer three questions. First, what assessment have the Government made of whether current sentencing outcomes undermine the deterrent effect of the legislation, and of whether they properly reflect the seriousness of these offences? Secondly, what steps are being taken to ensure that emergency workers who are assaulted receive proper support thereafter and that instances are properly investigated within emergency organisations? Thirdly, what further measures will the Government take to ensure that these protections translate into real improvements in the day-to-day safety of emergency workers? They run into danger to protect us all, and we must stand by them.

17:44

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for securing this debate. Can I just say what a wonderful MP she is? We see each other in multiple settings, because she is very busy campaigning on many different issues, and we are all very lucky that she is in this Chamber, as was said by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

My hon. Friend has brought to the House an issue that should unite us all. However, as she eloquently described, it has not, and that shames those MPs and councillors who do not see the world as most of us do. I will focus my remarks on the specifics that she raised, but I also want to discuss the abuse of emergency workers more widely.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), who is now Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, introduced the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 as a private Member’s Bill. He campaigned on this issue for a long time, and it is good that we have the legislation on the statute book. However, we must ensure that it is doing what we need it to do, which is why we updated it through the Crime and Policing Act 2026 to ensure that it applies in all settings. My right hon. Friend did a powerful bit of campaigning to get the original legislation across the line back in 2018.

Members have made powerful points about the wider issue of the assault of emergency workers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Sureena Brackenridge) said, nobody should be abused because of the uniform that they wear. That should be our starting point, and we should accept nothing less. The hon. Member for Strangford talked about mental health support for those who are abused, which is a very important part of the policing jigsaw. We will introduce a more powerful covenant through legislation. We currently have a policing covenant that is similar to the armed forces covenant, but we want to strengthen it to secure mental health support for police officers who find themselves in very difficult situations and who will inevitably struggle as a result.

We heard about some disasters in which Members’ constituents have had to face real tragedy, including the Penlee lifeboat disaster and the fire at Dunwich heath, both of which were real reflections of the harm and danger that we ask emergency workers to step into. I myself have been this year to three funerals of police officers who died in road incidents, which is catastrophic, and a total of seven have died this year.

There was some debate about the risks that firefighters take. I am very interested in and supportive of the FBU’s position on the support that our firefighters need, particularly in respect of carcinogens and whether there is a direct correlation, and whether compensation schemes should be set up. Such schemes are now available if someone dies from mesothelioma, which is linked to asbestos, so if there is a direct correlation for our firefighters, it is right that we look at those issues.

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North said that true public service is putting on a uniform, answering an emergency call and helping someone you have never met. That is what happened in Portsmouth during the events of 6 September, which she has raised today, when emergency services and their partners responded to the small boat arrival in Eastney. They were there to protect life, to maintain public safety and to carry out their duties. Instead of being allowed to do that, officers were injured and emergency service vehicles were damaged. Hampshire police subsequently confirmed that seven police officers had been injured and treated at the scene, and we have heard some of those stories.

We have also seen reports of RNLI volunteers being subjected to abuse and their personal details circulated online. These are people who give their time to save others, and their families should not have to wonder whether a rescue at sea will bring a threat to their front door. The RNLI’s task is to save lives; immigration policy is the Government’s responsibility. We must never allow the two to be confused or allow lifesaving crews to become targets for anger about that policy.

Our response must be practical as well as unequivocal. First, criminal behaviour must be investigated, and those responsible brought to justice. As my hon. Friend said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having a genuine concern about illegal immigration—people have good reason to be frustrated with what has happened and a right to demand secure borders—but that is very different from criminal behaviour, which must be investigated. Secondly, emergency services need effective arrangements to identify threats, share information and protect their people. My hon. Friend asked about that and she is absolutely right. Thirdly, we must tackle online targeting and intimidation, rather than treating it as separate to the risks on our streets. I want very briefly to touch on each of those points.

Hampshire and Isle of Wight constabulary has investigated the disorder at Eastney. It has reviewed extensive video evidence and charged individuals with violent disorder, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on individual cases or prejudice ongoing court proceedings. The absence of an arrest on the day does not mean that offending will go unpunished. Police need to investigate who was responsible, secure the evidence and take action, and the number of arrests that take place on the night does not reflect the full police response—it is really important for me to say that.

Of course, operational decisions are down to the police. The Government’s responsibility is to provide the legal framework and support effective policing. We expect criminal conduct to be investigated robustly, and we expect the safety of emergency workers to be taken seriously. There are already specific protections for emergency workers. Common assault or battery used against an emergency worker acting in the exercise of their functions can attract a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment. More serious violence can be prosecuted under offences carrying higher maximum penalties. Those protections are not confined to paid employees; the statutory definition includes people providing search and rescue services, for example.

Turning to the right to peaceful protest—I am aware of the time—I must emphasise the word “peaceful”. It does not provide a licence to assault a police officer, threaten a paramedic, damage a rescue vehicle or obstruct a lifesaving response. We have seen groups of men dressed in black with their faces concealed seeking to intimidate communities and those carrying out vital public duties. That behaviour is thuggish and unacceptable. Wearing particular clothing alone is not an offence, but masks must not be used to embolden threats, violence or intimidation, and the police have a range of powers to address that conduct. We are seeing that play out not just in the protesting field, but through some public spaces protection orders, where the police can intervene in particular locations.

The police can impose conditions on processions and assemblies and ask for the removal of face coverings, and they can use dispersal powers where appropriate. They have to use those powers lawfully. I know that there will be Members who are concerned about getting the balance right between protest and criminality, and about how the police can intervene. We asked Lord Macdonald to review the entire protest and hate crime landscape. We are considering his report and will respond to it in due course. I think all Members here will be interested in the balance that he believes we need to strike and what we need to do to get there.

We do not have time to talk about online intimidation as much as I would like. The Online Safety Act 2023 is there up to a point, and I know that Members across the House and the Government are considering whether those powers in the criminal law adequately address the malicious publication of personal information. We need to look at that, and my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North is absolutely right to challenge us on it.

I thank my hon. Friend for giving emergency workers in Portsmouth and across the country a voice in this House. Today, the country fell silent in memory of those brave souls who gave their lives so that we may live in freedom and safety. Theirs is a legacy of selfless sacrifice, and it lives on in the public servants we have been discussing today—the devoted men and women who protect us and answer the call when it comes. They deserve our thanks, respect and protection.

17:54

[Amanda Martin]

I thank the Minister for her work and her words. I am glad that we have had cross-party support in this debate today. I welcome the Opposition spokesperson’s standing firm against abuse and violence towards our emergency workers. My dad was a police officer, so this is very important to me. We have come a very long way from clapping our emergency workers during covid to the state that we are in now, but I do have hope and I want to work across Government to make sure that our emergency workers go to work every day feeling safe and protected as they protect our communities.

17:55

Motion lapsed, and sitting adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 10(14)).