Commons Chamber

Wednesday 28th January 2026

(began 1 week, 4 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:34
11:34
11:34
None Portrait Oral questions: Women and Equalities
-

Bell Ribeiro-Addy.
11:34
None Portrait Q1. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to protect LGBTQ+ rights. (907530
-

11:34
11:35
11:36
11:36
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:41
None Portrait Q4. What steps she is taking with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to help tackle health inequalities affecting women. (907533)
-

Grouping. Minister. Commission Reigate Max Wilkinson. Thank you,
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:48
None Portrait Q5. What recent progress she has made with Cabinet colleagues on improving access to work for people with disabilities. (907534)
-

half of disabled people in the UK say they feel it's harder to get a job or keep a job. It's even worse
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:55
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:01
David Lammy Portrait Rt Hon David Lammy MP, Deputy Prime Minister (Tottenham, Labour)
-
-
the concentration camp in Poland. We owe it to every survivor and to the 6 million Jewish people murdered in the Holocaust to never forget. We will build a national Holocaust memorial and learning Holocaust memorial and learning centre next to this Parliament, so that the voices of survivors are never forgotten and their courage inspires future generations. Mr. speaker, I know the thoughts of the whole House will also be with the family and loved ones of Captain Philip Gilbert Maldon of the fourth Regiment, Royal Artillery, who died on Sunday.

We will never forget the courage, bravery and sacrifice made for our country by British servicemen and women. This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to my duties in this House. I shall have further such meetings later today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker, and. I'd like to associate myself with the remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister on Holocaust Memorial Day and British servicemen. Memorial Day and British servicemen. This week, the BBC and Good Morning Britain have reported of the Britain have reported of the national disgrace of out of control waste dumps. And for years my constituents in Kirkby have lived constituents in Kirkby have lived with one. People struggle to breathe. They're sick. They have to live with their windows shut and schools sometimes shut down for days.

I've been campaigning on it with our Labour councillors, but the response from the Environment the response from the Environment Agency has been slow and ineffective. So will the government work with me to sort this nightmare and stop the Simmons Woods stink?
12:02
12:03
12:03
12:04
12:05
12:07
12:08
12:09
12:09
12:10
12:11
12:11
12:12
12:14
12:15
12:16
12:16
Daisy Cooper Portrait Daisy Cooper MP (St Albans, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Jimmy Lai captive in prison, and whilst the Chinese regime continues to hunt down pro-democracy protesters on the streets of Britain with bounties on their heads, the British Prime Minister has gone cap in hand to China to ask for a trade deal on the promise of a super embassy, from which the Chinese regime will continue to spy on us. The Chinese regime remains undeterred in its illegal actions against the UK and our citizens. So can I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to name one single consequence that the Chinese regime will face if they do not stop their campaign of espionage and repression?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Prime Minister? Well, Mr. Speaker, China matters

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, Mr. Speaker, China matters and ignoring them would be a dereliction of duty. We will build dereliction of duty. We will build a consistent, long term and strategic approach grounded in strategic approach grounded in reality. I set that out in the China audit statement I made a few months ago. And that is what our months ago. And that is what our allies do. President Trump, Macron, Chancellor Merkel, Prime Minister Carney all are visiting and engaging. We will cooperate where we can.

And I'm sure in areas like we can. And I'm sure in areas like climate, she would expect us to cooperate. And we will challenge challenge in areas where we challenge in areas where we disagree. That's that's the way that we deliver for the public of this country.
12:18
12:18
12:19
12:20
12:21
12:21
12:22
12:22
12:23
12:23
12:24
12:24
12:25
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:28
12:29
12:29
12:30
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:34
12:34
12:35
12:36
12:36
12:37
12:37
12:38
12:38
12:39
12:39
12:40
12:41
12:43
12:43
12:43
George Freeman Portrait George Freeman MP (Mid Norfolk, Conservative)
-
-
infrastructure. To acquire the Secretary of State. To prepare and publish a report on the potential merits of establishing a flood merits of establishing a flood compensation fund to support home owners whose primary residence has become unsaleable as a direct result of flooding. To promote to make provision about the Flood reinsurance scheme. To make provision about the responsibilities of developers and water companies in respect of the provision of drainage upgrades with new housing developments to make new housing developments to make water companies statutory consultees for certain planning applications, and to place a duty on fire and rescue services, to respond to flood events, and to make provision for national and local flood mapping and for connected purposes.

Mr. speaker, when you hear North Norfolk and floods, I imagine that you, sir, like most, think of coastal flooding, salt marsh flooding, storm tides eroding our cliffs, river flooding, the broads, but not inland. Flooding from surface water run off, overloading drains and sewers, which is all too often overlooked. Which is why I'm introducing this bill today. Mr. speaker, you are probably, like many, wondering why is Mid Norfolk flooding? It's Breckland, it's dry, it's sandy, it's inland. The clue is in the name.

It should not be flooding. But over the last decade or so, we've seen a spate of inland surface flooding in 23 of my 130 villages increasing every year. Why yes, climate change in 2023 we have the wettest October, November, December, January, February and March on record, but also lack of maintenance of council highway culverts, a lack of maintenance of farm ditches, inadequate funding of internal drainage boards who, by the way, have been doing a really good job since about 1560 when they were created, and local flood authorities the relinquishing of riparian rights, I'm sorry to say.

I think the Environment Agency rather more focussed on rivers as habitats than channels to get water off the land. But this is happening in many areas. Why Mid Norfolk? The big factor in Mid Norfolk is new housing along the A11 corridor. In the last 1015 years we've seen 5000 houses at Thetford, 5000 houses at Attleborough, 3000 at Wyndham, 1000 at Seafield, a 5000 house new town planned at Snetterton, and in commuter villages like Yaxham and Ellingham. Big national developers and their agents like Gladman Homes using abusing the five year land supply to land Bank and then dump massive commuter housing estates on the outskirts of towns and villages without proper infrastructure investment.

Against the wishes of the local council, local plan and communities who are too often powerless. I want to make clear that I am not against housebuilding, nor all developers. We have excellent local developers in Norfolk, like able homes who build excellent homes and estates across many of my towns and villages. They aren't the problem. The problem is the rush to dump massive commuter estates on the outskirts of towns and villages, and the scale of new housing without adequate infrastructure investment. In 2020, my eyes were fully open to the scale of this.

When I spent that Christmas week helping villagers, village residents in my villages clear out sewage water from their houses, get on the telephone lines and try and get Anglian Water to get tankers to pump out the villages that continued. And in 2023, Mill Lane, Attleborough, was hit by a significant flooding event affecting 100 homes. Spare a thought please, for Lynn and Hans Short, who live next to the culvert which was, by the way, wrongly installed by Anglian Water before they handed over the riparian responsibilities.

Lynn and Hans have been flooded four out of the last five years and that's why I've set up the Mid Norfolk Flood Partnership, work with the county council to set up the Norfolk Strategic Flood Alliance, ably led by Henry Cater and Fiona Johnston, convened our first Norfolk flood summit last year and established and supported local flood action groups. My first instinct was not to come to Parliament or government for help, but to lead locally. But what has become very clear, not least through the case of Mill Lane, Attleborough, a case study where a culvert was built under the river in a inappropriately blocked with a grill that was never properly checked in, forces at the wrong angle.

It piles up waste flooding the houses next to it. We ended up having to put together a multi-agency task force. We removed 30 tons of debris from the whole river. There was an illegal housing development lower down the watercourse, inappropriate development and a lack of catchment work all the way through. It was a huge multi-agency project, but this is happening all over the country. Norfolk is only six out of the top ten inland flood counties, and that's why I think, Mr. Speaker, there are four new flooding appgs in this new Parliament.

MPs across the House recognise it and with new housebuilding targets, 1.5 million homes in the next three years, this is only going to get more serious. I pay tribute to the new flood Minister who I see is on her seat, Peter Bonfield for his flood review, and I welcome the CSR funding announcement of 2.6 billion for flood and coastal erosion management to protect 65,000 homes. The insurance sector tell us 18 million homes are at risk, 1 in 4 over the next 1015 years.

And this flooding is costing 66 billion a year to the economy. We won't solve this problem unless we really deal with the fundamental structural, systemic problems causing the misery and chaos around the country. Inland flooding often overlooked as funding goes to the higher profile coastal rivers, towns and cities. Serious lack of clear responsibilities. Mr. speaker, there are over 30 agencies in Norfolk alone who have responsibility for flooding the disempowering of local bodies such as the Internal Drainage Boards. Local flood authorities, with no power or funding, continue building on floodplains without adequate infrastructure.

No enforceable requirement to upgrade pre-existing drainage. No funding for those drainage upgrades. Because most section 106 money goes on important local services. Residents in district council areas with IDB flooding seeing their service funding cuts tons of data, but no proper mapping of where and when these floods are likely to happen. We have the technology and the data to do it. We don't use it. The vital flood re scheme limited in time and scope and set to expire and an insurance, mortgage and saleability time bomb in our housing market and nothing.

Sadly, in the recent planning bill despite multiple amendments including from the other House. So this bill that I'm introducing today has been designed with and around the advice of frontline bodies to tackle the practical reality of flood prevention in four key areas responsibilities funding, planning and national and local data and flood mapping. I've developed it in a spirit of non-partisan, practical politics to help and embolden the Minister to take this opportunity to make the key reforms essential to avoid a growing crisis worsening to calamitous levels.

I want to thank the many agencies and organisations in the water sector who have helped, in particular local residents Liz Whitcher in Walton, Hanson Lynn in Attleboro and many others too numerous to mention. My councillors, agencies like the Norfolk Flood Alliance and Aviva, a great local Norfolk insurance business on the front line of this crisis. But most of all, this is a bill shaped by and for those poor people up and down this country who, like Hans and Lynn Short at Mill Lane, Attleborough, live in fear of going through the hell of their homes being flooded through no fault of their own.

But because the system has failed them the planning, drainage, sewerage, insurance and flood prevention system has evolved without design. No single body or person is responsible. That's the problem. It's not fit for purpose today, let alone for the 1.5 million new homes set to be built in the next three years. We were all sent here to make the system work for the people who pay their taxes, pay our wages and expect us to deliver. We owe it to them, to the next generation, and to repairing public trust in our politics and this Parliament to fix it.

And this bill is designed to help the Minister do just that. And I commend it, Mr. speaker, to the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. Let the hon. Members have leave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Let the hon. Members have leave to bring in the bill. The question is that the hon. Member have leave is that the hon. Member have leave to bring in the bill. As many of that opinion say I the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Who will prepare to bring in the bill, sir? And Mr. Nick Timothy. Mr. Jerome

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And Mr. Nick Timothy. Mr. Jerome Mayhew. Mr. James Wild. Mr. Lee Pitcher. Mr. Helen Morgan. Mr. Roz Savage. Mr. Steff Aquarone. Mr. Adrian Ramsay. Mr. Blake Stephenson. Mr. Ben Spencer and myself, sir.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

George Freeman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Yeah. Flooding Bill. Second Reading what day? Friday, 10th of July, sir.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friday, 10th of July, sir. Friday the 10th of July. I thought you had your Wellingtons on Putney. Take care George. We now come to the opposition day motion on the British Indian Ocean Territory. I inform the House that I have not selected the amendments. I now call shadow Secretary of State Dame Priti Patel.
12:53
None Portrait Opposition Day Debate: British Indian Ocean Territory
-

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I beg to
12:53
Priti Patel Portrait Opposition Day Debate: British Indian Ocean Territory Rt Hon Priti Patel MP (Witham, Conservative)
-
-
move the motion that stands in my name and in the names of the honourable and right hon. Friends. Mr. speaker, Labour's 35 billion Chagos surrender deal is falling apart every single day, and it's apart every single day, and it's high time that the Prime Minister tore up this atrocious surrender treaty and put Britain's interests treaty and put Britain's interests and our defence first and our security first, and Britain's hard pressed taxpayers first. This side pressed taxpayers first. This side of the House has made it clear from day one at every opportunity to expose the deceit, falsehoods and foolishness of the approach taken by Labour.

Whether it's on international law arguments, the defence and security arguments, the costs arguments, the important self-determination arguments of the chagossian people standing up for their rights, and of course, the environmental arguments. It has been conservatives on this side of the House standing up for Britain's national interests and have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

unequivocally opposed this surrender treaty. I will give way. To Alec Shelbrooke. Tom Morrison friend and building

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tom Morrison friend and building and what she just said there. Is she not shocked that most Labour MPs cannot be bothered to turn up for this debate?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for this debate? And it's absolutely right. And, you know, I just think it demonstrates their disdain and contempt for the British people. contempt for the British people. Quite frankly, it really does. And while the Prime Minister and in fact, their various Ministers fact, their various Ministers travel the globe, it's pretty obvious that they all go around waving the white flag of surrender. They can sit there chuntering, but the British public can see exactly what's going on with this government. Weak, feeble and giving away their money.

Had the Prime Minister. So? So the Minister is chuntering about starting the negotiations. This deal is on him. It's on their government. It's on the Labour government. And you left your friends and your international law agreements. And perhaps you'd like to listen, because had the Prime Minister, you can sit there. Absolutely do listen because they may they may learn a few things. Today had the Prime Minister and his dear friend, the attorney General, perhaps you'd like to contribute to the debate. She perhaps put her name in to even speak.

Then I suggest you sit and listen. Had the Prime Minister and the Attorney general and the Foreign Secretary, Jonathan Powell, and the current and former former secretaries who are in foreign former secretaries in name, but only got their way then the Mauritian flag would already be flying over the Chagos Archipelago, and hundreds of millions of the 35 billion of taxpayers money would already be in the coffers, lining

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the coffers of a foreign government. I will give way. My friend. May I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I. Invite her to challenge the Minister to deal with the issue that the treaty which came into that the treaty which came into force, I think, in 2009, designed to prevent African nuclear proliferation, if we breach that treaty by means of this deal, it treaty by means of this deal, it will open up an opportunity for all kinds of hostile powers, including China and others, to site nuclear weapons in Africa. Do the government realise that? And I know, my hon.

Friend certainly does.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Absolutely. Right. And of course, again, it's this side of the house that's been raising this issue because been raising this issue because guess what? It gives succour and strength to Britain's enemies. So all the people basically that are working against us, China, Russia and on, you know, they'll be accelerating their plotting with their Mauritian friends on how to undermine the operationalisation of the military base at Diego Garcia

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the military base at Diego Garcia and exert their influence in the Indo-Pacific at the expense of all our interests. I will give way. I command Shadow Minister and indeed the Conservatives for bringing forward for the consistent focus on what they're trying to do. But does the shadow Minister share the concerns over the long term guarantee for the UK and the right to extend the military lease and the right of access within the treaty, and the fact that this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

essential base can never have no ambiguity attached to it in any way. Is absolutely right. And this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is absolutely right. And this speaks to the fundamental point about the capitulation, the surrender, the way in which this surrender, the way in which this government has worked night and day. We see we see it now in terms of working against Britain and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

working against Britain and Britain's interests. And that is unforgivable. I will give way right. On. Right on. The friend who I must say, is making an excellent start to this attack on the government. But I will ask you this simple question which shouldn't we also dig a little bit deeper as to some of the linkages between, say, the Prime Minister and some of his earlier colleagues to learn that Philippe Sands, who was representing the Mauritian government, had a deal done with the Russians over Crimea in which he assured them, I understand that the granting of independence and ownership for Mauritius would not impinge on their right to stay in Crimea, which brought them to vote and support this.

Doesn't that look to you, like to my right hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friend and to myself as absolute method traitor? Yes. The right hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friend has made his point very clearly. This is a government that effectively is not standing up for effectively is not standing up for our values, our interests, or even making any effort whatsoever to demonstrate that it's on the side demonstrate that it's on the side of our national security. And fundamentally, this is what it's been all about. And, Mr. Speaker, you will absolutely know it's been you will absolutely know it's been the diligent work and the scrutiny of conservatives in this House and in the other place that has led the government being forced to pause in this surrender through our diligent diplomatic engagement with the US administration, asking over 400 parliamentary questions to opposition day debates.

And thanks to you, Mr. Speaker. Urgent Question after Urgent Question here to demand answers which they never provide, they only hide. This is all thanks to this government shameful and outright contempt of Parliament and the British public. We have proudly made representations on behalf of the Chagossian people. Not only have they been betrayed, Mr. Speaker, but they're also now being threatened in Britain, and their family members are now being intimidated by people associated with the government of Mauritius, who seem to be learning how to conduct transnational repression from the Chinese Communist Party.

Friends, this Labour government will go down, will go down in history for many, many terrible things. And they can now add to that list of shame the repression and betrayal of the Chagossian people. Labour must rethink their deeply corrosive policy, which is putting our security and the safety of the Chagossian people at risk. But instead we have a weak and feeble Prime Minister currently on his knees in Beijing, who will do anything possible to push through this deal, a deal that has been constructed and negotiated by his left wing international lawyer friends, whose views he seems to value much more than the British people and the Chagossian community.

And Mr. Speaker, we all know how this has gone completely wrong. The Prime Minister can take a different course, and it's gone wrong, because this surrender is completely unnecessary, because as this side of the House knows, it's based on an on an advisory opinion, and Ministers have failed to give convincing answers as to why we will accept this. There is no answer on what enforcement mechanisms would exist. So tell us today, please, other than some hypothetical comments about the electromagnetic spectrum and the ITU.

Mr. speaker, we not only have a government of incompetent politicians, it's a government of incompetent lawyers. And in the words of President Trump, Labour is surrendering sovereignty for no reason whatsoever. But it's not just the fact that they are misinterpreting international law. Given that this Labour government's obsession with international law, it is surprising and shocking to see that they've overlooked essential detail. Mr. speaker, very important detail. This detail in the 1966 UK US Exchange of notes, which is now the third time I've brought this to the Dispatch Box in just the last week, the 1966 treaty with the USA, which establishes the military base on Diego Garcia.

And it states, for the avoidance of any doubt in this House or even any ignorance on behalf of the benches opposite the territory, and that's the whole of the British Indian Ocean territory shall remain under British sovereignty. Subject to the provision are set out below the islands as all of the Chagos Islands, not just Diego Garcia, shall be made available to meet the needs of both governments for defence. This is a legally binding treaty between the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

Regarding the British Indian Ocean Territory and any attempt for the UK to surrender sovereignty over Biot violates international law. And yet, when the government signed and published their treaty on the 22nd of May last year and then published their surrender bill, there wasn't a single mention of the treaty. In the treaty. All the bill of any of these explanatory notes, all the need for the exchange of notes. So on Monday, in response to the urgent question, the Minister for the Overseas Territory said we have been clear throughout that before the UK can ratify the treaty, we'll need to do the following pass primary and secondary legislation update the UK, US agreement, the exchange of notes and put in place agreements on environment, marine protection, security, migration and this was not mentioned in any of the documents accompanying the legislation, let alone the treaty.

And when we questioned this in both houses, Ministers have merely mentioned talks are ongoing to update the UK. US exchange of letters as exchange of notes was not even referred to in any of their company documents for the legislation. I think this House deserves an explanation. When did these talks begin? What is the status of these talks? What is the timescale for making changes? Have the Americans raised concerns that the exchange of notes were not part of the original discussions with the US government last year, when the Prime Minister said the US supported the treaty, and why was the government? Why did they try to force through this surrender bill without confirming the future of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this exchange of knows? I will give way. Give way? Because the key question on this part is negotiations may well be ongoing, but this rests on whether the UK can make a unilateral decision to can make a unilateral decision to give sovereignty away without the blessing of the US. Now I pose this question. It was posed three times question. It was posed three times on Monday and the Minister simply said it's in discussion, so the Ministers need to answer directly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

today. Can this be done unilaterally or not? Well, this is the perfect.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Debate, an opportunity for the government. And perhaps the Minister would like to intervene right now. And I'm very, very happy for her to answer that question. And I think and I think just shortly and I think there is also another question, has the American administration questioned why the British government, the United Kingdom, would want to give up Kingdom, would want to give up sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory and in doing so, violate international law? For once, violate international law? For once, the Minister just needs to be straightforward and give precise answers to what are precise questions that these benches have, because the government has continuously failed to do so.

And by the way, British taxpayers rightly want an explanation as to why their taxes should line the pockets of the government of Mauritius without further proper scrutiny and disclosure and transparency that they deserve. So perhaps the Minister can tell us what exactly did the national security adviser, Mr. Powell, and the former ambassador, Lord Mandelson, do we remember him? What did they tell the US administration about the surrender treaty? It is well known that the government is run by its friends and cronies.

And it's also well known that Jonathan Powell, a friend of China, accelerated the negotiations when he was appointed envoy in September 2024. And frankly, can anyone in this House really trust anything that Lord Mandelson would have been involved in? I think that's definitely a question for the government. I will, of course, give.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Way with the right hon. Lady agree that we stand at a critical point, not just for this nation, point, not just for this nation, but for the United States of America, and that they, too, should have regard to the fact that up to have regard to the fact that up to this point, the islands are under the control of a nuclear power with the control of a nuclear power with a navy. And this proposition, this treaty, would hand them over to a treaty, would hand them over to a country over a thousand miles away with no navy.

And doesn't that create an obvious geopolitical vacuum to which we are all vulnerable? And shouldn't the Americans in particular be very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wary of that? Well, my friend. Absolutely. As he has many times actually

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As he has many times actually spot on. He really is. And, you know, I think this is exactly why the Minister today has this marvellous opportunity to explain marvellous opportunity to explain to the House and also to the British public, because let's not forget President Trump, the forget President Trump, the commander in chief said that the UK is giving away extremely important land. It's an act of great land. It's an act of great stupidity. I think this House would agree with those comments.

There is no doubt that China and Russia have noted this act of total weakness. Has there been any Minister to Minister engagement with the US administration? Has the Prime Minister directly spoken to the president on this matter before he kowtow to China? I asked this very question here on Monday, but the Minister, who is not here today, could not answer this question. So it's a new opportunity for the Minister for the Indo-Pacific to tell us, is it a yes or no? And on that point as well, it's worth asking, should there be a change in the proposed US UK treaty, will this come to Parliament, do the 21 day crack process? Because again, we ask this on Monday and the Minister refused to answer the question, so what are they trying to hide? Because Labour failed to provide this House with the scrutiny under the previous process.

So it's clear that they're happy to give away the sovereign territory and billions in taxpayers money without being held to account. And given the Labour government's abject failure to clarify these points, it took conservatives in the other place to take action which led to the pause of this treaty. But instead of showing some humility, transparency and commitment to engage in proper scrutiny, Labour have sought to gaslight its critics. And, by the way, the British public, with a spokesperson from the government telling the media this is irresponsible, reckless behaviour by peers blaming peers, conservative crossbenchers and others down there for doing their job diligently is.

Another new low from a Labour government seeking to undermine accountability, democracy, scrutiny and accountability. So when the junior Minister for the Indo-Pacific responds, I hope she will respond on behalf of this feeble Labour government and apologise to the British people for their appalling and discredited

**** Possible New Speaker ****

conduct, I will give. Way to my right hon. Friend and like her, I'm proud of the role that conservative peers have played in the other place. But can we also take a moment to pay credit to backbench Labour MPs? Because I think it's important to note, Mr. Speaker, they're not here. Literally. Practically the only person scribbling is the Member for Rugby, who I admire a great deal. But loyalist, he is to his very core. If if he's practically the only person who's prepared to speak up, the truth is they've moved with their feet and they now agree with my right hon.

Friend, this deal has to go.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just want to. Thank and commend my right hon. Friend for his intervention, because he's actually highlighted a because he's actually highlighted a lot of things. And in the interest of time, because we've got a lot of colleagues that do want to speak as colleagues that do want to speak as well. You know, it's just worth pointing out. Yes, they'll have a few of their, their sort of the ones that like to climb the greasy ones that like to climb the greasy pole.

I think there is one that's not here today, who's now the trade envoy for Mauritius, because he did envoy for Mauritius, because he did speak up so frequently for the government. But of course, ultimately this is about the security and the defence of our country. And when it looks well known and the government has a lot of questions to answer, it really has, because the remarks of the government have been absolutely shameful when it comes to their feeble defence of this entire process.

It really has, whether it's on China and the relationship, not just they have with China, but the government of Mauritius has with China as well. Completely misleading remarks about China and Mauritius, when it's this side of the House that has constantly called out the cosy relationship. And I've even brought some press cuttings here for the Minister, who may as Minister for the Indo-Pacific. She may have seen this already, but I would advise her to read the Chinese Foreign Affairs Ministry website because it's a weekly diary now of their friendly relationship with the government of Mauritius on the Pelindaba treaty.

We've already heard on this side of the House the comments about what this now means. We think it's absolutely wrong to inhibit and restrict our ability when it comes to stationing nuclear deterrent on Diego Garcia. And it's right that this side of the House continues to question this all. And on the money, let's just discuss the money, Mr. Speaker, and I will close my remarks shortly. It is an absolute disgrace that this House has not had full disclosure around the money.

It's in the public interest for Ministers to tell the truth, to be held to account, and to stop hiding the true cost behind literally misrepresenting the positions of the OBR and the government's actuary department. That's just utterly shameful. So, Mr. Speaker, today Labour MPs have an opportunity to join with us. They're all in hiding because they're embarrassed about this and stop this surrender. They can tell their constituents that they voted to save a British territory from being lost, stood up for our defence and security, voted to save £35 billion from being handed over to a foreign government.

Disgracefully, while their taxes at home go up and public services are squeezed and voted to defend the rights of the Chagossians. Or they can be sleepwalk through the division lobbies like sheep defending the indefensible. And back in another Labour weak policy and failure of their enfeebled Prime Minister. Mr. speaker, conservatives have opposed this deal from day one at every stage, and we will continue to do so. We'll fight to kill this bill in order to defend British sovereignty and, of course, defend Britain's pride and national interest.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. The question is on the Order Paper, Minister Seema Malhotra.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Paper, Minister Seema Malhotra. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, and it is a pleasure to respond to this debate pleasure to respond to this debate today. And perhaps let me start by saying that the government opposes saying that the government opposes the motion introduced by the opposition today. The treaty guarantees the full UK operational control of Diego Garcia for
13:11
Seema Malhotra Portrait Seema Malhotra MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Feltham and Heston, Labour )
-
-
generations to come. The motion proposes. I will just make some remarks first. The motion proposes remarks first. The motion proposes a wildly exaggerated cost, in contrast to the actual costings published by this government at the published by this government at the time of the treaty's introduction, verified by the Independent Government Actuary's Department. This motion invokes an exchange of notes which the government has notes which the government has publicly confirmed is being updated with our US partners, and it attempts to bind parliamentary procedure on that exchange, despite it not having yet been finalised.

This isn't patriotic, it is political point scoring at the expense of our national security. A sad indictment of what the official

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opposition have become. I will give. Way. Minister giving way. She refers to the issue of the numbers, the to the issue of the numbers, the cost. Does she agree with me that the government has actually confirmed that the number is over

**** Possible New Speaker ****

£34 billion? No. And I will say as well that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No. And I will say as well that I will take no, no truck from reform who frankly have no record on supporting security of our country, especially with what's happened in Wales. And and I will continue with my remarks. Thank you very much. And I will if the opposition may the opposition may not want to hear this. The opposition may not want to hear this. But the Tories back negotiations over Chagos every step of the way. 85% of the Chagos negotiations took place under the Conservatives, led by the former foreign secretary.

And indeed, they may not want to hear this, but I think it's important to share. They may not want to hear this, but I think it's important to share. And in November 2022, the former foreign secretary said that through negotiations, through negotiations,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

aren't they? I think I think a lot of people are interested in the. Past order. Can I just.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I just. Say the two front benches. Either intervened. Each other, not having this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Each other, not having this running battle. Seema Malhotra thank you. Mr.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will just make I will make slight progress and then I will give way to the right hon. give way to the right hon. Gentleman. The and indeed the former Foreign Secretary did say in November 2022 that taking into account relevant legal proceedings is our intention to secure an agreement on the basis of international law to resolve all outstanding issues. In February last year, a spokesperson for the Leader of the Opposition insisted she understood negotiations over the islands were needed due to the international legal position and the current Leader of the Opposition.

They might have not remembered who she is, but she is still in her post. I believe she may not have. She may defer to reform. No, but what I will say is that there has been ample and this is a serious point. There has been ample time for debate on this topic. Indeed. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, the Minister for Overseas Territories, debated this for over two hours last week and for 45 minutes on Monday for an urgent question.

Baroness Chapman, of Darlington, has spent hours debating the topic in the other place, including delivering an urgent question. Repeat on Monday. We have committed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very grateful and. A little worried. That she's confusing. The issue of Ministers coming to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The issue of Ministers coming to the Dispatch Box and not answering questions with proper scrutiny of questions with proper scrutiny of what's going on. So here's a very specific question for her. She has specific question for her. She has heard previously about the Pelindaba treaty. Now Mauritius is Pelindaba treaty. Now Mauritius is a signatory, and that means all the signatories declare their territory to be nuclear free zones effectively. So if in the future, the Americans, with our agreement and approval, wish to have some nuclear weapons permanently or temporarily in the base at Diego Garcia, will they be able to do so? If Mauritius has sovereignty over

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the islands? Alison Hume I thank the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Alison Hume I thank the hon. Member, right hon. Member, for his for his comments. And the answer to that is has been set out and I will that is has been set out and I will be laying it out has been set out as well by Lord Coaker. The answer is the answer is yes. And and it is is the answer is yes. And and it is has been set out by Lord Coaker as well in the House. And I will be well in the House.

And I will be coming on to that in my in my remarks as well. But I will just say there has been questions from the, the opposition today, Mr. Speaker, about the legal matters behind this treaty. It is important to say that Mauritius. Mauritius legal claim of sovereignty over the island of Diego Garcia is supported by a number of international institutions, including the UN General Assembly. The International Court of Justice considered this an issue in the advisory opinion delivered in February.

I will give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way. I understand further to my hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I understand further to my hon. Friend's point that the Prime Minister of Mauritius has made it clear yesterday that he would not clear yesterday that he would not allow or agree to the placing of any nuclear weapons on the islands. Now, can she please answer? Then

**** Possible New Speaker ****

how can they reassure the USA that? I. I will be coming on to this in my in my remarks. I will be coming on to this in, in in my remarks as, as well. And that is important. I will be coming up just in my remarks and in relation to, in relation to the. I do want to finish the point on the legal points that have been raised, that what that what was said in relation to this by the International Court of Justice in the advisory opinion, is it does carry significant weight and in particular, it's likely to be influential on any subsequent court or tribunal considering the issues arising out of disputed sovereignty and whose judgement would be binding in international law.

The ICJ, I will finish my remarks on this. The ICJ concluded that the United Kingdom is under an obligation to bring to an end its advisory, its administration of the Chagos, Aki Lago, as rapidly as possible. The. You might want to listen to the next bit. The. The 2019 advisory opinion was followed in 2021 by a special chamber of the International Tribunal for the law of the sea, in a case about delimitation of the boundary between Mauritius and the Maldives, which which ruled that Mauritius sovereignty was inferred from the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ICJ determination. To give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Who is just? Who are you giving way to Minister? There's three of them

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister? There's three of them thinking it's them. Minister. Specifically on this point, that 2021 judgement did not have any 2021 judgement did not have any British representation and rested on the UN's non-binding judgement. on the UN's non-binding judgement. We also know from the 2015 ruling that that court cannot preside over sovereignty. So how does that stand up to the scrutiny that she's saying there is a dire need to hand these islands over. there?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. I, I thank the hon. Member for his comments. He will know that his comments. He will know that these these matters have been shared before in the House, but I perhaps may remind him I perhaps perhaps may remind him I perhaps may remind him what US Secretary Hegseth has said as well, that the UK's very important deal with UK's very important deal with Mauritius secures the operational

**** Possible New Speaker ****

capabilities of the base and key. Travelled. No doubt travels. Just to keep wondering, you've asked the question again and answer I don't need to run it. No, no, I wouldn't bother giving me a backchat please, I don't need the running commentary. Just let's calm it down a little. It doesn't look

**** Possible New Speaker ****

good on TV, Minister. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will just remind the hon. Member what just remind the hon. Member what the US Secretary Greg Smith has said, which is that the UK is very important. Deal with Mauritius, important. Deal with Mauritius, secures the operational capabilities of the base and key US capabilities of the base and key US national security interests in the region. We are confident the base

**** Possible New Speaker ****

region. We are confident the base is protected for many years to come. On that specific. Point, I, I will just continue with my remarks and I'm certainly able to to to give way shortly. And it is therefore, as well, the UK's long standing legal view that if Mauritius challenged us again in the courts, we would struggle to defend our position, our Indo Pacific foothold and the operation of the base could be put at risk within weeks.

That's why the government remains fully committed to the deal to secure the joint UK US base on Diego Garcia, which is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

vital for our national security. I'm happy to. Well, I'm very. Grateful to. You, Mr. Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is a fundamental point. The most sensitive part of our military is the nuclear deterrent. It is critical to the defence of It is critical to the defence of ourselves and of our allies, the United States, also nuclear armed. We are a naval nuclear nation. This We are a naval nuclear nation. This is a critical naval base. In strategic terms. Mr Speaker at Diego Garcia. Can I ask the hon. Lady, yesterday it was reported that the Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius, Mr.

Berenger, had declared that nuclear weapons could not be stored on Mauritius if sovereignty is restored to them. Does she understand that that is the case?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She'll be coming. I thank the Shadow Minister and and as a matter of long standing policy, he will know and he will know also in relation to his know also in relation to his previous work in, in, in Parliament government, that we do not comment government, that we do not comment on operational matters or in relation to locations of nuclear relation to locations of nuclear weapons. Point the opposition knows, if I may make some comments on the on the treaty, on the on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

relation to treaty. Point of order Graham Stuart. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On a point of order, the Minister said that she was going to address the issue of whether nuclear weapons could go to Diego Garcia, and now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

could go to Diego Garcia, and now those. No, no no, no, no, you're on the chairman. No, just just you're on chairman. No, just just you're on the chairman's panel. You know, it's not even a point of order. It's not even the start of one. It's not even the start of one. What are you doing? He's trying to continue the debate without even being able to speak. I'm sure you're on the list. You get the point of this, Minister.
13:23
13:25
Seema Malhotra Portrait Seema Malhotra MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Feltham and Heston, Labour )
-
-
the full operation of the base, and we indeed have agreed with the we indeed have agreed with the Mauritian government that nothing in the treaty. This is an agreement in the treaty. This is an agreement with the Mauritian government that we've agreed this with the Mauritian government, that nothing Mauritian government, that nothing in the treaty conflicts with our respective commitments and are absolutely clear that we can continue to operate the base as we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have done and do so. Now. On that. Point, I'm going to just continue with my remarks. I have given way. I've been very generous given way. I've been very generous in giving way. No, I will continue with my remarks. What was that? Sorry, Fred. OK. Is that in order,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. Speaker? It's getting touchy. We don't want it to get touchy. I want it to want it to get touchy. I want it to be tolerant. Respectful. It's up to the Minister whether she wishes to give way. Actually, it is in order. It's been used from this side as well. So please, let's not forget our memories. And it's a bit like the idea of where we are now,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Given the security risks, this government, the security risks, this government, like the government before it made the decision to negotiate with the decision to negotiate with Mauritius to secure a deal to protect the base and to protect the protect the base and to protect the UK. Our agreement ensures full operational control of Diego Garcia, operational control of Diego Garcia, a 24 nautical mile buffer zone where nothing can be built or placed without UK consent.

A rigorous process, including joint decision making to prevent any activities on the wider island, some over 100 nautical miles away from disrupting base operations. Full UK control over the presence of full UK control over the presence of foreign security forces on the outer islands where the civilian or military, and a binding obligation to ensure the operation of the base is never undermined. I'm just going to continue with my remarks at the moment and as I as I have said, we are confident that nothing in this treaty conflicts with our abilities to uphold international law and to be able to continue to operate the base as we do today.

Now, I want to move on to talk about the UK, US relationship. We have been clear that before the UK can ratify the treaty, we will need to do the following. Pass primary and secondary legislation update the UK, US exchange of notes and put in place arrangements on the environment, maritime security and migration. This government considers it our duty to protect the public. Therefore, it is our duty to pursue this agreement with clarity and resolve and we will not put party politics ahead of national security as we are seeing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the opposition do today. On that. We have made very strong

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We have made very strong progress. We have made very strong progress towards finalising and progress towards finalising and updating outdated UK, US agreement and will reach an agreement on it before the agreement between the United Kingdom and Mauritius concerning the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia, is ratified. These matters are under negotiation, under negotiation, and so it remains to be determined whether any updated agreement will be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

subject to ratification, and we will keep Parliament informed about this. I will give. Great thank you, Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Great thank you, Minister. For giving way. I listen to the criteria that she expressed before ratification is possible. Is ratification is possible. Is American Agreement one of the criteria that she considers essential?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

essential? I thank the hon. Member for his question. Indeed, he will have question. Indeed, he will have heard me say that before the UK can ratify the treaty, we will need to do the following, which is pass primary legislation and secondary legislation. Update the UK, US exchange of notes and put in place arrangements on the environment, maritime security and migration. And it is important I will continue with my remarks on this. I do I do want to finish shortly.

The strength of the deal and the protection of national security is exactly why the US endorsed the deal last year, and why Secretary of State Rubio called it a monumental achievement. This agreement safeguards the interests of both the United Kingdom and the United States well into the next century. I will briefly turn to costs because a financial contribution over the 99 years was always necessary to safeguard the operation of such a vital base. We published comprehensive detail on the payment schedule alongside the treaty.

This was laid in the House within minutes of the signature of the treaty. The figures used by the government were verified by the Independent Government Actuary's Department, in line with standard accounting practices, those who seek to imply that the government has misled the public on this do so without the facts. So let me set those out first. The Office of Statistics Regulation welcomed the government's approach to setting out the methodology and confirm that it is in line with the principles of intelligent transparency.

Second, the office for Budget Responsibility has confirmed that the discount rates used by the government were the reasonable ones to use. Thirdly, the figures have been verified by the House of Commons Library and scrutinised by BBC Verify and The Independent. All these confirmed that the government calculated the figures correctly, but beyond the numbers is also important to, as this House has done, to debate the the the challenges that have been raised in relation to the Chagossian community, and rightly so.

They are a vibrant and diverse community that is now seeing the opposition's political tactics. The same opposition who, after ruling out resettlement for the Chagossians, ruling out resettlement for the Chagossians and committing to a £40 million package they want to answer about ruling out resettlement for the Chagossians and committing to a £40 million package of support in 2016, succeeded in spending just £1.6 million by the time this government came into power. And since coming into power, I will just conclude my remarks.

I'm sorry, I have taken a number of interventions today. Since coming into power, this government has been clear on its deep regret for the way in which Chagossians were removed from the island and sought to recognise the wide range of views within the Chagossian community and remain committed to building a relationship with the Chagossian community that is built on respect and an acknowledgement of the wrongs of the past. We have established a contact group to give Chagossians a greater say in UK government support to their communities, and are in the process of enhancing that group.

As Baroness Chapman committed to doing. In the other place, FCDO officials have engaged with Chagossian individuals and groups over 30 times and they are regular regularly in conversation with the Minister for the Overseas Territories. So, in conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, this deal was right and essential to do. It protects our national interest. It defends our national security, it protects the Diego Garcia base from legal threat. It supports the Chagossian community and preserves the unique environment in the archipelago.

We know that the best way to do that is to pursue this deal. And it is time the opposition realised, or should I say

**** Possible New Speaker ****

remembered that to. Day I call the Liberal Democrat

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Day I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson Calum Miller. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The process for negotiating this treaty with the government of Mauritius has been utterly shambolic since it began under the shambolic since it began under the last government. For one of the most striking aspects of this entire process has been the
13:34
Calum Miller Portrait Calum Miller MP (Bicester and Woodstock, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
entire process has been the confected consternation of the Conservatives. Despite having accepted the need for negotiations in the first place while in government, and continued these throughout their time in office. Never yet is clear that this Labour government has also tied itself in knots by failing to first finalise negotiations with the United States, linked to Diego Garcia. This has created new and fundamental problems with the government's bill. There are now serious questions about whether the treaty would undermine the UK's other international obligations.

So will the government take on board the Liberal Democrat amendment and the other place, and commit to securing a firm assessment of the position of the US in relation to the Diego Garcia military base before any further attempts to progress its

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill. honourable. Member for giving way. He is really talking about some of the key issues here in relation to the US and its agreement. In relation to remarks from the US. I remember being contacted by my friend on the morning her brother was injured severely in an IED explosion in severely in an IED explosion in Afghanistan, and I have had many constituents in touch with me who are deeply angry about the remarks are deeply angry about the remarks of President Trump in relation to our service personnel.

Does he agree with me that the rowing back is not sufficient, and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

president needs to give an apology to British service personnel? I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. Donald Trump's remarks about NATO troops were untrue and deeply offensive, were untrue and deeply offensive, and I welcome the robust response from parties across this House to them. Yet there was no apology. We them. Yet there was no apology. We deserve an apology from the US president. And Liberal Democrats have called on the Prime Minister have called on the Prime Minister to summon the US ambassador to offer an explanation for these remarks, and an apology to the veterans affected and to the families of the 457 brave personnel who paid the ultimate sacrifice in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fighting alongside US forces in Afghanistan. He's making a number of very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He's making a number of very serious points here. Does he see, as I do, a sort of parallel between as I do, a sort of parallel between President Trump's behaviour over that egregious issue about NATO that egregious issue about NATO troops not allegedly being in the front line, and this issue about front line, and this issue about Diego Garcia, because the fact is, he makes certain comments and then when confronted with the truth, he has to try and elaborate on them.

And even if he won't go so far as to say that dreaded words, I'm sorry, isn't that what's happening here? The Americans did not realise the extent to which giving up sovereignty over the base would compromise their military situation, and we have not heard anything to say that Mauritius couldn't stop any nuclear weapons ever in future.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Being on Diego Garcia. Hon. Gentleman for his intervention. But I was in the intervention. But I was in the chamber on Monday when the same gentleman made the remark that it gentleman made the remark that it was a fine aspect of joint working between reform and the Conservatives to bring this view from Donald Trump about. I do not from Donald Trump about. I do not think it is appropriate for the leader of the Reform Party to be whispering in the ears of the US president to upset negotiations.

And I think the right hon. Member is making a brave point when he appears to suggest that the fact that the US president has moved in one direction recently means that it will be sustained in the future. That notwithstanding, it is the case that the US president has made these recent remarks about the Chagos Islands, and we will have to take those into consideration the progress of this Bill. We need to reflect on the other outstanding problems. However, with the government's proposed legislation, since the start of debates over the treaty, Liberal Democrats have been the only party consistently championing the rights of Chagossians.

That stands in contrast to the government's lack of substantive engagement with the Chagossian community. Chagossians have been denied a meaningful say in their future, and the provisions of the treaty shamefully fail to affirm their rights. But this is not only a failing of the government. Indeed, despite the remarks of the shadow Foreign Secretary, the motion we are debating today in her name includes not a single reference to the Chagossian community, something that is addressed in the amendment in the name of in my name on behalf of my party.

And I hear the shadow Defence Secretary asking if I listen to the Foreign Secretary to Shadow Foreign Secretary speech, I did indeed. The point I'm making is that when the Conservatives had the opportunity to provide the bases for their objection to this bill, they did not once mention the rights of the Chagossian community. And it is clear that those rights are just as low a priority for the Conservatives as they are for the government. When Liberal Democrats proposed an amendment to the bill at Third Reading in this House that would have provided for a referendum of the Chagossian people, the Conservatives failed to back it and the government opposed it even at this late stage.

However, I want to encourage the government to reconsider its position. There remains a window of opportunity for the government to support the rights of Chagossians and buck the historic trend of this community being left out of decisions about their future. So will the government support a second Liberal Democrat amendment in the other place, requiring binding guarantees from the Government of Mauritius for the rights of Chagossians? Another outstanding issue remains the question of money. The government is proposing to send billions of pounds to Mauritius, despite having what appears to be zero monitoring, evaluation or recall mechanisms built into the treaty.

It is frankly inconceivable that the government would oppose the introduction of such measures and fail to support the principle that the UK should be able to cease future payments to Mauritius if the treaty is deemed to no longer support the UK security, so will the government back a third Liberal Democrat amendment in the other place, introducing meaningful and effective safeguards around the proposed vast sums of public funds due to be sent to Mauritius with the please.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On this particular point that he's making, it is really important point because the government has point because the government has said that it has cleared this with the OBR, but the reality is that the actuaries are very clear about the actuaries are very clear about what they say. The only way you can calculate this, you cannot calculate it on the basis of what calculate it on the basis of what happens in Mauritius with social issues and with inflation. That is ridiculous. You have to calculate ridiculous.

You have to calculate it on the basis that the agreement you made gives you a total at the end, which is 34.7 billion. Is he not agree that dodging around that really is a low position for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government to take over? I thank the rest. Of the way I think about it, the government is proposing to write 99 years worth proposing to write 99 years worth of checks to the Mauritius that the Mauritians will be able to cash over that period. It only stands to reason that this Parliament should reason that this Parliament should be able to scrutinise such a large amount of expenditure during the duration of the treaty, in order duration of the treaty, in order that there is some accountability for these funds.

As things stand. Madam Deputy Speaker, this deal Madam Deputy Speaker, this deal appears to be going the way of the dodo, another redundant creature that originated in Mauritius. I implore the government to listen to the concerns raised across this House and recognise that the Bill, in its current form, is not fit for purpose.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I feel. I should say at the beginning. And put on record that I'm not the government's trade envoy to Mauritius. Yes. And so I can record Mauritius. Yes. And so I can record a diplomatic silence at that point. Madam Speaker, this debate ultimately turns on whether we understand the world as it is, not as we might wish it to be. As much as some believe otherwise. We still as some believe otherwise. We still live in an interconnected, economically, militarily, politically, morally world, and that interconnectedness has not gone away.

It's become more contested, it's become more multi,
13:42
Tim Roca Portrait Tim Roca MP (Macclesfield, Labour)
-
-
more multipolar and certainly more strategic. But it hasn't ended. And that matters because this deal must be judged not on slogans or hyperbole, but on whether it's secures the United Kingdom's security interests in that interconnected world. Now, one of the central lessons of recent years the central lessons of recent years is that uncertainty invites challenge. We see that every day in challenge. We see that every day in the South China Sea, China has asserted expansive territorial claims that many countries do not recognise the international courts and tribunals do not recognise, and what happens in response.

Other states deliberately sail ships and fly aircraft through those waters and airspace to contest those claims and to test resolve. Uncertainty becomes a pressure point and ambiguity becomes an opportunity for interference. And so if we allow ambiguity to persist over the Chagos and in particular, Diego Garcia, the same dynamic could apply. Our claims may be strong historically, but they are being increasingly contested in international courts, and that doesn't make the base more secure. It makes it more vulnerable.

It creates exactly the kind of grey zone in which hostile actors thrive, including an ever expanding Chinese navy. This treaty removes that uncertainty. It closes off the space for challenge rather than leaving it open. I'm happy to give way to Monmouthshire.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mistake he makes is in buying into China's narrative that there is a grey zone in the South China is a grey zone in the South China Sea. There is no grey zone. There shouldn't be there. They don't care less. They go anyway. So the idea that some agreement we meet the Mauritius agree with is going to start China acting at a later date. It's complete nonsense as they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's complete nonsense as they prove all the time in the South China Sea every day. Yeah. I thank the hon. Member for his point. I do disagree with him. The point. I do disagree with him. The two situations do have parallels in the South China Sea. People are challenging China's sovereignty, and it's been proved not to have standing in international courts. Now, at the moment, ambiguity is starting to arrive in our position over the Chagos Islands. This treaty would remove it and remove cause for the Chinese navy to take advantage.

And against that, against that backdrop, allow me to make some headway. If that's all right. Against that backdrop, I want to restate the tests that I set out in an earlier debate on this deal. Does the agreement protect our national security? Does it command the support of our allies and professional security community? Are the costs proportionate to the benefits? And on each of these tests, the answer remains yes. Diego Garcia is a keystone of our joint security architecture in the Indo-Pacific. It's where UK and US forces operate together against terrorist threats.

It's a logistics, communications and intelligence hub and it is central to safeguarding global trade routes on which our economy depends. Without a secure base, all of that is placed at risk. Our Five Eyes allies in Canada, Australia and New Zealand support this deal. Our strategic partner, India supports this deal and I want to address briefly the noise around President Trump's social media post. I think the Minister dealt with it very well earlier. Social media is not statecraft. What matters is the settled position of the United States, its military leadership and its security agencies.

And on that, for some time there has been clarity. The Pentagon, the State Department and successive US defence secretaries, Republican and Democrat, have supported this agreement. As I said at the beginning, interconnectedness is incredibly important, and we cannot ignore that international opinion matters. Yes, the world has changed. Power today is exercised through force, and that's become incredibly important. Hard power has become important, but also still through legitimacy, alliances and rules. If we expect others to respect international rules where it suits us, whether in Ukraine or the South China Sea, we cannot be seen to apply it selectively elsewhere, except in the supreme national interest the treaty secures.

Happy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to give way to my honourable the hon. Member. Of the hon. Gentleman, his courteous and thoughtful, and I courteous and thoughtful, and I always listen to what he says with great focus and attention. Does he great focus and attention. Does he accept, however, that we have his criticising the the dangers of criticising the the dangers of ambiguity? And I agree with that point. Does he accept, however, that we haven't cleared up the that we haven't cleared up the ambiguity about whether nuclear weapons could ever be on Diego Garcia if the Americans and the British wanted them to be? It is no good saying.

As his frontbench spokesman, the Minister said, we never talk about deployments of nuclear weapons. We're not asking about deployments of nuclear weapons. We're asking about the legal position. If the case was that the Americans or the British wanted to have some nuclear weapons temporarily or permanently on Diego Garcia, if we transfer sovereignty to a country that is signed up to be part of a nuclear free zone, that is bound to call into doubt the ability to have nuclear weapons there in the future? Can he clear up that point?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I can clear up that at that point for him, I have good I have great confidence I have good I have great confidence that ministerial colleagues would, but we have been told at all points that this treaty will ensure the continued effectiveness of the base continued effectiveness of the base in the way that it's run now. There was an Ohio class submarine there in 2022, and I hope those arrangements continue under this treaty. And there's no reason, from what I've heard from Ministers, that it wouldn't.

And let's turn to that it wouldn't. And let's turn to the costs of the deal as well. It costs a fraction of the defence Budget for an irreplaceable asset, and I can't see any interventions that I thought there might be happy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to give away to one. Could the hon. Member clarify precisely how much of the cost of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

precisely how much of the cost of the Chagos Islands deal will come from the Ministry of Defence Budget? My Honourable the hon. Member,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Honourable the hon. Member, I'm sure that's been set out already in several debates. I think the point I think the point that hasn't been set out though hasn't been set out though adequately and of course it can't, it can't be set out in huge detail. But in exchange for providing the But in exchange for providing the United States with facilities on Diego Garcia, the in-kind support in terms of intelligence and other matters that we receive from the United States must run into the billions every single year.

And although that can't, you can't put a figure on that. I do think that's a really important element in this debate. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, there isn't a prosperity without security. There isn't security without certainty. And in an interconnected world, those are not abstract principles. They're strategic necessities. That's why, in my view, this is a sensible, hard headed deal and a confident assertion of the United Kingdom's national interest.
13:49
Andrew Murrison Portrait Rt Hon Dr Andrew Murrison MP (South West Wiltshire, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you. OK. >> Thank you. Yeah. >> What a what a pleasure it is to be called so soon. >> I'm very grateful to you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to you. My goodness me, I do feel sorry for the Minister being wheeled out to defend the indefensible. I have to defend the indefensible. I have to say her her right hon. Friend, the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, has done a Trojan piece of work on behalf of the government consistently, and it's only fair that he should be given the day off. Every day is a school day when it comes to Chagos, is it not? We learn something new every day of the week, it seems.

And in that wonderful Keynesian way, perhaps the government might like to reflect on when the facts change. We change our mind. Apparently not. The facts have changed. The ground truth has certainly changed on this, not least the attitude of the United States. That's clear beyond any fear of peradventure. In February last year, the then foreign Secretary said without the US agreement to this, the deal is dead. But we've had the commander in chief no less, in recent days saying this deal is stupid, that it is weak.

There can't be any ambiguity in that. That's the contemporaneous view of our greatest partner and friend, surely to goodness, that's justification for pausing this. We've learned about the Pelindaba treaty. I have to say, I wasn't aware of this until very recently, but again, it's a showstopper with how Paul Bérenger, the deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius, recently saying there will be no nuclear weapons in Diego Garcia, he's made it very clear he's been very helpful to the government in laying out exactly what this is going to look like when Mauritius takes control of Diego Garcia.

Now, the Minister says, well, we can't comment on that because it's operational. That's precisely what it is not. We're not talking about precise B-52s or Ohio class submarines going into Diego Garcia. I don't want to know about that. What I want to know about is the legal structure within which it is possible for these things to be in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Diego Garcia and Chagos in general. And the of course. They not agree with me, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They not agree with me, the point I made earlier on to the Minister, but perhaps he could also explain this, that if the Deputy explain this, that if the Deputy Prime Minister Mauritius as close as yesterday, made it specifically clear. So there is to follow the hon. Gentleman on the other side. No ambiguity in this at all. This No ambiguity in this at all. This is clear. No nuclear weapons on Chagos by any government at all.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is precisely the case. It is as plain as a pikestaff. And yet the government persists with this. Now, look, it's perfectly reasonable and respectable for the reasonable and respectable for the government to say, look, the facts have clearly changed, and all these things have come to light, and we things have come to light, and we will pause this. Oh, yes, there's no hurry in this, and there's no no hurry in this, and there's no dishonour in saying that.

We need to consult more widely on this matter could potentially be indefinitely, but nevertheless, we will continue the process. Keep it open. I appreciate to save the government's blushes. We can't simply can it, but we can pause it. If she wants more evidence for this on in relation to the Chagossians have been trampled all over in this process. She need only refer to the Committee on the for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. December 25th. Who themselves said that we should be pausing this in order to ensure that the Chagossians voices are properly heard.

So she's she's being attacked from all quarters and the the unifying message from all of those quarters is, for goodness sake, let's pause this and just think again. Of course I give way to my hon. Friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree with me that this could well be a case of that this could well be a case of if you can keep your head while all around are losing theirs? It's possible you failed to appreciate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

possible you failed to appreciate the gravity of the situation. Yes. Well, my hon. Friend who's very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, my hon. Friend who's very experienced in matters around this material, makes an extremely good material, makes an extremely good point. We need to keep our head in all of this. This side has been consistent in its opposition to this terrible, terrible surrender deal. The people out there can't honestly understand why it is that the government persists with it. It's plainly not a matter of national security. I fear it's underpinned by the incoming government's insistence on their on satisfying their guilt, their post-colonial guilt.

And that is really what has underpinned all of this. The government needs to get over this and understand that what has primacy in this matter, what has primacy in this matter, is national security. Of course, I give way to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the. Hon. Member for giving way. I want to give him the assurance that as a Labour Member of Parliament, I as a Labour Member of Parliament, I have had zero conversations with other Labour Members of Parliament about this deal, being motivated by about this deal, being motivated by some kind of post-colonial guilt. That is absolutely not a motivation, and I want to dispel him of that and I want to dispel him of that impression once and for all. But he talks about consistency.

Why was it that the Conservatives started the negotiations, and why was it that 85% of negotiations were actually concluded under the conservative? Would he not agree that actually, just because the Conservatives are now out of office, they suddenly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

discovered they do not need to be consistent here? The hon. Gentleman for his his remarks, and obviously I don't have remarks, and obviously I don't have any insight into the conversations he has with members of the Labour he has with members of the Labour Party in relation to negotiations of the former Foreign Office Minister. I would say there are negotiations and there are negotiations, and sometimes negotiations can be used as a tool negotiations can be used as a tool for keeping certain parties happy, whilst having no intention of agreeing to what they are demanding of you.

And I would say further to that, that a lot of the pressure for all of this comes from this advisory note from the ICJ now judges in this country. Madam Deputy Speaker, we think of as upstanding, impartial, impartial maintainers of, of of our legal system and the rule of law. It isn't necessarily the case when it comes to supranational judicial bodies. We know, for example, that Patrick Robinson, one of the judges involved with the Icj's decision in 2019, has been demanding that this country pony up with £19 trillion in slavery reparations.

These are not apolitical, independent judicial figures, and many of them have an agenda and its agenda that is hostile to this country. I would say as hostile as some of the parties that we are currently trying to prevent getting a hold on these islands like Russia and like China. And it is perfectly reasonable for the president of the United States, who, I have to confess, is not my cup of tea, deciding belatedly but nevertheless that this is a disastrous measure, and that he wants nothing to do with it.

He has signalled that, in his own inimitable fashion, this government should take note. This government should pause this surrender treaty, come back with something better, if at all. But this surely is as dead as the dodo.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. John Slinger. Can you, Madam Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can you, Madam Deputy Speaker, before I turn my remarks to the opposition day debate, I must opposition day debate, I must comment on the answer that the Shadow Foreign Secretary gave to the right hon. Member for Beverley the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness, who is an hon. Member that I respect hugely, and she mentioned climbing the greasy
13:57
John Slinger Portrait John Slinger MP (Rugby, Labour)
-
-
she mentioned climbing the greasy pole. I, I believe possibly even in relation to, to me. But it is always amusing when people who have served in the cabinets of multiple conservative prime Ministers accuse other hon. Members who are on the backbench of being somehow involved in climbing a greasy pole. It's just very, very amusing. But turning to and turning and turning. Thank you. Another, another right hon. Member who also did pretty well. I understand in the past, but but addressing the the opposition day debate, this is the Conservative Party playing politics with national security with their their friends and colleagues in the other place, using a wrecking amendment to block the British Indian Ocean Territory bill is a being a primary a prime example of that.

Members opposite have never been able to answer the question. If there was no problem with British sovereignty and operation of the base, then why? Madam Deputy Speaker, why did they begin the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

negotiations in the first place? Of course I'll give way. I'm grateful to the honourable and incredibly loyal member for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and incredibly loyal member for giving way. Yes. Does he realise that in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does he realise that in the result of a UN judgement in 1965, result of a UN judgement in 1965, the United Kingdom was required to enter into negotiations with Argentina over the future of the Argentina over the future of the Falkland Islands in 1965, and those negotiations continued until 1982. For a long time, when they were concluded in a rather different way

**** Possible New Speaker ****

envisaged by the UN, where the guards. I thank, I thank the honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank, I thank the honourable and even more loyal than I am member. I mean we spar across the member. I mean we spar across the spar across the house, but I know he's even more honourable and he's even more honourable and gallant member for his his history lesson, but it doesn't actually lesson, but it doesn't actually change the fundamentals which are that 85% Madam Deputy Speaker 85% of the negotiations took place under the Conservatives and the right hon.

Member for Braintree when he was Foreign Secretary in November 2022, said that I quote through negotiations, taking into account relevant legal proceedings, it is our intention to secure an agreement on the basis of international law to resolve all outstanding issues. Close quotes. And in February 2025, a spokesperson for the Leader of the Opposition insisted that she understood negotiating negotiations over the islands were needed due to the international legal position. This is obviously political opportunism. These are right, honourable and hon.

Members of this House of Commons who raised no objections in Parliament, Fylde no critical questions and voiced no concerns on social media. Only after leaving government did they do so, and indeed with no plan of their own. And regarding the matter of the sovereignty of the Chagossians, the Conservatives is logically inconsistent. They want the UK to retain sovereignty, but they attack us for not giving the Chagossians the right to self-determination. They have ruled out resettlement.

Some Chagossians want to return to Diego Garcia, our opposition right honourable and hon. Members, calling for them to be returned to that island with the inevitable issues that that would cause for the operation of the vital base. They've gone rather rather silent on that point. So it is political opposition. Of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'll give way to the honourable the hon. Member. Does he see any parallel between

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does he see any parallel between the plight of Chagossians and the plight of Greenlanders, because the plight of Greenlanders, because the Prime Minister has gone out of his way correctly to defend the rights way correctly to defend the rights of Greenlanders, but is doing the complete reverse for Chagossians.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

complete reverse for Chagossians. The issue of the sovereignty of the Chagossians is is a sensitive and delicate one that we are attempting to deal with, as my hon. Friend, as the honourable my hon. Friend the Minister set out. We have established a contact group, many meetings have taken place, and I strongly endorse those steps to give respect to the Chagossian people for what has happened to them. Now the party opposite only used £1.6 million of the support fund for the Chagossian people, a support fund of 40 million people, which hardly indicates that when they were in office they had the interests of the Chagossian people as their number one priority.

In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to to make clear to the House that this is political opportunism of the worst kind of the worst kind, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it is regarding national security and the British national interest. And they really should not be playing party political games with that. And indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, nor should they be using language such as surrender with such abandon, as the shadow Foreign Secretary does, because it is implying things that are simply not true.

It is whipping up public concern, and this is totally unnecessary, particularly when regarding the British national interest. And that is why I am very glad to be opposing this opportunistic motion before the House today. And I commend my hon. Friend, the Minister for her statement.
14:03
Kieran Mullan Portrait Dr Kieran Mullan MP (Bexhill and Battle, Conservative)
-
-
Scott Arthur Kieran Mullan. the opportunity to speak today and make clear my opposition to any proposal to give away the strategically important sovereign British territory. This is not British territory. This is not merely a territorial concession. It is an apt strategic self-sabotage, a dereliction of duty and an unforgivable betrayal of our national security at a time of growing global instability, where our adversaries are watching for any sign of weakness, Labour has chosen to send precisely the wrong signal that Britain can be pressured into abandoning its own territory.

This decision is indefensible on every level. The Chagos Islands, and specifically Diego Garcia, have been a vital strategic asset for the UK and our allies for decades. The military base on Diego Garcia has played a crucial role in global security operations, supporting counter-terrorism efforts, maritime security and regional stability. It has been instrumental in projecting Western power into the Indo-Pacific region, a region increasingly shaped by geopolitical competition, particularly with China. By ceding sovereignty over these islands, Labour has put at risk Britain's own strategic interests and undermined our ability to operate in this region.

What makes this decision even more staggering is that we're not just surrendering our sovereignty. We're paying Mauritius billions of pounds for the privilege. And the central concern for me is the very serious strategic challenge we face in respect of China. China is a country with a population of 1.4 billion people there. Expected GDP by 2030 is projected to be $26 trillion and second only to the US, with potential projections that will outstrip them by 2050. China's increase in their military spending this year alone is expected to be at 7.2%.

This would mean it is the third consecutive year that China's increase in military spending has been over 7%. China has now become the world's largest shipbuilding nation. They also expect China's navy to reach 430 military ships by 2030, compared to the US Navy's estimate decline to 294. China is a growing military power. It shows no indications that it is anywhere near a supposed peak. Domestically and internationally. They conduct themselves as an autocratic state. They have the most sophisticated domestic surveillance system in the world, referred to as Skynet, with 700 million cameras as of 2023.

That's one lens for every two of its own citizens. We must not be so naive as to assume that if we end up in even greater strategic competition with China, that they will care at all. What agreement we've reached with Mauritius. We saw with Hong Kong how easily agreements made with third countries can be ignored, as China has itself done directly there. If Mauritius seeks to align itself strategically with China, do you think China will hesitate from asking them from breaking that treaty because of international law, that they won't fit any bill or any diplomatic consequences? Mauritius, if they think it's in their interest to get Mauritius to break that agreement.

That is the difference between any form of agreement and sovereignty. What sovereignty has been given away. It can never be brought back. I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way. And this is why some people are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And this is why some people are concerned also that even if Mauritius did allow the Americans Mauritius did allow the Americans to have nuclear weapons on the base, which I don't think they would, but if they did, then that would give if they did, then that would give China an excuse to break the same treaty to which Mauritius is treaty to which Mauritius is already committed about a non-nuclear Africa. And China wouldn't even get the odium that it otherwise would if it started deploying nuclear weapons all over

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the African continent. Member is absolutely right. I think it's extraordinary that we have a Labour MP willing to stand have a Labour MP willing to stand up on the other side and defend this deal, whilst admitting they don't even know whether or not our accusations are correct. At least accusations are correct. At least stand up and say you don't agree with what we're proposing to admit. You don't know whether or not we You don't know whether or not we can have nuclear weapons on the island, but you're happy to support the deal anyway.

Is is disgraceful. I mean, must address the wider I mean, must address the wider consequences of this decision. If Labour is willing to abandon the Chagos Islands so easily. What message does this send to our other overseas territories? And the International Court of Justice may have issued an advisory opinion in 2019. Recommend. Well, it's true, it's true. The world is watching. We have been pressure put on us in relation to a sovereign territory and we have collapsed. And they don't want us to think that the rest of the world won't take an interpretation from that.

I'm happy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to Mike Kane. I'm really grateful. Because we've heard from chief Ministers and leaders of the other British overseas territories how British overseas territories how disappointed they've been in the rhetoric of the party opposite in trying to drag them in. There is no

**** Possible New Speaker ****

question about our commitment to the British overseas territories, and it is a completely separate matter. This deal. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We should be worried about are not the people in charge of the British Overseas Territories. It's the people who are watching what we the people who are watching what we do and make decisions about how they will act, as we saw, for example, with previous attempts to take control of those territories.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Do you think Argentina will observe this and won't draw a lesson from it? Of course they will. To my friend for giving way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To my friend for giving way. He's making a very powerful speech. Can he confirm to the House that very shortly after this deal was very shortly after this deal was announced, the Argentinian government announced that they wished to renew their claim to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Falkland Islands? That is a fact, is it not? It is a fact. And he will also note that for decades, other UN bodies have supported Argentina in its pressuring us to continue negotiations around that issue. So again, the opposition, sorry, the government relies on what the UN say. The UN's position on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Falklands is completely contrary to the interests of this country. I'm giving way yet again, and the fact is that government Ministers keep saying, how dare you compare this with the Falkland compare this with the Falkland Islands? But it was their own manifesto at the last election that gave a commitment to defend the sovereignty of the British overseas territories. Not some of them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

territories. Not some of them. All of them. And if they can't be trusted on this one, then they can't be trusted on any of them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. It's drawing out the lessons that the rest of the world will be observing, and a submissive approach to third party courts on these issues displays an incredible naivety about the world we live in today, and the direction of travelling in our previous positive disposition to these institutions could play was in a different era, when we expected a converging uniformity of basic values and democracy, that convergence is not happening, and instead our enemies happening, and instead our enemies are using our desire to stick to it as a weakness to exploit.

They don't even recognise basic legal norms and institutions in their own countries. Their own citizens don't benefit from legal protections and rights. They don't believe in the rule of law, full stop. Do they ever really think that they will put international legal obligations ahead of pursuing their own strategic interests? Of course they won't. And yet we're expected to undertake a strategic surrender in the name of the rule of law in a way that advantages them on the basis of what they might look at, what we've done, and then in future,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

change their ways as they fail to do in Hong Kong. It's incredible naivety. Bradford East my friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And does. It really not just prove his. Point that despite being signatories to the WTO, they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

signatories to the WTO, they continue the Chinese to steal IP? Yeah. Just the WTO, of course. They're

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just the WTO, of course. They're supposed to be following the jurisdiction, for example, of the international maritime courts that the opposition point to as a reason the opposition point to as a reason why we should comply with it. They breached those rulings all the time, as we discussed in relation to the South China Sea. They couldn't care less. They just are only restrained by their own self-interest and pretend and play up the idea that they might follow or not follow the rules.

And when it doesn't suit them, they don't follow them. But then we're supposed to follow them because it's aimed at getting them onside. It's never going to happen. Sorry, Madam Speaker, and let's actually look at the membership of the ICJ, the people that made the ruling. The vice president was Xu Hanqing, who ruled that the UK should give the islands over to Mauritius. She's a former Chinese Communist Party official who serves as director general of the Department of Treaty and Law in China's Foreign Ministry.

The same ministry has overseen the violation of the agreement in Hong Kong. It makes absolutely no sense that we can see them as neutral arbiters. And in 2022, she's one of the two judges to vote against the ICJ ruling that Russia should suspend its invasion of Ukraine. Would I and would our country slavishly adhering to these rulings against our own national interests, bring onside, wavering countries that are making their own strategic calculations about who they want to support? If it comes to challenges like Ukraine and, if it happens, Taiwan, of course it won't.

The historical argument for that approach has been to suggest we'll bring other countries over to our way of doing things, the rules based order. But I'm afraid that's not happening. And what the world is actually looking at is which bloc, which sphere of influence is best at defending their interests if they seek to align with them. And this surrender deal will make it very clear that perhaps they should think twice about supporting the Western democracies and instead point their finger towards the autocratic states that are going to benefit so enormously from this deal.

Surrendering the Chagos Islands will simply be countries that want a more disorderly world. Of course, we should seek to use the rules based order. That's a long term goal that we shouldn't abandon, and we should continue to make it clear that's our preference for how we run the world, but not with our eyes and ears closed to what's actually happening, and not a huge cost to our own interests. This is not diplomacy. It's not pragmatism. It's weakness. And weakness has consequences. Britain is not just losing a territory.

We're losing credibility. Our allies are watching as Labour surrenders key strategic ground. Without so much as a fight. Adversaries are taking note and seeing a government that lacks the resolve to defend its own interests. Madam Deputy Speaker, this deal is a sell-out and a catastrophic misjudgement. It must not go ahead. I urge every member of this House to stand firm for Britain's interests, for our national security and for our place in the world. We must reject this reckless agreement and demand that our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government defends British sovereign territory, not bargaining it away behind closed doors. Sir Alec Shelbrooke.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sir Alec Shelbrooke. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker, I think.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, I think. It's also worth reflecting today upon the entire geopolitical situation that the world faces. situation that the world faces. We've had many examples that many treaty stages simply aren't worth the paper they're written on. And the paper they're written on. And if it is to suit our adversaries to ignore them, they will ignore them. And is not the old maxim of to stop a war, be ready to fight a war more true today than it's ever been
14:13
Alec Shelbrooke Portrait Rt Hon Sir Alec Shelbrooke MP (Wetherby and Easingwold, Conservative)
-
-
before. And if we decide that actually we're just going to rely on pieces of paper rather than the on pieces of paper rather than the ability to say we will defend at war if need be, that we weaken our war if need be, that we weaken our position. Madam Deputy Speaker, let us consider the whole Indo-Pacific us consider the whole Indo-Pacific region, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly did a visit to Pacific Assembly did a visit to Pacific Command back in August, and the admiral of that base made it crystal clear that in a very short space of time, the Americans would be outnumbered in the Pacific arena.

And it is simply not going to work to limit the ability of what weapons may or may not be able to be used, that are currently able to be used. There has not been a satisfactory answer in relation as to whether nuclear weapons can be stored on Diego Garcia when under the authority of the Mauritians, and despite the conversations about what Pescott said, what other treaties may have said in negotiations on the way, you have the commander in chief outranks the Defence Secretary in the US saying, I don't want to do this deal.

We have the Deputy Prime Minister of the Maur be able to hold nuclear weapons. What makes makes Ministers so convinced that those leaders of their country are wrong and that they are right, and this is the greatest and deepest concern, because we do live in a world that is rapidly changing, not just in the disregard of the rules based order, not just in that we are changing how energy demands, but those energy demands are shifting the geopolitical basis.

And a lot of the materials that we are going to need for renewables and moving into renewable energy actually start to shift more towards these hemispheres than they do currently in the Gulf, and therefore, the geopolitical positioning of the Chagos Islands becomes more and more important. It is absolutely right to say that our government started negotiations and that they went on and on and on. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, because negotiations go on and on and on, does it mean there is a victory in any of them overnight by just giving away to the red lines that we wouldn't cross? That is a very important point, Madam Deputy Speaker, because that is a very important point, Madam Deputy Speaker, because not recognising the situation we now face is actually worse than trying to crow that we've had some diplomatic victory.

It's we are seeing time and time again, the government Kettering to Beijing rather than standing up to Beijing. We are seeing that today. Where is the strategic plan? Many of us, and I look at some of my hon. Friends on this bench, my right hon. Friend for New Forest East was exceptionally critical of the David Cameron Golden era relationships with China. These are not new things for those criticisms that might want to come forward. And and he warned at the time of the security risks that China played, the Prime Minister has signed off the embassy, the super embassy, despite all of the things we know about what we've already seen in the blueprints, that embassy and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for what reason, and there just seems to be this almost. Pathological.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Pathological. Yeah, pathological. But I mean, this faith that the Chinese will this faith that the Chinese will always act in, in good faith and that we can trust them and that they wouldn't dare invade and they wouldn't dare do these things because we signed a piece of paper. The world is changing, Madam Deputy The world is changing, Madam Deputy Speaker, and there is no shame in putting a pause to negotiations when such new changes have come to light.

And I think I think the Defence Minister today, when reflecting upon what is being said, should draw upon the reasons that are being given now of how the situation has changed since their government came to power, which is, you know, not getting a year and a half getting on towards two years. The situation has claimed. Incredibly, in that time I give way to my right hon. Friend, I'll give way to my right hon. Friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just just a helpful suggestion. I know I can't commit my party as a whole, but speaking personally, if the government will change their position on this, I and I'm sure my hon. Friend, am I right, hon. Friend will give a personal pledge Friend will give a personal pledge never to accuse them of having done a U-turn on this matter. We will praise them to the skies and we will not seek to take party political advantage of their belated acceptance of reality.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to my hon. Friend, and I think those I said I'm going and I think those I said I'm going to do my right hon. Friend, because I think that makes a very important point, Madam Deputy Speaker, that point, Madam Deputy Speaker, that acting in the national interest changes in position should be changes in position should be welcomed. And I mean, for example, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are living in a situation where we do not have in a situation where we do not have the defence capability that we need, and it is worrying in the extreme that to hear that the deal for Diego Garcia will be coming out of the defence Budget and we hear people say the defence Budget went down and it was hollowed out, etc.

it did, it did go down Madam Deputy Speaker, but often the bit that's missed there that started in the Cold War, that continued through 13 years of Labour government. It continued across Europe. The Americans halved their defence Budget. In that time the world was a different place. And then we had the invasion of Ukraine. And at that point the world changed direction. Let's just consider for a moment, Madam Deputy Speaker, two countries which have made incredibly significant, if you will, U-turns, and that is Germany.

And it's now defence posture and the hundreds of billions they're going to spend on defence. And of course, Japan, both countries who have drawn a huge line under the events of the Second World War to recognise that the world has changed to a much more dangerous place and needs a much bigger

**** Possible New Speaker ****

posture. Madam Deputy Speaker I give way to them. The gentleman. I thank the Member for giving way. The point I was going to make is now slightly taken forward by the additional things that he said, and I do take the point that we and I do take the point that we live in a more insecure time to which this country has to respond. He gives the example of Germany. Germany is able to do that because its level of indebtedness has not risen so extraordinarily in recent years, as our own country has.

We years, as our own country has. We are in deficit to the tune of 2.7 trillion, and we pay £105 million in debt interest repayments every year before we pay anything else. So I do want to reflect on the fact that we're in a particularly difficult situation as a government. And I would also point out that it is due to the inheritance that we face. But the point that I wanted to make, if I may, is around the thoughtful contribution he's making, which is to move this debate into a more strategic conversation about the relationship of the UK to China.

Now, in my hand, I have an iPhone designed in California assembled in China. I assume he has an iPhone two. Most people in this chamber would, but the point that I'm making here is we have to figure out the relationship between our two countries, where to decouple so we can so significantly could harm our quality of living, our trade balance and investment opportunities, while also being mindful of the threat that China faces. What is the Conservative

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Party's posture on the question of China? Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure the hon. Gentleman may have been tied up trying to see whether he backed Andy Burnham or not this morning, but our leader today made morning, but our leader today made it very crystal clear. When asked would she be going to Beijing now, would she be going to Beijing now, she said no, because until there was a proper plan in place of what strategic interest that you would want to work out with colleagues in Beijing? There was no point in going along, I'm afraid.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not believe there is much to celebrate in a trade deal with the Chinese of £600 million. It barely seemed worth the trip in itself. Let me just quickly reflect on porn, the levels of debt, because again, the hon. Gentleman has slightly forgotten something called a pandemic, which cost half £1 trillion. He has forgotten Gordon Brown's banking crisis that cost half £1 trillion. He has forgotten that we've gone into a war in Europe which caused 11% inflation.

And I do find this very interesting dichotomy that we get from the opposition. Madam Deputy Speaker, of saying inflation was 11% under your government over inflation is not our fault. It's going up. It's because of the war in Ukraine. I think perhaps sometimes they want to marry those two sentences up.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'll give way to my friend. I agree with every single point. From 2010 onwards, all the Labour

**** Possible New Speaker ****

From 2010 onwards, all the Labour Party ever did was encourage you to spend more. Exactly. And actually, I think they've put what they've said into practice. put what they've said into practice. I mean, the reality of raising £77 billion in taxes and really, I billion in taxes and really, I can't see great investments going into defence. I mean, let me say this right now, Madam Deputy this right now, Madam Deputy Speaker, I don't like the idea of percentages of GDP on defence.

I think somehow along the line, NATO and its allies fell into this trap of saying we had to spend X on defence, saying, well, we spent 5% of GDP on defence in the 1980s. Yes we did. That's what it cost. It wasn't the target to get to. That's what it cost. We should identify what we need and then we should fund it and spend it and see what that comes out at. And we are in a situation where the things that we say we want to fund may well not be able to be delivered if we don't properly defend ourselves.

And that brings me right back to the point of today's debate. Madam Deputy Speaker, before we get too far out of the lines, is that this is about a geopolitical situation and removing such a removing such a key capability where we cannot guarantee whether we can have those nuclear deterrence, which we have shown over decades, help keep the peace. There's nobody from the SNP here today, Madam Deputy Speaker, but when they say we would never use Trident, we would never use a nuclear weapon.

They missed the point that it's not a nuclear weapon, it is the nuclear deterrent and that we have used it every single day from the day that the resolution was launched. And that has made sure that we have kept a semblance of peace and moved away from war. And so I am deeply concerned that this debate seems to be more and more about what may be written on a piece of paper than

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what we actually have the capability to do today. Yeah. Gloucester Luke Evans.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gloucester Luke Evans. Thank you, Madam Deputy Chair. And I've actually enjoyed the Foreign Office in the last few weeks. And I was trying to think weeks. And I was trying to think why I've got so much more enjoyment out of what they've been doing, because I think they've been actually taking their advice from actually taking their advice from Monty Python and the search for the Holy Grail, because every time we
14:25
Luke Evans Portrait Dr Luke Evans MP (Hinckley and Bosworth, Conservative)
-
-
Holy Grail, because every time we have a question, we have the Black Knight that comes up in front of us. Honourable, brave Doughty won't answer a question.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. He's torn limb from limb. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Struck down in their arguments one by one, but still wants to have the fight. And I applaud. It's just.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's just. A scratch. It's a flesh wound. It is indeed. I applaud the government and the Ministers for government and the Ministers for doing exactly that, because we hear time and time again from the, the, the government side is that we've the government side is that we've had ample time to debate this. And I would cry. I would entirely agree. But the problem is exactly this. The reason it's going on so long is because we're not getting the answers to the questions to be able to do our job and scrutinise this, because if you're ever making a good argument, you should be able to justify your point, put it in place, and then evidence it from there.

So if I summarise some of the key questions that I want answered and why we seem stuck here, I'm then going to explain why that matters and the context, finally of what is going on within the debate. So first of all, we ask about the legal position because the government says there is legally there is a legal jeopardy here, but this side contests that the ICJ is non-binding and there is not a court that could pass judgement as well. There is a Commonwealth opt out when it comes to the finances.

The government says it is 3.4 billion. This side contests that actually the government actually says it is 34 billion, because the government is using the wrong tool to make the judgement, because net present value does not count when it comes to the environment. The government says there is securities there, but we contend on this side that Mauritius does not have a navy to be able to hold up its side of the bargain to prevent damage to the fishing. When it comes to the nuclear aspect, we on this side recognise that the Pelindaba treaty is brought into conflict here, yet the government hasn't explained why it isn't.

When it comes down to the US involvement, whether or not they have a veto, we have the 1966 agreement that we believe on this side would need to be taken into account. And finally, it hasn't been mentioned today and in the last few weeks, but we talk about the long term security of this base. At the end of 99 years, there's only an option for us to buy and continue. So what happens at this point? We haven't secured the long

**** Possible New Speaker ****

term nature of the base whatsoever. I'm grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He, like me, will for giving way. He, like me, will have heard the Minister for the Indo-Pacific listing the Indo-Pacific listing the preconditions before treaty ratification can take place. And I'm pretty sure I asked about America, and she said there needed America, and she said there needed to be an exchange of letters. The the current position of the American administration is that the current Chagos deal, as proposed by His Majesty's Government, would be an act of great stupidity.

So that seems quite a long way from getting American Agreement and acquiescence to a position where they are comfortable. So does he, like me, foresee that this may indeed involve quite a protracted period of negotiation with the United

**** Possible New Speaker ****

States of America, quite rightly, in order to get their acquiescence to this deal? Well, fundamentally, they should

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, fundamentally, they should have and have now expressed their concerns publicly. And this is the question that we put to the question that we put to the Minister, both today in this debate and on Monday, to try and establish and on Monday, to try and establish whether or not the UK government can make a unilateral decision without amending the notes. Now the government has turned around and said it has to amend the notes, but hasn't set out. What happens if the US do not agree.

That is the key part to this and the government keep reading out the same answer that I got on Monday. When I asked this question. The same answer I got when I intervened from the Minister, and the same answer when it was asked from behind me again to say that we have set out the process primary legislation, secondary legislation and then amendments to the notes. The question is, what happens if the Americans do not agree to that amendment of the 1996? The 1966 notes? What happens then? Yes, I'll take an intervention if the Minister can tell us, because that is the fundamental point when it comes to US involvement, because if they say no, but we say yes, where do these islands go? What happens to the agreement? What if they say yes and we say no? What happens at that point? These are the fundamental questions why we keep coming back.

Because if there was clarity and simple answers to simple questions, we would understand that on this side and be able to make a balanced judgement.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But we have gaps in the understanding from the government. My hon. Friend is making an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, but I think he knows what the answers to these questions. These simple questions questions. These simple questions are the answer to the question about whether Mauritius would be about whether Mauritius would be able to stop us having nuclear weapons stored on Diego Garcia is clearly that they would be able to clearly that they would be able to stop us doing it, and it's quite clear that the answer to the question of what happens if the Americans say no to changing the 1966 agreement, is that this deal to get rid of our sovereignty over the Chagos Islands is dead in the water.

But the reason why Ministers won't say those things, even though they know it to be true, is that they're fearful of a headline saying Minister admits that Chagos surrender can't go ahead without

**** Possible New Speaker ****

American agreement, even though they know that that's the case. But they're afraid of the headline. I think.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think. My hon. Friend is exactly right, entirely right on pinpointing some of the issues. So I'm going to reverse my speech and deal with reverse my speech and deal with some of these issues first. So if we start with Pelindaba treaty from we start with Pelindaba treaty from 1996, formally ratified in 2009, article four is the key part for me because although the whole treaty because although the whole treaty is about where you can research what you can do with nuclear weapons, article four is the prevention of device parking nuclear explosives.

Point one of it says each party undertakes to prohibit the parking of nuclear explosive devices on its territory. So therefore, by definition, if the base goes across to Mauritius, it is under the treaty because Mauritius is a signatory. But our side is slightly misconstrued because there is actually a carve out specifically because point two says, and I quote, without prejudice to the purposes and objectives of this treaty, each of the parties, in the exercise of their sovereign rights, may decide, at its discretion, to authorise the visit of foreign ships or aircrafts to its ports and airports and transit.

And it goes on. So what it's implying, and what it says specifically, is that Mauritius would have to be consulted and provide permission for nuclear craft, be it submarine, be it boat or be it aircraft would have to get explicit permission, which we've already heard only yesterday. It would not be granted. Very good, very good. So there it is. And that's the question when it comes to security about the nuclear aspect that is unanswered. And I look forward to the government trying to rectify that position, because at the moment they have not explained how there is an interaction and this is not operational.

It is purely legal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

text. I would. I thank the hon. Member for giving way and for giving his excellent speech, which frankly contains more detail in it than the government's own position. In a government's own position. In a nutshell. In conclusion, isn't this the fundamental problem that when you give away British sovereign territory to another nation, whatever agreement you have that whatever agreement you have that sits around it, you are vulnerable in perpetuity for that agreement to be torn up, disagreed with and not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

implemented here. Absolutely. Because at the end of the day, you have signed that treaty. So you have signed that treaty. So again, the Minister on a technicality is right to say that the current treaty in front of us the current treaty in front of us has no problems, but it's the interaction with the other treaties. When you've given sovereignty away because it's right. You're right, because it's right. You're right, my hon. Friend is right. It would not be covered because it no longer

**** Possible New Speaker ****

belongs to us. And that is a real difficulty the government is struggling to explain. I will. Tell you further.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm sorry. I must just tweak what my hon. Friend just said then. The fact is that although there is that discretion for the Mauritian government to give permission for a nuclear armed vessel, for example, nuclear armed vessel, for example, to visit temporarily, there is no discretion for nuclear weapons to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

discretion for nuclear weapons to be stored permanently at Diego Garcia. Come on. Absolutely. Again, he's right. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Absolutely. Again, he's right. I think he's referring to article three. From memory that explicitly says in terms of also researching, etc. so the government needs to set out the interaction of that treaty and the implications with regards to the treaty it is currently signing or wanting us to ratify. But let's step back a little bit further, because we're in this position, because the government argues there was a non-binding ICJ judgement. So I ask the Minister again, which court does he believe there would be a problem here with? Because we've heard from the government time and time again that there are several causes that could be brought into conflict here.

The defence Secretary was worried about Enclose and the international tribunal law of the sea. But we already know from 2015, in a ruling against the UK when it came to Mauritius, that actually they cannot judge sovereignty. So that one's out of the window. The Minister and I asked her about this, also mentioned the 2021 Special Chamber of the International Tribunal of the sea. But as the Minister will know, the UK was not party to give information to that and it rested on the non-binding judgement of the ICJ, which is already contested because we on this side do not believe there is a court and there is an opt out because it's a Commonwealth interaction and the government, months on, still can't answer these simple questions.

But there is another court that is often used as well. And we'll go around this again, which is the ITU, the International Telecommunications Union. But we also know from the government's own written questions that article 48.1 says you cannot judge sovereignty. So the government knows this. I don't understand why it won't just stand

**** Possible New Speaker ****

here and say that. Upfront about it. So when it comes to finances, there's a lot of contest about there's a lot of contest about where these figures are, what they are and what they're made up of. And the government is right on its figure. The opposition is right on figure. The opposition is right on its figure. So how can this be? Well, it's because of the mechanism in which you're using to judge that in which you're using to judge that value.

So we on this side can test that. The best way to do it is the that. The best way to do it is the nominal value which is used by the government actuaries, because it's over a hundred years. And you have to take into account what things will look like and factors from there. The government actually say it is £34 billion, yet the government is using net present value, which does give you 3.4 billion. I'm glad the Defence Minister's here, because I pose this to him in the last debate.

And his answer was, well, it's in the Green Book. And I retorted to him, can he give any other deal when it comes to giving away sovereignty that uses net present value? Because, as he will know, I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give away. I'm grateful to him. I ran a department that spent its whole department that spent its whole time looking at net present value at the Department of Welfare. So my question really is the key problem question really is the key problem with this is you don't use net present value when you're dealing with a foreign country for a very simple reason. You have no idea what social issues will erupt or change, whereas you have control. change, whereas you have control.

In the UK you do not have control. The foreign country. That immediately distorts the nature of the amount of payment. Plus it strips out relevant inflation, which also makes it so much officially cheaper. £34.7 billion by the actuaries is the real cost that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we have to bear. Not this nonsense of net present value. Yeah. But I entirely agree.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But I entirely agree. And he's been through that experience of running a department, which I find it all the more frustrating that Ministers can't simply set out the difference between the two values. Because if I, as a backbencher, can spot it and explain it, the question is and explain it, the question is which is the better tool and why? And actually, when it comes to net present value, it is a domestic use. present value, it is a domestic use. So that's why the ONS won't come out and say there's a problem with it because it's it's legitimate tool to use.

It's being used inappropriately when we're dealing with sovereignty, because the assumptions they build it on are 3.5% for the first 30 years. But of course, this is a 99 year lease. So we don't even know what happens at those 70 years. And if you compare it to other countries, the US used 7% as a valuation when it comes to dealing with the social discount rate. So these are simple questions that we are posing doing our job on this side of the benches, trying to get answers from the Ministers as to why you would use this.

Because when you take it all into account, if you use simply inflation adjusted, it's 10 billion. So there are three figures out there that are all correct, but all stand to be used in a different way. And the fact that a Minister repeatedly can't answer those questions is of due concern to us on this side of the House. If we turn to the environmental aspect, if we turn to the size of the environmental aspect, it's been pointed out multiple times. Mauritius don't have a navy or a force to protect the blue Planet part, the blue programme that is in place.

And actually, why am I concerned about that? Well, we know from the 2015 UN Close Tribunal that took place was all about the fact that the UK wanted to put more protections in, but they wanted the Mauritians wanted fishing rights in the area. So we already have history of the fact that fishing will want to happen in that area, and yet we don't have a Navy now to enforce it. This is a simple question for the government to answer. How will it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

resolve that problem? I will give way. And therefore.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And therefore. Does my Louie French share this concern that clearly, if this deal is to go ahead, there will be need for more navy, which is expensive. And yet at the end of the day, the And yet at the end of the day, the Budget increases, we're being told, are in the defence Budget, are actually being used to pay for this actually being used to pay for this ridiculous deal. Well, possibly, although we already know that the FCDO have their blue their Blue Planet programme to help protect environmental areas that were under British control or are under British control.

So whether it comes under the FCDO Budget as well, we simply don't know the answer to these questions. Again, very simple questions a year on in that we've been asking for. On the matter of the Chagossians, my hon. Friend raised this principle and this is a really simple one. Again, I'm confused by the government because the Prime Minister himself has said Greenlanders will decide for Greenland, yet Chagossians can't decide for Chagos I can understand there could be an argument one way or the other, but the government won't seem to make it and doesn't seem to see the illogical nature of what they are putting forward when they make one statement in reference to sovereignty in one area, yet not in the case that we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are discussing here today. And finally, the I will give way. Bromsgrove does my hon. Friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bromsgrove does my hon. Friend agree with me that for British Chagossians they will be given no Chagossians they will be given no say over how a trust fund is to be spent, and that it is simply wrong that they are being given no opportunity to have any of their own personal say on the things that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are going to affect them and their futures. Absolutely. And again, this is a question for the government to answer as to why not and set out the reasons and rationale. That's perfectly sensible question to pose to the government. And I'm still concerned when we're dealing with the detail of the long term nature of the, the this deal, because it does look bomb proof to me. So when we come to the end of 99 years, what happens? The only protection we have is that we have first say on taking it on.

We've already heard in the debate earlier from both sides of the House, actually, just how much China's economy is going to be in growing. So therefore, are we going to even have the finances to be able to buy that deal? Will we be outbid by the US, by China, by some other Bric power? Maybe. So. We're held over a barrel by the mauritians or worse still, the Mauritians can simply say we don't want it anymore and the base is gone and we can do nothing about it.

Well, why does all this matter? So these are all the technical questions that I want the government to answer. But overall we have to see the wider context. And it's been explained multiple times here before. The US is changing its foreign policy, China is changing its foreign policy. And yet the UK doesn't appear to have an approach. In either way, it appears we're looking towards a sphere of influence with America having one side, China and Russia having another. So the question is for this House, why rush this through? Why not think about it? Why not answer these simple questions to get this side of the House on board, to be able to then say, we think this is the right thing for the country.

Because the saddest thing about this whole debate is how the government has turned this into scapegoating this side of the House, as if we're playing political games, rather than seeing these simple technical questions that need to be answered are the key to unlocking our understanding. Because if we as parliamentarians can't get answers to these questions and don't simply understand the rationale, how can we explain it to our constituents? And how can we explain it to the nation? And how can we explain it to the world? So my ask is for the government here, if they want us to stop supposedly playing politics, answer simple questions with simple answers, back them up, evidence them because otherwise we are left fighting the black Knight who is brave, who is forthright, who is keen to stand in the way of any progress that simply won't answer a question and is cut down limb by limb in a pool of blood? Yeah.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order! I will now announce the result of today's deferred division on the draft Medical Devices Fees Amendment Regulations 2026. The eyes were 294. Regulations 2026. The eyes were 294. The nose were 108. So the ayes have it. I now call Sir Iain Duncan Smith.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Smith. And Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm going to try and keep my my words
14:43
Iain Duncan Smith Portrait Rt Hon Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP (Chingford and Woodford Green, Conservative)
-
-
going to try and keep my my words brief, because so much of this has already been laid out. My colleagues, so I see no reason why I can't repeat it. In essence, this whole thing falls onto a couple of stools. But there are some intervening issues here. I say to the hon. Gentleman who, we've been to Ukraine together and have a very high regard for him, and the government should ought to put him on their front bench as soon as possible, because he'll make less of a mess than the others.

But I certainly simply say to him as well,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it's a compliment. Now. Having been in government myself, I have to tell you, that's quite a I have to tell you, that's quite a compliment. It's all over there. But anyway, I say this because he But anyway, I say this because he talked about ambiguity quite rightly, sometimes determined ambiguity, and sometimes inadvertent ambiguity. We have the situation in the South China Sea situation in the South China Sea where China has against international law and condemned by the UN.

Absolutely. And clearly they have no right to that area at all, historic or otherwise. But the Chinese have ignored that and are now putting defensive forts in the area. We've seen the Chinese now threaten the Philippines to barge their boats out of the way to far shots over them, and the same goes for Vietnam, who all a certain amount of claim to the area. But they've ignored all that. They're threatening Taiwan. And the one thing they do want to do is to extend that position out to the trade routes.

If the Chinese government can get control of the trade routes going east west, which strangely enough, flow right past the Chagos Islands, then that would be an absolute win for them. So they would be able to choke the trade going east west at any time they wish. And if people think that, well, they wouldn't do that would they? Oh yes they would. They are talking about now blockading Taiwan as a part of that process. So I know he's a realist. And on that basis, I simply say, we need to look at the Chagos Islands and to look at this treaty in light of the threat to the free world that is growing in plain sight by this unbelievably brutal but enormous growing power.

And it's worth reminding ourselves that the Chinese are building a navy which even us experts accept will outgrow the US naval forces within two years. Yes, now this is really important. Any one shipyard in China today builds more naval ships than the whole of the United States of America, and probably Europe as well. And they have many naval shipyards. So the threat I want to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give away. I'm most grateful to my hon. Friend, something I didn't touch on. Friend, something I didn't touch on. I spoke about the naval problem, but also China have built an but also China have built an incredible number of ICBM silos. They're hugely increasing their They're hugely increasing their nuclear arsenal. They refuse to come to the table for negotiations on non-proliferation treaties. Is on non-proliferation treaties. Is it not the most ridiculous time that you would give up the certainty of being able to house nuclear weapons at a strategic site?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I'm going to come on to this. And he's right. I just wanted to set the background information to set the background information about what the problem is. The problem is China and China, problem is China and China, remember, support Russia. So the very idea that a British citizen, very idea that a British citizen, Philippe Sands, in this case representing wishes, actually negotiates and talks to the negotiates and talks to the Russians about how this would not make it difficult for them to hold on to Crimea, is astounding to me.

To even engage with them on this is astonishing. Well, so that tells you that the the nature of some of those people involved in this is really questionable. Questionable, indeed. And so the background is what is the threat? And the threat is greater than it has been. You could argue now, I think at any time since the Second World War and certainly now since the end of the Cold War, we are in a new environment, and that new environment requires us to understand the nature of our assets and how we would maximise those assets, not minimise them.

So my argument here is slightly different. It is we have taken the wrong decision over Chagos for the wrong reasons. If we had stepped back and asked ourselves in ten years, five years time or even in two years time when China is estimated to have a more powerful fleet in the Pacific than the US can muster at any stage, then really, would we say that we ought to let the Chagos Islands go and put in the hands of Mauritius? Mauritius, who China lauds in almost every announcement that it makes and has a very good

**** Possible New Speaker ****

relationship with it. So OK. And actually. Even if we accept the government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Even if we accept the government position that don't get on particularly well with China, but we really resting in the hands of we really resting in the hands of fate, that they might change their minds 50 years from now and seek to line up with their sphere of influence. It's a huge gamble to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

take. Absolutely right. And I agree with him fundamentally, and I'm sorry, in a way today that the the sorry, in a way today that the the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth is not here. Not that I have any particular view. Detrimental view of the right hon. Gentleman he's there now to give me, but I worry why he isn't here. I hope he's not suffering from long Chagos and therefore maybe, maybe we should send him a get well card very soon.

We miss him because that is definitely studied ambivalence at the Dispatch Box as a master plan, I'm sure of it. But I simply say now, on this treaty we know now because of yesterday, it's been said by a number of colleagues, and I just repeat it here that we know now, yesterday, if we needed to know it at all, that the Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius has made it categorically clear, categorically clear, there will be no allowance for nuclear weapons, either part or landed on the islands of Chagos while this treaty exists.

And while they have that now, I don't know about studied ambivalence with the hon. Gentleman did talk about quite rightly. I didn't think there was any ambivalence about his statement. He's completely clear. And yet we are ambivalent. And ambivalence for us is a mistake, because it allows the statements of fact to be presented by those who will take control of Chagos. That is not just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a mistake, but a disastrous mistake. I think my hon. Friend wants to give way. I think there's a further twist

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think there's a further twist on on this, because it's not only that the Pelindaba treaty prohibits that the Pelindaba treaty prohibits the storing of nuclear weapons on the territory of Mauritius, which the territory of Mauritius, which the Chagos Islands would become, but it the treaty requires an but it the treaty requires an inspection regime. And the country, I understand, which would be carrying out the inspection is South Africa and South Africa is somewhat closer to China and Russia, particularly where naval cooperation is concerned than it is towards America or the United Kingdom.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, as he normally is, and the reality is that this treaty and the reality is that this treaty that he refers to is very clear about those who are signatories to about those who are signatories to it. They have no choice to modify it. They must agree categorically it. They must agree categorically not to have nuclear weapons on their territory. And we are in the their territory. And we are in the business of giving that territorial right over to Mauritius.

So therefore it applies. It will apply to Chagos, no question at all. And that brings me also to the other bit, which the government simply doesn't seem to face up to. Is that this arrangement or treaty in 1966 between the USA and the UK absolutely is clear. And I want to quote this, it states what the government calls an exchange of letters. But this is actually a treaty. So it, you know, obfuscates it. When you talk about an exchange of letter, it sounds like a get well card or something you put in the post.

Oh, it's not a big problem. We just exchange a few letters to each other. How are you getting on? Fine. What about us? We're just going to give the islands away. Are you OK with that? You're OK with that? No problems. Can you give us a bit more detail? We will when it's all passed. Don't worry about it. We'll be with you on this. No, it is a treaty. It has the substance of being a treaty. And the substance of that treaty states categorically the territory shall remain under the United Kingdom sovereignty.

Now, we can't arbitrarily change that. We have to have full agreement from the USA that that is the case. And I do not believe now that the United States really understood the nature of this, was that they wouldn't have sovereign rights over the base. And I don't think the government ever even bothered to explain it, because I seem to recall that when this whole debate began, this was never mentioned. Not one moment did the government come forward and say, yes, we're going to get this bill through.

But look, it's not in the bill. But I tell you what, we'll exchange letters with you afterwards because although it's relevant and it's completely sovereign, we don't want to talk about it. So the government has to explain when the Minister gets to his feet, why they never made any significant mention of this at all, because this has a massive bearing on now what happens to this really poor treaty, badly drafted, hurriedly written, and only of a few pages long. I have to tell you, I've sat through the Maastricht treaty for rebelling, of course, but the reality was throughout all of that it was it was huge, and every aspect of our arrangements was in there and debateable and amendable.

It has been horrific to watch how fast the government wants to get this through. And I honestly say that this is madness and I just want to come quickly to the cost. The other bit that is completely wrong is the government's desire to show how little they've had to pay for this, to get what they consider to be a reasonable lease. Government is now moving against

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in. The UK. They do not like leasing. Apparently there are not enough power over those leases. And I simply say to the government, really? I say learn from your own views about what's happening domestically. The lease is a terrible thing at times because it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

gives you so little control. This is going to be a lease. I will, of course. He's making an excellent speech

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He's making an excellent speech and if you were not already sanctioned by the Chinese, he would be by the end of it. Does he recall that Disraeli said in opposition, that we may not win the vote tonight, but we can win the argument? And does he agree with me that we are not only winning the argument, but the government are failing by not answering any questions to make any actual argument at all?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sir Iain Duncan Smith indeed. In fact, I would say that rather than us winning the argument, the government has simply lost the argument, which is even in a way more powerful because they're making no effort to explain it. And making no effort to explain it. And I feel sorry, honestly, for the Ministers. I've sat in government and, you know, you're sent out to bat and to defend the indefensible, bat and to defend the indefensible, and you have to do it well. And I take it on, gentlemen, that I have a high regard for him as he knows.

And good luck on this one tonight. The, the in fact, he'll need to make it brief because we will intervene. I simply say, though, that the cost is nonsense, and my hon. Friend brilliantly laid it out. I won't repeat the specifics, but I will simply say, as I said to him, having sat in government, and I know how these figures are put together, and there is no way on earth that a government should rightly use net present value for a foreign treaty over a period of over 90 years.

It is an absurdity. We have no control over their social obligations in Mauritius. They may shift them and change them. We have no control over what their economic policy will be. Thus inflation. In this we have no control over that. It can only really be used for domestic issues. And I think this is a shimmy by the government to try and get the cost down, absurdly, to 3.4 billion, when in fact it's 34.7. And that's probably wrong. I think it's probably wrong because I think it will be more than that over the long term.

So this is another absurdity, an excuse if he got rid of. And I want to end on this one particular point, which is as all the other points have been made, and I won't dwell on them. But I do want to dwell on this. It was wrong in 1966 when we chucked the Chagossians off their island. It was a bad decision. It was made. It was an immoral decision. And governments make this and we need to own up to that fact. My government should have done, and I think we should today own up to this fact that we owe the Chagossians something better.

Now, the right hon. Gentleman speaks for the Liberal Democrats, has talked about a referendum. I absolutely think that's one of the possibilities. But I tell you what I would do if I was in government, I'd say, listen, we're not going to do the deal with Mauritius. We'll do the deal with you. The Chagossians over the islands and you will be allowed back to those islands with full rights, and we'll negotiate with you how we work together with British control over all.

But with you being paid, I'd rather pay that money to them so they can live their lives better than do Mauritius. And we know, by the way, that Chagossians are many of them had terrible problems in Mauritius, had been treated like second class citizens. We know that the United Nations Committee on Racial Discrimination has come out and said this treaty should not go ahead for those reasons, and I agree with that. So there is both a factual problem with this and a human rights problem, and overarching all a threat to the freedom of our ourselves and those in the free world.

And if we give way on this, if we let this go through, if we do not correct change and end the nonsense of this, we will forever have that over our heads. As you lost control of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

most critical area in the world. Yeah, yeah yeah. Andrew Rosindell. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm very pleased that I am following my right hon. Friend, the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green only wish that when he was Green only wish that when he was the leader of the Conservative Party, he then got on to become Prime Minister because we wouldn't Prime Minister because we wouldn't be sitting here today debating this issue. His last words of his speech, just given, said everything that needed to be said. All governments of all political parties have failed to do the right and moral thing over many decades.

The Chagos Islands were depopulated, cruelly depopulated, and the people of the Chagos Islands were never given any say or any right of self
14:59
Andrew Rosindell Portrait Andrew Rosindell MP (Romford, Reform UK)
-
-
determination. Had that happened, decolonisation would have taken place and there would never have place and there would never have been an international court ruling. The Chagos would have stayed British, and they would have British, and they would have proudly, as the Falkland Islands and the Gibraltarians have done, they would have voted in any they would have voted in any referendum to exercise their right of self-determination and stay British. But all governments of all British. But all governments of all parties ignored the whole issue for decades, despite all the appeals of a small number of us that tried again and again and again, but were ignored.

And so that is why we are in the position we are today. But I cannot disagree with almost anything of my former colleagues have been saying today about this issue. They've analysed it correctly, they've analysed it correctly. I only wish in the 14 years we had done something about it at that stage. And so, madam and so, Madam Deputy Speaker, I won't at this stage. And so, Madam Deputy Speaker, as all members, I think on all sides of the House will know, there have been a few issues that have consumed so much of my parliamentary life in 25 years as the British Indian Ocean Territory, Chagos Islands and more importantly, the Chagossian people.

For more than two decades I have fought for the Chagossian right of self-determination. As with all overseas territories and former colonies, I chaired the British Indian Ocean Territory all party parliamentary group. In fact, I was the Deputy Chairman to the right hon. Member for Islington North. So it's a bit of a juggling act in trying to get cross-party consensus about where we're heading on that. But the one thing that united that all-party group was the belief that the Chagossians should have the right of resettlement.

And I argued strongly that ultimately self-determination, whatever the options are, the Chagossians make the final say. Whatever happens. The hon. Member for Islington North had a different view. But seven political parties represented in that group came to the view that the first thing is resettlement. But the conservative government over 14 years absolutely refused to even consider any option for resettlement of those islands. So I dealt with this issue also as a member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee over 15 years, and unlike many who now speak with great certainty, they remain silent during that period.

But I did not. And I've also been there. I've been to the British Indian Ocean Territory. I've walked those islands. I've seen the abandoned churches and schools. I've walked around the ancestral graves of the Chagossian people, the derelict homes and the visible traces of a community expelled from its homeland and denied the right to return. And I've asked every Minister, every government over and over again. I've been ignored, and a small number of us were ignored as well.

I paid tribute to the former members Daniel Kawczynski, Shrewsbury. He raised it, and Henry Smith in Crawley he we all raised it. But over 14 years, sadly, the last government just dismissed it and refused to even consider it. I went to Paris. There the outer islands, there are 160 miles away from Diego Garcia. There's no security threat there. It took me four. Get on four different boats to get to these outer islands, and people could live there with no issues whatsoever.

Long, long way from Diego Garcia and the Americans. Despite the the line from the Foreign Office. I went to the State Department. I raised it directly and they said, we have no objections to the Chagossians living in the outer islands. It's our Foreign Office puppeteering this policy for years, and our Ministers just went along with it, did nothing, ignored the facts. I went to Mauritius in 2002, accompanied by my right hon. Friend, former leader of the Conservative Party Michael Howard, Lord Howard of Folkestone.

And it wasn't part of the official programme. It wasn't part of it. But I said, please, can we go and visit the Chagossians in Port Louis? And after a bit of a flurry from officials, in the end we insisted and we went to meet leaders of the Chagossian community. And that was 2002, pretty much my first year as a member of Parliament. And so when I speak about Chagos, I do so from long experience, having visited Diego Garcia, the outer Islands, as I've mentioned, and I conclude that this represents by all parties, sadly, a shameful betrayal of the loyal British people, and the bill the government is putting forward is nothing short of a surrender.

It hands away British sovereignty over a territory we have administered for more than two centuries. It binds generations of British taxpayers to a grotesque financial settlement. Tens of billions of pounds paid to a foreign government, simply so that we may have leaseback on the military base that we already own. That is vital to our security, and that is one of our closest allies. And yet we are prepared to risk that vital military and security base for the next, for the next century because of this shabby deal.

And so Ministers justify this capitulation by sheltering behind so-called international law. They insist that a non-binding advisory opinion of a court whose jurisdiction is explicitly excluded from intra Commonwealth disputes is somehow, somehow beyond negotiation. Yet at the same time, they are content to ignore the 1966 agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom, an actual binding international treaty which states plainly it is in its very first clause that the territory shall remain under United Kingdom sovereignty.

That consideration tells us everything we need to know. Madam Deputy Speaker, this was never really about international law, an act of total weakness. That is how it has been described by the president of the United States of America. And doesn't that just say everything about this government's approach? And it does all this without the consent or a genuine consultation, or even the courtesy which every other territory has been afforded of a democratic vote for the Chagossian people themselves.

A full as this bill is as disgraceful as this bill is. It did not emerge, however, from a vacuum for over two decades and 14 years. As I've mentioned from the government backbenches, I urged the Foreign Secretary after foreign secretary, Minister after Minister, speaking in the lobbies, going to the Foreign Office, talking to officials, discussing it over and over again, calling them into all-party group meetings, raising at the Foreign Affairs Committee to talk about the Chagossians and their right of resettlement and self-determination.

Ignored, ignored all the way through. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

certainly give way to my honourable right hon. Friend Sir Julian. I'm extremely grateful to my hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, as I will always regard him, having known him for the past 40 years and having known that his years and having known that his patriotism is beyond question for giving way. And does he agree with giving way. And does he agree with me that there's a bit of a pattern here? Because the government here? Because the government clearly wants to do this surrender deal giveaway, and yet tries to shelter behind inconclusive legalistic analysis? And isn't this exactly the same as the betrayal of our Northern Ireland veterans, where the government, when pressed, admits that it wanted to remove the immunity for our veterans anyway, but it still seeks to shelter behind questionable legal considerations that have not been fully tested.

Why won't the government, when it wants to do these terrible things, at least have the guts to stand up and admit that that's what they want to do, and that's not what they're being forced to do by lawyers whose

**** Possible New Speaker ****

credentials and jurisdiction are in Yeah. I agree with.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree with. Every word. My my very dear and long standing friend has said, I long standing friend has said, I say to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I sit here on a different bench now, but I look over the bench now, but I look over the chamber there, and I see I see colleagues over there who I still agree with on most things, but I agree with on most things, but I see people on that side of the chamber who some of whom and certainly some of whom in government today seem to hate everything about this country and want to undermine this country.

And this is the Northern Ireland veterans and this particular issue over the surrender of one of His Majesty's territories, against the wishes of the people, is exactly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what I'm talking about. And and I friend. I thank him for giving way. Both

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for giving way. Both he and I have visited the Falkland Islands, although on different occasions would he agree that what occasions would he agree that what the. There is a strategic runway and base there at RAF Mount Pleasant? Would he agree with me Pleasant? Would he agree with me that what the government are doing is analogous to paying Argentina £35 is analogous to paying Argentina £35 billion to rent back that base in the Falkland Islands, which also

**** Possible New Speaker ****

belong to us, and wished to be British. Well, my friend is completely right and there is a precedent here. right and there is a precedent here. The Falkland Islands could have gone the same way, Gibraltar could have gone the same way. And if we were indeed they tried to do so in 2002, one of the biggest campaigns 2002, one of the biggest campaigns I've ever fought was against the Joint Sovereignty plan by Tony Joint Sovereignty plan by Tony Blair, again against the wishes of the Gibraltarian people.

And I commend the speaker of the House of Commons, who I worked with very closely at that time, working to keep Gibraltar British, as we did in 1982, to keep the Falkland Islands British. But it is always on the basis of self-determination. I will make some progress, if I may. And so with the with assurances of the United States and with presidents around the world where indigenous people live alongside military installations. I tabled an urgent question in 2016 calling for exactly that.

The response from the then conservative Foreign Office Minister, Sir Alan Duncan, was this. And he said, and I quote, we do not consider that the right of self-determination actually applies to the Chagossians. That is what he said at the time. Madam Deputy Speaker, what a colossal disgrace. Sir Alan compared Chagossian resettlement to Pitcairn, another British community, the conservative government at that time was willing to discard to another nation, even though Pitcairn later proved strategically vital for our accession to the CPTPP.

And I'm sad to say that the government is correct that it was the government at the time. My government, conservative government at the time that began this scandal, conducting 11 rounds of negotiations with Port Louis. And I commend Lord Cameron, who ended those talks, and rightly so. But they should never have begun in the first place. But I do say, why did my former party not repudiate that whole policy entirely afterwards? Why didn't they say that's the end of it, never again, and repudiate the failure to give self-determination from Sir Alan Duncan before, why didn't we jettison that entire policy? We didn't do so even from within the shadow foreign affairs team.

I argued very strongly that the policy was fundamentally and morally wrong, and that self-determination must be central to our response. But I was, Madam Deputy Speaker, shut down opposition to this bill, I'm afraid, does not come from from principle of convenience. The cost of this surrender is indeed eye watering and has been the focus of the opposition for the last year. But no amount of money, no amount of money compares to the dishonour of selling out of British people.

Self-Determination is fundamental to everything I believe in. So fundamental, in fact, that it it rendered my position as a shadow Minister untenable. But I am pleased to hear the words of self-determination now being used from the shadow Foreign Secretary earlier, because when I've asked for this in the past, I've been told that's not the party policy, so I would. I am thrilled if now, at long last, self-determination for the Chagossian people is official party policy. I hope that is the case, because then everything I've been fighting for for the last 25 years has been worth it.

But Madam Deputy Speaker, this bill and its origins under this Labour government and the previous conservative government represents the moment that I had enough over this issue and needed to say clearly that country has to become come before party. And I believe the Chagossians deserve the same democratic rights as every other British citizen. And that is why I was genuinely horrified and upset a few weeks ago to be prevented on conservative whips instruction at the time from voting for the amendment tabled in this House by the hon.

Member for Surrey Heath, who is a fine addition to this House and has campaigned wonderfully for the rights of the Chagossian people and his amendment sought to guarantee a referendum for the Chagossian people. And I was told I went to the door and I was told I cannot go in and vote for it, and I apologise to my chagossian friends that I let them down on that. But I was told not to, and I felt deeply upset that I didn't do so.

And I made it clear to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath that that he had my support and still has my support in what he was proposing. Meanwhile, genuine opposition on on the benches from which I speak today has has put aside party squabbles because national interest must always come before party. And they backed the Liberal Democrat amendment. There's not really much in common usually between Reform and Liberal Democrats. But on this it's a matter of principle. So my colleagues voted my in my new party, voted for the hon.

Member for Surrey Heath amendment, and I commend them for that. I ask simply to give it simply to give a displaced people the right of consent before their homeland is gift wrapped and donated to a foreign country. That's all we're asking. Let the people decide who can seriously disagree with that principle. And so we rightly insist on self-determination for the Falkland Islanders. We strongly uphold it for Gibraltar, and we defend it for every other British overseas territory and former colony colony.

And the government is happy to support this principle over Greenland, it seems, but not for their own British Chagossian people. It makes no sense and it's morally reprehensible. And what took place in the House of Lords at Third Reading was, I believe, shameful. Peers repeatedly called for a division. Shouts of not content were heard again and again. Yet the House was denied the opportunity to vote a bill of immense constitutional, financial and strategic consequence. One of the most important pieces of legislation of this Parliament was nodded through on a procedural manoeuvre, squandering a chance to kill it, and I was further disturbed to learn from many conservative peers who contacted me, very angry that they had been instructed not to vote the bill down.

Not because the arguments were weak, not because the numbers were lacking, but because of a quiet understanding that sovereignty should not be defended to robustly. Today least it cause inconvenience for tomorrow. Many, many members of the House of Lords contacted me absolutely in despair at the instructions they were given by the whips in the Lords. So this is not coming from me because I'm not in the Lords, but those who are there were deeply upset by that, and that Madam Deputy Speaker crossed the line for me.

A conservative government denied the principle of self-determination, and this Labour government has gone further, much further, surrendering the homeland entirely without any consent of the Chagossian people. This, I'm afraid to say, is a bipartisan failure. This is this legislation sells out the King's Islands, binds future generations to vast financial liabilities, and ignores the rights of an exiled people. I could not, in good conscience, remain silent or complicit, disarmed of any meaningful say in the deliberations of my former party, and in fact, ashamed that the party of Margaret Thatcher, the party that took back the Falkland Islands in defence of the principle of self-determination, would be implicated in this betrayal.

Perhaps the Prime Minister will keep to the word of his own, of his own deputy Prime Minister, who stated on ITV in in February that if President Trump doesn't like the deal, the deal will not go forward.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm sure the hon. Gentleman is aware of pressures of time. I'm sure that he'll be bringing his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

remarks to a conclusion shortly. Andrew Rosindell just announce the so.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the so. So given the given, the president believes this deal to be a, quote, act of great stupidity, a, quote, act of great stupidity, perhaps the Prime Minister should show some courage, withdraw this legislation and scrap this atrocious deal altogether. Madam Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, it should be cast into the dustbin of history where it belongs. Mark an end to this government's policy of managed decline, and prove that when it comes to the sovereignty of people over their homeland, whether it be Chagos, the British Indian Ocean territory or any other territory that is being decolonised around the world, it is the people

**** Possible New Speaker ****

themselves who must decide, have the final say and be given the right of self-determination. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Members should be aware that I'm planning to start frontbench

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contributions at 340. That call Lincoln Jopp. Yeah, yeah. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's it's a pleasure to follow

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's it's a pleasure to follow the Member for Romford. And with his last words echoing in my ears his last words echoing in my ears of self-determination, I have no doubt that he will be reflecting on whether he is going to afford the people of Romford the same rights people.
15:19
Lincoln Jopp Portrait Lincoln Jopp MP (Spelthorne, Conservative)
-
-
Yeah. of course I'm on. >> The opposition benches have made arguments against the government's position, and they've done that believing what is right. They've believing what is right. They've never impugned the patriotism or the loyalty of this party to our country, unlike the member opposite. Would he agree with me that we should take no lessons from reform? Who take their line from either

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Musk or Moscow? I thank the hon. Member for his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. If he if he wants, if he wants to, I suggest he takes it he wants to, I suggest he takes it outside. If they say I'm. I'm I'm very time constrained. But I do want to pay tribute to the members want to pay tribute to the members on these benches who have informed this debate today as a result of incredibly detailed research and knowledge. And I have been delighted to see the Minister's PPS running backwards and forwards from the box, because I was rather hoping that the summing up was simply not going to be a reheating of the Minister for pack's opening remarks, because there have been some substantive points made from these benches, which I hope are going to be answered in the summing up.

I am very time constrained. A lot of the points have been covered, so I was wondering for inspiration as to what I might add to the debate. And so I'm simply going to read out a piece of casework which I have domestically, which, although not relevant to the Chagos Islands I think is is an interesting comparator. It comes from a member of the public who had written to his bank manager, and I suppose I owe it to him to anonymize him.

So I need to come up with some sort of pseudonym. So I'm just going to call him. I'm going to call him Mr. Powell. OK. And Mr. Powell wrote to his bank manager and he said, Dear sir, a number of years ago I inherited a large seven story home in Mayfair. I am incredibly lucky and I acknowledge that fact. It is far too big for me to live in. I live solely in half of the ground floor, and for as long as I can remember, I have had Americans living in the other floors.

And I like these Americans. And so they live there rent free. And so what I am proposing, sir, is that I give you the bank, this house, and then I propose to pay you the bank rent above the market rent for not only me, but all the Americans who live upstairs. And. And so.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In Mauritius. Mauritius I. Would so.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would be very grateful for your advice on this issue. And the bank manager wrote back to Mr. Mr. bank manager wrote back to Mr. Mr. Powell, he said, Dear Mr. Powell, are you OK? I am concerned for your mental. State because what you are proposing would appear to be and he proposing would appear to be and he put this bit in inverted commas, an act of great stupidity, unquote. He made the following four points. He said, firstly, you do not need to do this at all.

Secondly, it is going to cost you a fortune. Thirdly, you do realise that when you have given that you will have given your house away at the end of all this. And fourthly, on a personal note, were these arrangements ever to become public? I fear that your neighbours would laugh at you, yours, the bank manager, and so I will simply leave that analogue there. Madam Deputy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker, let my colleagues come in and so we can wrap this up. Well done. Superb. Aphra Brandreth Banbury.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Aphra Brandreth Banbury. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. On every level, this is a bad deal. On every level, this is a bad deal. From the absurdity of paying £34.7 billion for the privilege of ceding billion for the privilege of ceding our own territory to the implications for defence, from putting at risk one of the most putting at risk one of the most pristine marine environments in the world, to the complete disregard shown to the British Chagossians
15:23
Aphra Brandreth Portrait Aphra Brandreth MP (Chester South and Eddisbury, Conservative)
-
-
themselves. There is so much I could focus my remarks on today, but I want to highlight two issues but I want to highlight two issues in particular perception and national security. Perception national security. Perception matters in geopolitics. The messages we send internationally or otherwise, are read closely by our allies and by our adversaries, and they carry very real consequences. I need not remind the Minister of the comments made by the president of the United States just last week.

Those remarks materially change the context in which this House is considering this deal. Madam Deputy Speaker, the 1966 treaty between the UK and the US agreed to retain sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory. It is clear any attempt to surrender sovereignty violates international law, and I commend my conservative colleagues in both houses for delaying the bill's passage. But delay is not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

enough. The surrender bill should be pulled in its entirety. Yeah, yeah yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah yeah. The UK US relationship is built on trust, particularly in defence and security. When the president states publicly that a deal will damage that relationship and should not proceed, that this deal is an not proceed, that this deal is an act of great stupidity, the government should listen and act. I government should listen and act. I am not suggesting that the United States sees the UK as an unreliable partner. We have stood shoulder to shoulder for decades, but this deal is different.

If it proceeds, it will reduce the operability of UK and US forces in the region, diminish our strategic reach and weaken our influence. Responsibility for that lies squarely with this government. Madam Deputy Speaker, the Prime Minister is in China today. Beijing will also be watching closely. China will welcome any increase in autonomy in the region, and with it, the opportunity to decimate the marine protected area surrounding the Chagos Islands through its fishing fleet. We know those vessels will not simply be there to fish, they will be there to gather intelligence, to probe our defences and to gain strategic advantage.

Near Diego Garcia. The message this deal sends to our adversaries is clear that the UK is retreating, diminishing and weakening. That is not the message we should be sending in an increasingly hostile and unpredictable world. Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to make one brief point on national security, which I've raised in previous debates and which we've heard from many people this evening. Under the Pelindaba treaty, neither the UK nor the US will be able to store nuclear weapons on Diego Garcia.

We now have confirmation of this from the Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius. That restriction significantly reduces our capability in a a critical region and weakens the security of both ourselves and our allies. Ultimately, Madam Deputy Speaker, this deal is not in the interests of the United Kingdom. It is not in the interests of protecting one of the most important marine environments on the planet. It is not in the interests of the British Chagossians who have been ignored throughout this process, and it is certainly not in the interests of the British taxpayer.

Those on the Labour benches know that another U-turn is looming. This deal is indefensible, and today members have an opportunity to do the right thing to support this motion and to bring this surrender deal to an end.
15:27
Ben Obese-Jecty Portrait Ben Obese-Jecty MP (Huntingdon, Conservative)
-
-
Ben Obese-Jecty thank you, Madam >> Ben Obese-Jecty thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The UK giving away extremely important land is an act of great stupidity. So wrote the of great stupidity. So wrote the president of the United States only a week ago. And for once, he's not wrong. I've lost track of the number of times I've spoken about the Chagos deal in this house, but each time brings a new stick to beat the government with. It's genuinely difficult to see how the government has got to this point, but it's kamikaze.

Negotiating tactics have led it to a point where it can no longer even muster the collective energy of its backbenchers to defend it anymore. The dogged determination of the government to capitulate to a 2019 advisory ruling by the International Court of Justice would be commendable were it not so timid. The UN General Assembly adopted resolutions urging the UK to comply with the Icj's advisory opinion. But crucially, the US voted in support of the UK, clearly not fearing the International Tribunal for the law of the sea, of which it is not a member.

Exactly, as I'm sure everybody here already knows, the United States supports is significant because of the presence of the Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia, a strategically important location that is effectively a persistent aircraft carrier in the Indian Ocean, critical for force projection in the Southern Hemisphere and across Indopacom. On Monday, the Minister for the Overseas Territories was quick to imply that discussions regarding the deal with the United States were an almost daily occurrence. With that in mind, perhaps the Minister in his summing up could outline to the House what discussions the government has had with his US counterparts regarding the limitations placed on operations by compliance with the Pelindaba treaty.

Both the UK and Mauritius are satisfied that our existing international obligations are fully compatible with the agreement. That was what a written question said to me when I asked about this question recently. But what precisely does that therefore exclude going forwards? The African Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Treaty was signed by Mauritius in 1996 and prohibits a myriad of functions relating to nuclear weapons, including possession or control of nuclear weapons. Whilst there are obviously no ICBMs based at Diego Garcia, the US nuclear triad is designed to provide a second strike capability that includes air launched warheads.

Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia is a strategic waypoint for the US Air Force bomber fleet. The B-1, B-2, and B-52 bombers. Following September 11th, the US used Diego Garcia for operations in Afghanistan and subsequently during the start of the Iraq War. As recently as last May, the US Air Force had B-2 bombers stationed on the island. This is critical because the B-2 spirit is the delivery method for the mod 11 B61 12 thermonuclear gravity bomb, the primary weapon for the ground penetrating mission, so this capability matters, and whilst it will likely never be used, we cannot afford enemies within the region to know that it will never be on the table.

We should bear in mind that the Prime Minister is in China th across the Pacific, particularly Taiwan and the second island chain, will surely come up in conversation. Seeding the Chagos Islands to a country within China's orbit is yet another strategic misstep in the prime minister's inability to deal with China robustly. On the ongoing question of sovereignty in number 25 between the ambassador of the United States of America to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, written on the 30th of December, 1960 6.1 states, very clearly the territory shall remain under United Kingdom sovereignty.

This time last year, I asked the government whether the 1966 exchange of notes would require amendment as a result of the change in sovereignty. The 1966 exchange of notes between the UK and US regarding the joint UK, US based on Diego Garcia, has been subject to routine amendments and supplementation since. Signature. Any amendments resulting from the proposed agreement with Mauritius will be factored into this existing process. So could the Minister outline what progress the government has made in that regard? I asked that question on the 5th of February last year, and here we are now, a year later, the treaty on the brink and no update from the government, less for a slightly churlish appearance at the despatch box in Monday's UQ.

The legislation crucially pulled from the other place for that afternoon. Throughout the passage of this bill, the government has deflected, obfuscated, been dragged to the chamber, given us the run around on detail, gaslit us and generally tried to force this deal through the lack of speakers on the government benches is testament to the fact that Labour MPs simply do not want to put their names to this piece of legislation. All it achieves is weakening our military options in the Southern hemisphere, and exempting 80% of Mauritian workers from income tax.

Kudos to Mauritian Prime Minister Navin Ramgoolam, clearly a savvy negotiator than our own dear Prime Minister. There is no doubt that China and Russia have noticed this act of total weakness, said President Trump. Perhaps the Prime Minister could ask Jinping about it before he offers him a state visit.
15:31
James Cartlidge Portrait James Cartlidge MP (South Suffolk, Conservative)
-
-
This brings us to the frontbench. Cartlidge. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And can I begin by offering the condolences of the opposition to the family of Captain Philip the family of Captain Philip Muldowney of the Royal Artillery, who lost his life tragically training with the British Army this training with the British Army this week. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to close today's close today's debate on the Chagos Islands and to hold the government to account for the total meltdown of their attempt to surrender sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean territory without opposition.

Well, today they are getting that opposition and they're getting it from the Conservatives, because it is us who have exposed the total fallacy of the legal argument used to justify this crazy deal. And let's be clear, it is a truly crazy deal. One of the worst ever proposed to this Parliament, as every single one of my colleagues in their excellent speeches have said, this deal involves our hard pressed taxpayers struggling as they are with an ever growing tax burden. Since Labour came to power to hand over another £35 billion to lease back land that we already own freehold.

Madam Deputy Speaker, it's our land over which we have sovereignty, the ultimate guarantor of legal security in a dangerous world. When we need that money for our own armed forces, when the billions given to Mauritius will be used as tax cuts to cut taxes for their people. When Labour know the threats we face are growing and we need Diego Garcia more than ever, when their policy treats the Chagossian people with contempt, the public will scratch their heads and ask a simple question why are they doing this now? To be fair to the Minister who's winding up last September, he tried to spell out the reasons, and I quote exactly what he said to justify this crazy deal.

He said, and I quote, had we not signed that treaty, we could could have faced further legal rulings against us within weeks. Further legal rulings might have included arbitrary proceedings against the UK under annexe seven of the UN convention on the law of the sea, known as Enclose. He went on to say that such a judgement would ultimately threaten operations on the base, because it would, and I quote, impact our ability to protect the electromagnetic spectrum from interference. Now, it's bad enough that the government's case rests entirely on rulings that could happen, rulings that might happen.

Worse still, they fail to take into account our clear cut ability to reject any such hypothetical rulings. So let's consider we understand the government is afraid of potential legal action by Enclose, but article 298 of Noah Law states very clearly when signing, ratifying or acceding to this convention, or at any time thereafter, a state may under one declaring, writing that it does not accept any one or more of the procedures provided for in section two with respect to one or more of the following categories of disputes, including as item B, disputes concerning military activities r in terms of operational threats to the base, the government's argument is that hypothetical action by Enclose might lead to further hypothetical action by the International Telecommunications Union, thus hypothetically threatening the electromagnetic spectrum on the base at Diego Garcia.

Well, article 48 of the Constitution of the International Telecommunications Union, which is entitled installations for National Defence Services, states and I quote under one member states retain their entire freedom with regard to military radio installations. To clarify further, the Telecoms Minister, the hon. Gentleman for Rhondda and Ogmore, who is always a helpful soul, confirmed in written answer last February to my right hon. Friend for Rayleigh and Wickford and I quote, individual countries have the sovereign right to manage and use the radio spectrum within their border the way they wish, subject to not causing interference with other countries.

And he goes on to say, the ITU cannot challenge the UK's use of civilian or military spectrum. Slam dunk. Now we have it. We can challenge it on close where military bases are concerned, and the ITU cannot challenge our use of electromagnetic spectrum. So isn't this the truth? There is no threat to this country if we maintain our sovereignty over Diego Garcia. But there is a massive threat if we surrender it. Clear and unambiguous threats to the most sensitive and critical of all our military operational considerations for ourselves and the United States, those that relate to our ability to use nuclear weapons and deter the most serious threats to our nation.

Yesterday, it was confirmed that the Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius, Paul Barangay, has stated that nuclear weapons and I quote, could not be stored on Diego Garcia if Labour's deal goes through crystal clear. This is because Mauritius is a signatory to the Pelindaba treaty, prohibiting the stationing of nuclear weapons across Africa and thereby including all territory of Mauritius. We repeatedly warned Ministers of the threat arising from the Pelindaba treaty, but they dismissed our concerns and today couldn't answer the questions at all.

So, can the Minister tell us if anyone in government has discussed the storage of nuclear weapons on Diego Garcia with the US administration, and in particular, has the Prime Minister at any point discussed this matter with President Trump? Is it not another example of the total madness of Labour's crazy Chagos deal that we who rely on a naval nuclear deterrent to keep us safe in a dangerous world, are surrendering sovereignty of one of the most vital naval bases in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

world to a nation signed up to a treaty outlawing the stationing of nuclear weapons on that territory. Yes, exactly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, exactly. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, we have had some absolutely fantastic speeches today, and I have to pay speeches today, and I have to pay tribute. I must say to the hon. Gentleman for Macclesfield and Rugby in answering the distress flare from the whips office, because they had two more contributions than the than in the UQ the other day, where not a single Labour MP stood up in support of the government. But on this side we had real passion because none of us support this deal.

We have consistently opposed it. As my hon. Friend for Bexhill and Battle said. What does this say about our strategic priorities? As the hon. Gentleman for Wetherby and Easingwold said, this is a government without a strategic policy on China. What message does it send to them? Especially when we've agreed the super embassy. But I have to say, a specific and very special mention to my hon. Friend for Hinckley and Bosworth for an absolutely brilliant speech that totally demolished the government's case around the financial position, not a flesh wound in sight after that.

And in fact, if, if if he bear with my hon. Friend, I think, referred to the sketch with the Black Knight. But increasingly today we think of another Monty Python sketch, Madam Deputy Speaker, because they think that this treaty has been paused, that it is merely resting. But we suspect that this treaty is increasingly pushing up the daisies. And I can assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, we will campaign with every bit of fight.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We've got to ensure that this is an ex treaty. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, to conclude, I give way to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

gentleman and then I'll wrap up. Giving way on that question of cost. Could he tell the House how much the conservative government were offering for such a deal? Is it higher or lower than Labour's it higher or lower than Labour's offer? And if he doesn't know, will he put down a written parliamentary question or submit a Freedom of Information request to the Foreign

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Office to find out? I don't think you're quite understand. We didn't sign a deal. understand. We didn't sign a deal. We wouldn't sign a deal because the terms were totally unacceptable, and they've got an awful lot worse and they've got an awful lot worse since then. Yes, 35 billion times worse since then. That's the cost. £35 billion from freedom of information from the government themselves. It's an absolute themselves. It's an absolute disgrace. And why we will be voting against it.

So to conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, I asked why the government were doing this. Surrendering. I give way to my hon. Friend Sarah Bool.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friend for giving way. I have one simple final question to ask him. Will he please tell the House him. Will he please tell the House is it now conservative Party policy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to give self-determination and the right of resettlement to the Chagossian people? He knows that we've opposed this,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He knows that we've opposed this, but on self-determination, I would like him to ask his leader if he believes in the self-determination believes in the self-determination of the people of Ukraine, invaded by Russia, brutally bombed by Russia. A leader who still says that that was provoked by NATO. He should be ashamed of that if he believes in self-determination. Madam Deputy Speaker. Now to conclude, and I am going to conclude. I asked why the government were doing this, surrendering our land that we own freehold, only to lease it back for £35 billion.

Isn't the reason the same one as why they are surrendering our brave veterans to a new era of warfare? Isn't it the same reason that Labour gave up our fishing grounds, the most critical possession of an island nation, to access an EU defence fund from which they have not had a penny? The answer? This is a weak Prime Minister who always fails to put Britain's national interest first. If Labour were strong enough to put our national interest first, surely they would stand up to Mauritius and reject this deal.

After all, if they did that, they could spend the money saved on our armed forces at a time when rearmament at home is on hold, precisely because Labour have failed to properly fund defence. But I finished with this, Madam Deputy Speaker, if there is one silver lining to having such a weak Prime Minister, it is his habit of constant U-turns. We've had 13 U-turns to date from this government, Madam Deputy Speaker. Wouldn't the best thing be for our national security, for Labour to recognise that the game is up? To turn their paws on the Chagos Bill into a permanent full stop and scrap this terrible deal?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, sir. Luke Pollard. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. What a terrible example of collective amnesia for the entire debate. Not a single one of the Tory MPs, in their remarks could say why they started the negotiations. And for the sake of ease, I'm happy taking ease, I'm happy taking interventions. If the conservative MP can start their intervention with the reason their government with the reason their government started the negotiations, because if it is true, I will give it a second.

If it is true, as the shadow Defence Secretary says, that it is a crazy deal, why did they start it if it is true that it damaged our national security? Why did they start it? Not an answer from any single one of them, but let's see if he can give it a go. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

am surprised. That a. Party that. Represents trade unionists
15:43
15:43
Luke Pollard Portrait Luke Pollard MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, Labour )
-
-
negotiation, 85% 85% of negotiations conducted by them, and seem to have this collective seem to have this collective amnesia that they think they stopped the deal when on the 29th of April, on Gov.uk, the statement of April, on Gov.uk, the statement between the then Prime Minister and the Prime Minister said during the phone call, they discussed the progress of negotiations between the UK and Mauritius on the exercise of sovereignty over Biot, and both leaders instructed their teams to continue to work at pace.

A general election was called less than a month later on this one here. It is staggering to do this. And so let me be absolutely clear. When we came to office, we inherited a set of negotiations. We inherited a set of negotiations that had had 11 rounds on this one here, and we reinforced it. We added a 24 mile nautical buffer zone, so no activity can take place in there without our say so. And an effective veto on all development in the Chagos Archipelago.

Happy giving way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to him. I completely and utterly opposed my government when they even started government when they even started this. Categorically. Oh, I did, I did. I've been in opposition no matter who's in government. Now, matter who's in government. Now, the key point here is I have to say to him, though, it's not what you start, it's what you finish. Yes. start, it's what you finish. Yes. And even though I was opposed to them when I spoke to Lord Cameron and I said, he's got to stop it, he took the decision to stop it and finish it.

Why will this government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not see the evidence and stop it now? Yeah. He nearly got to. Why? They

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He nearly got to. Why? They started the negotiations. It wasn't quite hearing my bar of intervention, but I appreciate him

**** Possible New Speaker ****

intervention, but I appreciate him giving it a good go. But let me see if he can do better. Could the Minister explain why the previous Labour government the previous Labour government entered negotiations in 2009, when the first talks took place with the Mauritian government, which they Mauritian government, which they ultimately ruled out as being criticised for being a unilateral decision around the marine protected area.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Again, he didn't quite hit my bar, but I'm sure I'll get a PQ from him about it shortly. I'm afraid they started the afraid they started the negotiations and they want everyone to forget it. They want the public to forget it. They want their own to forget it. They want their own MPs to forget that they started negotiations. Look, if they can't do deals, they're in the wrong place. But look, there are some very interesting questions asked, and I want to try and deal with some of them.

Madam Deputy Speaker some of them. Madam Deputy Speaker I've been asked to finish early so the shadow Cabinet can sit, and so I do want to make sure that I can get through as many of these as I can before the frontbench need to go busy themselves in a meeting. But let me try and answer a few of the questions. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson asked very sensible question about the amendment that his party placed in the other place. He will appreciate it is a wrecking amendment, so it is one that we could not support.

But he will also be clear that we take the the issues behind it very seriously. And I'm glad that he continues to raise the issues of Chagossians. It's an important one. The gentleman that now sits on the other side of the house over here raised the issue around resettlement on the on the outer islands. He made the case that that's something he really wants to see. He wants to see resettlement on the outer islands that helps restore some of the dignity to the Chagossians, who had been treated appallingly many decades previously.

And since he will know that the deal that we have signed with Mauritius includes the right to resettle on the outer islands and for visits to take place Diego Garcia. It might not satisfy all his concerns around it, but I hope he can understand that that is a step forward in relation to what has been said. And I'm grateful for the member, for Macclesfield for his speech and talks about the uncertainty. It is the uncertainty on the operation of the base that concerns me most about this, about the continuation of disruption as a as a defence Minister.

And that is what this deal seeks to close off. And he was right to do so. The hon. Gentleman that was a defence Minister describes it as he learns something new every day. Every day can indeed be a school day. And what I've learnt is that when he swapped from one side of the house to the other, miraculously, his opinion on this deal changed as well because he backed it when he was a Minister and now he opposes it when he is on the backbenches opposite.

That does say something about it. My hon. Friend for Rugby asked the very same questions I started with. Why did the Conservatives start this negotiation? A question they still can't answer, still can't answer. And I notice the the Member for Bexhill and Battle has found his voice only when he's completed his chicken run from the seat he thought he was going to lose to the new one here, I have to say. But let me be absolutely clear on this point. Let me be absolutely clear on this point.

It is shameful, shameful that the Conservatives are trying to drag other overseas territories into the mess that they are arguing for here. Shameful. Let's be absolutely clear. The Falkland Islands government, the Falklands, that they want to try and create an impression that their sovereignty is not secure by the. Their speeches today, the Falkland Islands have noted that the agreement has no impact on the self-determination of the Falkland Islands people and the existing and future relationship between the Falkland Islands and the United Kingdom.

So let's not hear any more conservative MPs raising questions about the future of the Falkland Islands. No, I will not. He's got a meeting to get to. I'm trying to help him get there. Let's give it a go. I think he should sit down and prepare for his next meeting. Now, the gentleman at the back, the gentleman for Wetherby, I have to say, was a good voice in this debate. I have to say he made a very sound case about the geostrategic picture changing in the world, a really important contribution.

And his work on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly is one that gives him added insight not only into the importance of the base, the importance of the UK US relationship, but also the importance of making sure that we have a strong defence. And I have to say we will continue to invest in our national security. I'm very proud of my country, I'm very proud of our armed forces. I'm proud that we are increasing defence spending under this government to the highest level.

That hasn't been seen since the end of the Cold War. So there's more that needs to be done there. The gentleman from Hinckley and Bosworth, who spoke for a good 20 minutes in his speech, spoke very sadly, but I'm afraid he seemed to have read everything but the treaty himself, because he was asking questions around what can be stored on the base. Now, if he looks at the treaty in annexe 11A of the treaty describes it that there will be unrestricted access, basing and overflight for the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

Aircraft and vessels to enter into the sea and airspace of Diego Garcia one B says unrestricted ability means one to control and conduct, and the to control the conduct and deployment of our armed operations and lethal capabilities. And two control the storage of all goods, including but not limited to fuels, weapons and hazardous materials. It and unfortunately, the the the shadow defence secretary forgets his time as defence Minister. We do not talk about the location of nuclear weapons, but the protections were designed and tested at the highest level of of the US security establishment who supported the UK.

Proceeding with the deal, we continue to work closely with the US to ensure that the necessary arrangements are put in place.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Point of order doctor Luke Evans. I wonder if you could help me chair. The Minister specifically chair. The Minister specifically made comments directed at me about questions opening an opportunity for how do I get a recourse to respond to those questions were

**** Possible New Speaker ****

respond to those questions were posed to me as a member. Hon. Member will know it is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hon. Member will know it is entirely at the Minister's discretion, as it will be with any other speaker if he chooses to give other speaker if he chooses to give way or not. It's not a matter for the chair. I'm sure the Minister's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

heard Luke Pollard. I appreciate your and gentleman. I'm very pro, Luke's generally I'm very pro, Luke's generally speaking, but he has had 20 minutes to do that, and a few more interventions won't correct the quality of his speech, I'm afraid,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

quality of his speech, I'm afraid, but happy giving way to the gentleman opposite next to him. OK. Very specifically, he's read out something about what can be stored on the island. Can that stored on the island. Can that include and does it include nuclear weapons? And regarding the earlier point about a deal, may I remind him of a saying from an earlier context, a different context? No

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deal is better than a bad deal. Yeah, well. In the, you know, to help his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the, you know, to help his frontbench get to their shadow Cabinet meeting, I won't read out the same points again. However, the the same points again. However, the he invites me to so I will control of the control the storage of all goods including but not limited to goods including but not limited to fuels, weapons and hazardous materials. I'm going very clear on this, but there are a few other this, but there are a few other questions I want to get to that have been asked in the debate that I think is important to to get there.

The Member for Spelthorne in his contributions spoke about value. I like the way he approached that thing. It's a good characteristic style that he has, and I enjoyed that. When he spoke about comparison of value, I think it is always worth noting that roughly ish, it's about £100 million a year that we would be securing the continued operation for the base for. That compares favourably to the French base that the French rent in Djibouti, which is next to a Chinese naval base. Our base secures a 24 hour nautical exclusion zone around it.

Full of th spectrum, something the shadow defence secretary doesn't seem quite important. And also on that point. Oh, go on, he can be late for his meeting.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He's very kind, very specific question. That annexe does not mention nuclear weapons. We've mention nuclear weapons. We've asked this repeatedly throughout the debate today. It is a matter of critical national security concern. critical national security concern. The Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius has clearly stated nuclear weapons cannot be stored on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

nuclear weapons cannot be stored on the base. Is that correct? Yes or no? I feel like I have to read out

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I feel like I have to read out the point for a third time. I mean, no wonder they couldn't conclude the deal at this rate. Look at this. It says in annexe one control of the storage of all goods, including but not limited to fuels, weapons and hazardous materials. We do not comment on the location of nuclear weapons. He might remember that when he was a defence Minister. But look, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that in this debate and in the boisterous amnesia that we've heard on the party opposite here, that the voices of the Chagossians can truly be heard, because there were some very good remarks about the Chagossians from our Lib Dem colleague there, and from the recently reformed colleague at the back there.

It is important that the Chagossians have their greater involvement. That is why we've set up a Chagossian trust fund. And there was a question around, would the Chagossians have a say in the trust fund? And we can confirm that from the 12th of December, Mauritius have confirmed that they're put in place the legislation to enact the trust fund. It will be run by Chagossians for Chagossians and it will include UK based Chagossians as well. And I hope that goes again some way, providing the clarity that the the member was seeking for when it came to that particular question.

Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, I said that I would finish at five two so the front bench can get to the Shadow Cabinet meeting. I will finish at five two because I'm a man of my word in that respect. Thank you.
15:55
None Portrait Division
-

The question is, as on the Order >> The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion say I. I the contrary. No. opinion say I. I the contrary. No. The question is as on the Order Paper, As many as of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. Yes. Tell us, for the eyes are Paul Holmes and David Simmonds. The Tellers for the noes, Deirdre Costigan and Mark The The order.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

For the eyes to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For the eyes to. The right 103. The noes to the left 280.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

400. The ayes to the right were 103,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right were 103, the noes to the left 284. So the noes have it, the noes have it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

unlock. The point of order, sir. Roger Gale. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker, it's clearly an embarrassment for the fact that a Foreign Office Minister was a Foreign Office Minister was unable to vote during this crucial debate on the Chagos Islands. I wonder if you could have a word with the speaker and see if it would be possible to extend the time limit to allow people to get to the chamber.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the chamber. Can I thank the right hon. Member for that point of order, which he will know full well, is not a point of order. Point of order, Calum Miller.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. On a point of order, I do seek your guidance. We spent the last 3.5 hours debating the UK US base on Diego Garcia. Just before we began that debate, President Trump announced on social media that US announced on social media that US Armada is positioned to attack Iran. Can I seek your advice? Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether it would Deputy Speaker, on whether it would be appropriate for a Minister to come urgently to the chamber to update the House and to clarify the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government's position on the use of UK assets and personnel in any such attack. Well, does the Foreign Office. Can I thank the hon. Member for his point of order and for having given notice of it? Mr. speaker has received no notice from Ministers that they intend to make a statement on this matter. Ministers on the frontbench will, however, have heard the hon. Member's point of order. I will allow a few moments for the front benches to swap over.

Brings us to the Opposition Day motion on youth unemployment. I inform the House that the speaker has selected the amendment tabled in the name of the Prime Minister. I call the Shadow Secretary of State Helen Whately to move the motion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, this afternoon we're here to talk this afternoon we're here to talk about young people, young people who wake up every morning with who wake up every morning with nowhere to go, no classroom, no workplace, no sense that today will workplace, no sense that today will be different from yesterday. Madam Deputy Speaker, it's part of our job to put ourselves in other job to put ourselves in other people's shoes today. The shoes of a young man or woman who's just left school, college or university setting out on real life into the world of work.

It should be a moment of liberation, trepidation and excitement because the world is at your feet. But right now, for hundreds and thousands of young people, it's not. Just a few days ago, I was with a constituent who's just finished school. She's great. She's got GCSEs and A-levels, she's done work experience, she's
16:10
16:11
Helen Whately Portrait Opposition Day Debate: Youth unemployment Helen Whately MP (Faversham and Mid Kent, Conservative)
-
-
of England, she told me it can be lonely being stuck at home all day applying for jobs. But she's not applying for jobs. But she's not alone. She's in the company of many thousands of young people, over 700,000 young people are unemployed. That's more than the entire population of a city like Sheffield. population of a city like Sheffield. And it's getting worse. Our youth unemployment rate is rising faster unemployment rate is rising faster than any other G7 country. Nearly a million young people are not in education, employment or training, and over 700,000 university graduates are out of work benefits.

These aren't just statistics, they are lives knocked off course, young women and men putting in hundreds of job applications and getting hundreds of rejections, getting knocked back again and again, signing on to benefits because they see no other way, missing out on the chance to have money in their pocket. They've earned themselves missing out on the first step towards independence, missing out on the experience you gain in your early years in work on which your future working life will build. Forget saving to buy a first car or a first home.

Dreams and ambitions

**** Possible New Speaker ****

shot to pieces. Becoming Britain's lost generation I give way to the hon. Lady. I thank the hon. Lady for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and I have a lot of sympathy for the situation she's describing. Could I ask her the number of Could I ask her the number of people who are NEET is very high, but it actually started in 2021 but it actually started in 2021 when the hon. Ladies Party was in government. Could I ask why didn't her party do something about it? Because the election wasn't until

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Because the election wasn't until two years ago. So what happened to that policy? Yeah, OK. To the hon. Lady, I'm glad you had some sympathy with the passion of young people who are struggling to get jobs that my party halved unemployment. Her party's record is unemployment going up and up. And since her party has been in power, unemployment has gone up every single month. So what is going on? What's going on is them the Labour government, same old Labour in they come up go taxes and up goes unemployment.

Every single time they put taxes up by £36 billion in their first Budget. And not just any old taxes. Their national insurance hike was specifically a tax on employment, literally a jobs tax. If you tax it, you will get less of it. It's not rocket science.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's basic economics. Then we have to give way to work. I'm grateful to my right hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to my right hon. Friend, is she aware that UK hospitality has said that we could be seeing the death of the great British summer job, and even Labour's own Alan Milburn has said that has warned there's a long standing decline in 16 and 17 year standing decline in 16 and 17 year olds getting Saturday jobs. Previous Labour governments have always shoved up youth unemployment, but never before have they but never before have they threatened to destroy the great British summer job, and that that is much to be regretted.

And it's about time they turned around their policies instead of bringing in not only the jobs tax, but the employment rights bill as well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Summer jobs, holiday jobs these are really important ways for young people to important ways for young people to get experience before they leave education to try and get a full time job, but we've seen a shocking time job, but we've seen a shocking decline in young people being able to get those jobs and in the availability of those jobs and the availability of those jobs and the cost of employment and regulation due to this government is exactly the problem here.

I want to make some progress. I will take more interventions, though, and I'm coming to exactly this point about regulation and red tape, because we then have the Employment Rights Bill, which is making it harder for businesses to employ people. Labour say they want to achieve growth, yet their policies are so obviously going to achieve the exact opposite. And the problem is they don't understand business. Have they any idea how hard it is to break even, let alone make a profit? Any idea how hard it is to bring in enough to cover your payroll each month? Never mind.

Pay yourself if you started a business. Any idea how hard it is to make your staff redundant because you can't afford to keep paying them? Of course they don't. Because how many of their frontbench has worked in a business? And I'm not counting union officials, let alone run one. I'm Gentleman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and as in my previous career, advising businesses up and down the country, I do take some issue with her point that there's no experience. I wonder, she says, about the fact that taxes and about the fact that taxes and national insurance rises are causing the rise in youth unemployment. I wonder what level of income do young people,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of income do young people, specifically under 21, start contributions? I'm perfectly well aware of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm perfectly well aware of the policy on National Insurance, but if he and I and I and I take his point, I take his point that there are some Labour MPs who have got business experience. But if anyone looks at the frontbench in the Cabinet in particular, that is few and far between. And if he's been talking to businesses, as he clearly knows some, he will hear from businesses who have said directly to me and so many of us here, that it is their policies which are making it so hard and so expensive to employ people, particularly young people.

And to that point, even for members of the government who don't have business experience, they could and indeed should listen to what businesses have been telling them. For instance, Labour's 2024 Budget did unthinkable damage to our sector. That's Kate Nicholls of UK hospitality, backed up by her colleague Alan Simpson, who said recently that if the government continue their approach, we will only see job losses and business closures accelerate. That's a sector that shed over 100,000 jobs under this government.

And Jane Gratton, from the British Chambers of Commerce, who said Labour's policies are deeply worrying for employers. They will increase employment costs, complexity and risk for firms, particularly SMEs, followed by government needs to help, not hinder businesses. And that is the crux of it. Labour see businesses as a cash cow, not the engine of the economy. And people, young people especially, are the ones suffering as a result because before businesses start letting people go, they generally stop hiring and that is what they're doing.

And when they stop hiring, who gets hit hardest? Young people. And by hitting hospitality, all those pubs and cafes where people get their first jobs, they're hitting young people again. The simple fact is there are fewer jobs for young people under this government, this unemployment disaster for young people isn't something that's just happened on Labour's watch. It is a disaster of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their making and I'll give way to my right Wendy Morton. I'm grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way because she makes this point so well in my constituency in the Walsall borough, it's really deeply worrying that it's really deeply worrying that youth unemployment is higher than the national average, because the truth is that youth unemployment truth is that youth unemployment has skyrocketed under Labour's watch. So does she agree with me? The big part of the problem here is we have a Labour government that we have a Labour government that does not understand that the more that you squeeze business, you

**** Possible New Speaker ****

absolutely squeeze job opportunities. For young people. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My right my friend makes the point. So clearly it is so obvious to us as the party of business that to us as the party of business that if you keep taxing business, there will be fewer jobs, but they just will be fewer jobs, but they just don't seem to get it. However, Labour do know they are in trouble. That's why they are talking up That's why they are talking up their youth programs and youth hubs and the youth guarantee. But most of those things.

Wait. You laugh? No, listen, most of those things, he says. The hon. Gentleman there says it's our programme. Exactly that most of those things are just rebrands of programmes already going on that we started, we started youth hubs. Change the name of the youth offer to youth guarantee doesn't solve the problem. Of course. There's a part for training programmes and work placements to play in helping people bridge the gap between school and work. But government programmes isn't the answer to the fundamental problem.

Young people want jobs and this government is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

killing jobs. I'll give way to the hon. Gentleman. I do thank the the. Shadow Minister for giving way. She is obviously well known for She is obviously well known for speaking quite clearly and candidly, and I do think that's refreshing. So I wonder if she can clearly and candidly answer this, which are the rights that she thinks young people should be denied in order to get into work? And by how much would into work? And by how much would she cut the minimum wage to facilitate those young people back into work? Because unfortunately, she can't have it both ways.

She's she can't have it both ways. She's just made a point that these are hindering on business. So what would she be doing to cut them, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will she make that clear commitment at the Dispatch Box? Helen Whately. Well, I enjoy the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Helen Whately. Well, I enjoy the the hon. Gentleman's leading into his question with a bit of flattery, his question with a bit of flattery, so I thank him very much for that. But I'm not going to be drawn into But I'm not going to be drawn into his attempt for me to talk about the minimum wage and things that he's asking me to go down. Much though, he might love me to what I will do. However, what I will do is talk about our record in government because we halved unemployment, we got record numbers of people into work.

We backed businesses to create 800 jobs for every day we were in government. We reformed welfare to make work pay. We brought down the benefits bill. None of these things is on the cards under this Labour government. They're crushing businesses with red taxes and red tape. They're destroying jobs. They're driving up unemployment. They U-turned on welfare savings and put up taxes by £26 billion on working people at the last Budget to pay for that ballooning benefits bill. I am not going to argue that we got everything right.

Some of the graduates struggling to get jobs have got degrees that aren't actually any help to them, and they took those degrees when we were in government and under us through the pandemic. And after the number of young people dropping out of work and onto benefits because of mental health went up too, we wanted to end the stigma of mental illness, but the consequences have been far reaching. Our welfare system wasn't designed to support people with milder mental health problems or milder neurodiversity, nor for a time when a quarter of people report themselves disabled.

The system isn't working. Instead, it's funnelling people off work and onto benefits. And now, with the government's failure to reform welfare, young people are stuck in a benefits trap, better off on benefits, and fearful of losing them if they get a job. Add to that the stress and misery of trying and failing again and again to get a job, because their jobs are fewer and further between. Most young people I've spoken to don't want to be on benefits, but that's where they are ending up.

I'll give hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gentleman. Then, for those people welcome the job guarantee for 18 to 21 year olds. And does he think that represents this government working with employers to create opportunities like the Premier League and FA? And is that not in stark contrast to her government who watched opportunity disappear while they did? EFRA. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

while they did? EFRA. Yeah. So so if the hon. Gentleman was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So so if the hon. Gentleman was listening, was listening, I said, there's a place for programs that support young people into work, particularly if they find they don't have the skills that are needed to do the jobs in their area. We in government had programmes like that. Those programmes are being continued under this government. But there's a fundamental problem with the idea and part of the concept of the youth guarantee, which has wobbled a bit, a different announcement in different times.

But the idea that the government is trying to guarantee somebody a job, when actually the problem with what this government is doing is it's destroying the jobs that businesses are creating. The right way to solve this problem is to back businesses to create jobs, not some kind of socialist, communist, Marxist approach to creating a job with taxpayers money. So somebody is in work. Madam Deputy Speaker, the situation is looking pretty bleak. It's a disaster for a generation of young people and our economy.

But it doesn't have to be like this. Even in a world of AI, there is another way. It starts with backing businesses because they are the ones who create jobs cutting taxes, cutting red tape, scrapping the swathes of regulation that stop businesses, giving young people a summer job or a Saturday shift, getting government out of the way so young people can get on. I welcome the government's U-turn on probation periods, a policy that many businesses told me would deter them from taking a chance on a young person.

And I actually welcome the government's latest U-turn. How many are we on? 13 on business rates for pubs. But what about the rest of hospitality? Why not adopt our policy and scrap business rates? Not just pubs, but for high street shops too? And I say to the Minister, don't just send young people off on more training courses or work experience schemes. What young people want now is jobs. And why not adopt our policy to double apprenticeships and end debt trap degrees too? We don't have to have a lost generation, but we need a government which will make different choices.

Back businesses to create jobs, scrap degrees that don't pay back, and reform welfare so it pays to work, help this generation make their way in life and get our country working again.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. The question. Is, as on the Order Paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is, as on the Order Paper. I call the Minister to move the amendment Diana Johnson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment Diana Johnson. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I beg to move the amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, Madam Deputy Speaker in the North,
16:25
Diana Johnson Portrait Rt Hon Dame Diana Johnson MP, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham, Labour)
-
-
Madam Deputy Speaker in the North, I think we would say that the hon. Lady has some brass neck to make the speech that she's just delivered to this House. And as an MP that has been in the House for some time, I think it might be helpful to us all if I just remind the hon. Lady about her party's record over the past 14 years. Her party is the one that fumbled the handling of the pandemic, setting back a whole generation of kids that failed to deal with the growing mental health crisis amongst young people that left school buildings to crumble, and that decimated youth centres.

And let's just look at the specific facts of youth employment. First of all, under the last conservative government, the number of young people not in education, employment or training grew by 45% in just three years. Scarily, that left almost a million young people, 1 in 8 on the sidelines. They, when they were chucked out of office. And by what time? I'm just going to complete this, I'm just going to complete the Conservatives record because I think it would be beneficial for us all to hear this.

And by which time? Youth unemployment. This is when the Conservatives were chucked out. Youth unemployment rate was at 13% compared to just over 9% two years earlier. And the number of young people economically inactive due to long term sickness had more than doubled in five years to over a quarter of a million on their watch. They also failed as well to support young people in the face of the changing retail sector, for example, where many start their careers.

I certainly started with a Saturday job, but where jobs have fallen, job opportunities have fallen since 2017 as new technology changes, how people shop and how shops employ people. They took no action on that. So the conservative legacy for young people looks pretty dismal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

from virtually every angle. I will give way to my near neighbour. My neighbour, for giving way,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My neighbour, for giving way, and she is always a fair and credible person in my in my experience. So can she just confirm that youth unemployment reduced over the 14 years? The Conservatives, rather than taking Conservatives, rather than taking some selective period over Covid in order to give an entirely partisan order to give an entirely partisan and biased view of the statistics. The numbers went down, didn't they? The only government that put up

**** Possible New Speaker ****

youth unemployment by 45% was the last Labour one. Yes, Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My the hon. Gentleman who is a close neighbour in, in Hull in East Yorkshire, he says about being Yorkshire, he says about being partial and only giving part of the picture. I've just been setting out, picture. I've just been setting out, I think, a very full explanation of 14 years of the Conservatives and what they delivered for young what they delivered for young people. Now let's let me let me just expand on this a little bit, because they're now talking about the need to expand apprenticeships, for example.

But under their watch, under the 14 years there was a collapse, there was a collapse in youth apprenticeships, starts were down by almost 40% under the conservative government over the last decade, leaving us, this Labour government to reverse that decline. Now, they also have been critical of the welfare system for trapping people out of work. They seem to have forgotten the fact that they presided over it for 14 years. It was their system that they introduced, and it's now been left to us to address the disincentive to work that they built into the system, and a task that we started to deal with in the Universal Credit Act last year.

So, put simply, no, I'm going to make some progress. So put simply, they cut off opportunity for young people. They wrote them off, and then they blamed them for the position that they were in. But on this side of the House, we know that young people are this country's future and that their success is Britain's success. And we are not prepared to sit on our hands and let all that talent and potential go unused. That's not good enough for those young people, and it's not good enough for this country, which needs the contribution that they can offer more than ever.

Not just now, but for the next 40 years. No, I'm not going to give way. I'm going to make some progress. So we are investing in young people to turn around this legacy that the party opposite left behind. We are actually supporting young people so they can fulfil their potential. And breaking the cycle of wasted talent cascading down generations. And let's be clear, we are starting already to see some signs of progress. We've got record levels of employment. Youth employment is up by 153,000 in the last year, but the scale of the crisis brewed up by the party opposite requires much more than that.

The number of young people neither learning nor earning is equivalent to three cities the size of Hull. So we know there is more to do. I will later on, but I want to get this on the record. We know. We know that if someone falls out of the workforce when they are young, I think it might be really helpful if the the conservative MPs who are chuntering from a sedentary position might just want to listen to this, because this is about the future of our country.

We know we know that if someone falls out of the workforce when they are young, they can lose out on £1 million in earnings, and it costs the state a similar amount to support them. But if we can make sure that they get the right opportunities and support early on, we can change their life stories for the better. That's why we're helping more young people into work, and that's why it's a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

priority for us in the DWP. Yes, I'm happy to give way. Jim Dickson can I thank the Minister for giving way? In my constituency of Dartford and across Kent, we are pleased to be one of the trailblazer areas for the the trailblazer areas for the Connect to Work programme, a program started under this government, not under the last government, not under the last government, that gives people personalised support to stay in work and to get jobs in the first work and to get jobs in the first place and ensure that people have a long term future in the workplace.

Is this not? Perhaps the Minister can tell us, is this not the sort of serious intervention we need in order to deal with unemployment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amongst young people? Yeah. And my hon. Friend is exactly right. That is the kind of right. That is the kind of initiative that will help deliver for these young people who are currently out of work, particularly with health problems, health with health problems, health conditions and disabilities. Now, I just want to say when you're when we're talking about young people, I we're talking about young people, I think all of us in the House will recognise how disheartening it can be when you're looking for work and you can't find that opportunity, you can't find that opportunity, and you may not have the confidence to to know and to to apply for the jobs that that are out there.

If you put your shoes in the if you put yourself in the shoes of an 18 year old who's perhaps lost their way a little bit, doesn't have the confidence, it's difficult for them, perhaps to go into a job centre to to find out what opportunities are available. And that's why, as part of the Youth Guarantee, we are expanding the DWP youth hubs located in places like football clubs and other sports facilities to more than 350 areas across Great Britain. And I accept that youth hubs were part of the previous government's plans around dealing with youth unemployment, but they were very small in number.

We're expanding them to 350 now. These are helping people like Erin, a young woman who was unemployed for two years and struggling with her motivation, but who after visiting a youth hub based at Crystal Palace Football Club, was able to complete a work placement before being offered a permanent job that came off the back of joining a hospitality programme, which gave her valuable experience and confidence. And it goes to show what young people can achieve when they are motivated, confident and have that self-belief.

And that's why the expansion of youth hubs forms just one part of our of our wider. I'm just going to finish this part, one part of our wider Youth guarantee. And this guarantee is designed to make sure that no

**** Possible New Speaker ****

young person is left behind. I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman. I'm grateful to the right hon. Lady in East Kent. There's a Lady in East Kent. There's a company called Hat Hats, which runs coffee bars, and the proprietor coffee bars, and the proprietor philanthropically employs hard to employ young people. Over 25 outlets in the last 12 months for outlets in the last 12 months for which figures are available. The profit on all 25 outlets was £12.

As a direct result of this government's policies, the young

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people are losing out on the opportunities that she is currently talking about. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Well, I will come on to talk a little bit about some of the accusations that are being levelled at this government in terms of at this government in terms of National Insurance contributions. So I'll deal with that point later in my speech, if I may. But I just in my speech, if I may. But I just want to say with the youth hubs, they will be offering a helping hand, whether it's writing a CV or whether it's actually getting a whether it's actually getting a work placement to actually put on a CV.

We've announced that over the next three years, we're investing 820 million to support almost 900,000 young people on Universal Credit and looking for work, and this will include new dedicated work support sessions, followed by intensive, tailored help to help them secure the right job training or learning opportunity. And we're backing this up by funding around 300,000 more opportunities to gain work experience and training in sectors like construction and hospitality. Yes, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank my right hon. Friend for her great explanation of youth hubs. We've just opened one at the We've just opened one at the Peterborough United Posh Stadium, bringing together all sorts of partnerships some of the young people I speak to there have raised people I speak to there have raised a number of issues that the Youth Hub addresses, one which is part of the opposition record they've not talked about, which is the absolute talked about, which is the absolute decimation of career services and in-work support in schools to give young people advice and support.

young people advice and support. The opposition talked a lot about apprentices, talked a lot about undergraduates. They did not talk about level two and level three, and the kind of engine room apprentices that we need. And the youth hub will start getting us back in Peterborough.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I thank my, my, my hon. Friend for that contribution. He makes that point point very well makes that point point very well indeed. Just going back to the the Youth guarantee, I want to make it clear as well that there will be clear as well that there will be guaranteed jobs for around 55,000 individuals over the course of the three years, and we already have companies who have shown an interest in taking on these these interest in taking on these these employees from E.ON, JD sports, Tesco and Tui and a really grateful for for the offers that they're making.

Now. We know on this side of the House that we've tackled these challenges before with the New Deal for young people under the last Labour government, and we're going to do it again now. And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

alongside the Youth Guarantee, I will very briefly. Thank you. Along with the youth hubs, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Along with the youth hubs, the Youth Guarantee, there's also £725 million investment into apprenticeships, along with the new apprenticeships, along with the new technical Excellence College status for Exeter College. They're becoming one of the biggest providers of apprenticeships in this country. Does the Minister this country. Does the Minister agree with me that this stands in stark contrast to the 50% increase in youth unemployment over the last government Minister?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government Minister? And again, my hon. Friend makes his case very well there and makes that that point. I just want to also say that we've just been hearing about the 725 million for the Growth and Skills levy as part of the 1.5 billion that's been made available for employment and skills support at the Budget. This is really very much needed. And the dramatic decline in young people starting apprenticeships under the previous government, we are going to reverse that and at the same time we are strengthening world leading universities.

I'm going to make some progress because I know there are lots of backbenchers who want to speak with the Skills white paper, setting out our plan to build a more specialised and more efficient higher education sector, which will build and better meet the needs of our economy, because we want to build on the fact that the graduate economic inactivity rate is now at its lowest on record, and we recognise the need for modern technical skills as we've been hearing, and not just the old academic subjects.

And I saw this for myself at the Ron Dearing University Technical College in Hull only last week, with young people honing their skills and getting a brilliant education. Now, no matter what path young people choose, we want them to have the skills to succeed. Skills are vital in the world of work today, and over a quarter of all vacancies are skill shortage vacancies. And that's why the Prime Minister set out last year our bold ambition for two thirds of young people to enter higher level education or training, we've added adult skills to the DWP brief to help us join up employment, support and skills more closely so that young people have genuine pathways into good jobs.

We're significantly expanding sector based work academy programmes, swaps in England and Scotland, with over 145,000 additional places over the next three years. And just today, our colleagues at DSIT have announced a new package to give people the skills to seize the opportunities that AI will bring. This includes an expansion of free AI Foundation training for all workers to upskill 10 million people by 2030. All of this is about opening up opportunities for young people, but we want to make sure that no stone is left unturned, unturned.

So last month, the government unveiled our National Youth Strategy, backed by £500 million to rebuild the youth services that the party opposite decimated and to help more young people transition to adulthood. And the Secretary of State has commissioned Alan Milburn to complete a wide ranging investigation into the causes of youth inactivity and to come up with policy policy solutions across the piece. And as a former health secretary, he is well placed to give particular focus to the role of health in all of this.

And this is needed because over a quarter of NEET young people now sight long term sickness or disability as a barrier. That's more than double what it was in 20 1314. Too many people are shut out of the labour market by disability or ill health, and this has worsened, especially since Covid. So we're rolling out £1 billion Pathways to Work offer, which brings together programmes like Connect to Work, which my hon. Friend referred, to, which I've seen in action in Lewisham, where I met a neurodiverse young man who told me how the personalised support he was receiving from the team was helping him to stay in work.

And like work well, which is providing really impressive integrated work and health support. And I had a chance to see that in Cambridge recently. Pathways to work will ultimately guarantee access to work, health and skills, support for disabled people and those with long term health conditions claiming who are claiming out of work benefits. And we already have 1000 pathways to work advisers on hand to provide that better 1 to 1 support. We also know that prevention is better than cure, so wherever possible, we want to avoid people falling out of work due to ill health in the first place, and employers have a unique role to play here, I will.

This

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will be my final giving away. I thank the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend for giving way. I just hon. Friend for giving way. I just want to outline whether she would agree with me that it is easy to try and, you know, have this kind try and, you know, have this kind of debate about who's getting it right, who's getting it wrong. Fundamentally, this requires a Fundamentally, this requires a systemic shift in how we look at the problem, that it is generational and intergenerational.

And everything that the hon. Lady And everything that the hon. Lady is outlining is showing how we are taking that systemic view to really get to the heart of the cause of these problems and finally move forward for the generations that have been left have been let down, because we haven't had that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

approach from the government. Yeah. Wise words from my hon. Friend. And I do just want to say something And I do just want to say something about employers because they have a vital role to play in all of this. And in terms of keeping people in And in terms of keeping people in work when, when they develop illness or disability, we are really pleased that we're working really pleased that we're working with over 100 Vanguard employers to take forward Sir Charlie Mayfield's recommendations from his Keep Britain Working review, helping to create a picture of what best practice looks like when it comes to building healthy and inclusive workplaces.

And we've had an outstanding response from businesses because they know that when their workers win, they win too. And contrary to what some would say and believe, the interests of employees and employers are not diametrically opposed. Everybody wins when workers are secure, happy and healthy. And that leads me on to the Employment Rights Act, which includes reforms like the extension of statutory sick pay so more people can take the time they need to recover instead of risking longer term absences. This is not just good for workers, it's good for businesses, too.

And I just want to address this issue around National Insurance contributions and business rates. Let's be clear employers generally don't have to pay any employer National insurance contributions for employees under the age of 21 or under 25 if they're an apprentice. And just yesterday, in terms of business rates, we announced every pub and live music venue will get 15% off its new business rates bill, on top of the support announced at Budget. And then bills will be frozen in real terms for a further two years.

This government will always support businesses, giving them the stability that they need to grow and create good jobs. Before I finish, there's one other thing I want to talk about. Just as what happens at the start of your working life can have many consequences for your future. The same is true about what happens in our childhood, when a young person ends up out of work or training. It's not. It's no use pretending that suddenly come about in a bubble. We know that if you grow up poor, you're less likely to do well at school and more likely to be a NEET poverty, low attainment and low aspiration can not only waste the potential of a young life, it can then cascade onto the next generation.

Shockingly, the party opposite presided over a 900,000 increase in the number of children in poverty. Shameful, shameful. And now they come to this House questioning why a generation is struggling. We are proud. We are very proud to be lifting the two child limit with all the benefits that will bring for hundreds of thousands of children, who will be less likely to experience mental health issues, less likely to be unemployed and more likely to be in work and earning more.

And yet, the party opposite opposes it. As ever, they seem determined to pull the rug from the next generation. And doesn't that sum them up? They blame. We support. They complain. We fix, they cut, we build. We will never forget the neglect that left our young people without the hope and opportunity every generation deserves. But this government is doing things differently. We are laying the foundations for young people to succeed, giving them the opportunities they need and the skills and support to seize them.

These opportunities are, of course, accompanied by obligations to take them up. But this is so much better than a life that's just written off and breaking down barriers to opportunity. So every young person can fulfil their potential in all parts of our United Kingdom.
16:46
Sarah Olney Portrait Sarah Olney MP (Richmond Park, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Yeah. >> The original question was, as on the Order Paper, since when an amendment has been proposed as on the Order Paper. The question is the Order Paper. The question is that the original words stand part of the question. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Sarah Olney. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Youth unemployment has risen since Labour took power. The rate is now above 15%. That's more than 1 in 7 18 to 24 year olds who are not in employment.

This is a really troubling statistic, but it has its roots in the Conservatives dismal economic record. The economic challenges we face didn't develop overnight. The previous government's economic chaos and mismanagement damaged jobs and young people's employment prospects. The Conservative Party failed to invest in skills and workforce planning, which has contributed towards the shortage of quality entry level jobs which are available to people leaving college or university. Today. Young people

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are increasingly less. Kettering. Steff Aquarone read the. Opposition's motion very carefully, which is on a hugely important issue, but I'm rather concerned to see that transport is not mentioned once. This is a massive barrier to employment and training for young people in north Norfolk, but the Conservatives don't seem to realise it's an issue. don't seem to realise it's an issue. Does she agree with me that poor rural public transport is trapping young people in my area in unemployment? And the Conservatives

**** Possible New Speaker ****

unemployment? And the Conservatives should apologise to those young people for the state they left in? Hear, hear. I'm grateful to my my hon. Friend for that point. And he is right. Young people today face so many barriers in terms of being able to access both education and employment. And this is very much a legacy of the last conservative government and their mismanagement. Young people are increasingly concerned as the links between education and employment have become weaker and weaker in years

**** Possible New Speaker ****

past. If you went to. Yes. Happy to. Thank you very much. With my hon. Friend, agree that the Conservatives under the Conservatives career advice in schools was absolutely decimated and hollowed out, pushing young and hollowed out, pushing young people to the margins. And on top of that, instead of being able to do the gold standard apprenticeships that my dad and my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

apprenticeships that my dad and my brother did, these were also neglected by the Conservatives. For more academic routes. Sarah Olney I'm grateful to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sarah Olney I'm grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. She's absolutely right about apprenticeships. I'll be saying more about that in due course. In years past, if you went to university and attained a good degree, you could reasonably expect an entry level job in the field you wanted to work in. But now the experience for so many young people is that they enter a job market which is not open to hiring inexperienced people, with employers being less willing or able to take a risk and train individuals out of university.

I spoke with business students from Roehampton University who explained to me their fears that they would be unable to work in the field of their choosing. One student told me that even seen an advertisement for a volunteering position, which required three years of experience. The job market is so crowded and competitive that the reality. For more and more graduates is that they must return to living with their parents after university, without having serious prospects of being able to gain even an entry

**** Possible New Speaker ****

level job. And these students. Yeah, I'm very grateful to. Does she also share my concern then for the graduate market when we talk about youth unemployment? Because we know from the ONS that 257,000 we know from the ONS that 257,000 Brits emigrated, of which 70% were under the age of 35. So we're under the age of 35. So we're actually losing a lot of talent. There isn't even picked up in the figures. So it's likely that because of the government's changes,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

because of the government's changes, we're actually seeing significant, worse youth unemployment that isn't picked up in the figures. Sarah Olney I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank the hon. Gentleman for that remark. I think one of my big concerns is that for our economy, concerns is that for our economy, we aren't getting that pipeline of young people into those entry level jobs, and that really threatens our future sustainability and future future sustainability and future growth, as well as imperilling the prospects of those young people who aren't able to gain a role. These aren't able to gain a role. These students also remarked to me about their concerns for artificial intelligence and replacing many intelligence and replacing many professional level jobs, making the skills they're learning now surplus to requirements for many employers.

And as the government looks to promote public sector efficiency through using AI, many young people are worried that that means even fewer jobs for them. So while we should continue. Yes. Happy to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Always trying to be constructive in relation to my interventions and in relation to my interventions and comments. In Northern Ireland we have youth unemployment at 7.3%. I have youth unemployment at 7.3%. I think it's seven 15.4% here, almost half. And what I would the hon. Lady is happy to do so. Does she Lady is happy to do so. Does she agree that perhaps, maybe looking at the success stories that there are in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, where Britain and Northern Ireland, where youth employment has reduced so much, are we focussed in Northern Ireland on those young Protestant males, those from 12 to 18, those who who couldn't get jobs and we reduced that number.

If we can do that in Northern Ireland, I'm quite sure we could do the same here in the mainland. Does the hon. Lady

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agree? That should be looked at? So I'm grateful to the hon. Gentleman who always makes constructive interventions, and I thank him for that. And he's thank him for that. And he's absolutely right. We need to look at what works. We need to look at real. And we really do need to real. And we really do need to focus on this issue, not just for the health and benefit of our young people, but also for the economy as people, but also for the economy as a whole.

Now, while we should continue to invest in technological breakthroughs, I'm really concerned that the government does not have a strategy for our young people who could be pushed out of the job market by automation, and I'd be really grateful to hear the Minister respond to that point. There are also a lack of alternatives for young people who wish to upskill, as the apprenticeship pathway is so limited. Businesses tell me that the apprenticeship levy doesn't work. Despite the government's attempts at reform, the Liberal Democrats have long called for reform to replace it with a wider skills and training levy that will give businesses real flexibility over how they spend the money to train their staff, and consequently provide young people with a better avenue to enter the workforce.

The decision taken to defund level seven apprenticeships for over 22 seconds risks limiting those opportunities. In 20 2425, 51% of all apprenticeship starts were of those aged 25 and over. This is a critical skills pipeline in the areas which are key to economic growth. And while the economy is changing so rapidly, we need to provide opportunities for older workers to retrain so that they can continue to find meaningful work later in life, the Liberal Democrats would fix the skills and recruitment crisis by investing in education and training, including the availability of apprenticeships and career advice for young people.

The current system needs to be reformed. This will include boosting the take up of apprenticeships by guaranteeing that they are paid at least the national minimum wage from the first year, creating new lifelong skills grants for adults to spend on education and training throughout their lives, and expanding vocational training. And while the Liberal Democrats welcome discussions in the Budget regarding a wider youth guarantee and a growth and skills levy package, I am still yet to understand a timeline for this implementation. And with youth unemployment rising, I would really encourage the government to take quick and active steps to deliver this package.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well my friend, give way Steve Darling sorry elevated you so Darling sorry elevated you so apologies, Deputy Speaker. Sarah Bool. In Torbay we have an Bool. In Torbay we have an incredible organisation called Sound Communities, and there's some Sound Communities, and there's some young people who are not in the position to take up an apprenticeship because they need to build up confidence and so forth, build up confidence and so forth, because they may have suffered significant trauma in their lives.

Sound communities helps these youngsters get in and get themselves in the right place to take up their place in this world. Would my right hon. Friend agree with me? Is what we need is long term funding to support these youngsters so they can have the opportunities and futures that they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deserve. I'm grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, and he's absolutely right. There are groups of young people who are facing specific barriers to entering employment, and we need to do all we can to provide them with a we can to provide them with a sustained support that they need to get into and stay in the workplace. get into and stay in the workplace. Much of the UK's current workforce challenges are due to the mistakes made by the current government, with perhaps no bigger own goal than the surprise increase in employer National Insurance contributions.

In the Chancellor's first Budget. Almost every business I speak to, and I am sure many other members of this House tell me that the NICs rise blindsided them and has since seriously damaged their cash flow and their ability to hire and retain staff. This policy alone has been so damaging to the business sector, and has created an environment in which companies are discouraged from hiring young people, and recent government decisions include the devastating business rates hike in the chancellor's most recent Budget, which is causing huge damage to hospitality firms, with many now considering whether their business remains viable.

Our hospitality businesses so frequently provide young people with their first jobs, are now on their knees and they need support from the government. While the government statement yesterday on cutting business rates for pubs was a good first step, we need wholesale reform of our business rates system and that's one more reason why the business community felt so betrayed by the last conservative government, who promised reform but did nothing to help our struggling businesses. Happily to my hon. Friend for giving way, I think she is highlighting two important things there.

The increases on on costs for businesses means that they are not taking on young people, but more importantly, they are not actually being then able to support businesses. The supervisory roles that give that those young people the development that they need, because they cannot make the differentiation in terms of salary. But I am standing here as a Scottish MP. The Scottish Government did not pass on the business rate relief the last time they have confirmed that they will do for Barnett consequentials. But does she agree with me that the Scottish Government are simply not doing enough in this area? And in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fact, we are in a worse position than what is being debated today. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for. Her intervention, and she speaks

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Her intervention, and she speaks very passionately about businesses in Scotland and the situation that in Scotland and the situation that they're facing. And I'm sure she's correct to say that it is even more challenging in in Scotland. I'm concerned that the government's sole focus on pubs and live music venues ignores the other retail, venues ignores the other retail, hospitality and leisure sectors which also need support. So I urge the government to adopt Liberal Democrat proposals to cut the rate of VAT on hospitality, accommodation and attractions to 15% until April 2027, which will give our businesses the boost they so desperately need.

Our high streets and town centres are in urgent need of help, and I urge the government to act with all swiftness. With the hospitality sector struggling to employ new workers, damage is being done to the prospects of our young people struggling with unemployment levels, and this will be detrimental to the broader economy. At the heart of this debate is regular people, who are finding it incredibly difficult to find a job to support themselves, their partners, their children, their families, to pay rent, to pay for groceries, to pay for essentials.

And that's what mustn't get lost in this debate. While the government seems to be weighing up its options on the EU reset, they should be reminded that negotiating a new UK EU customs union is the single biggest step that the UK could take to boost our economy, our businesses and our young people's job prospects. The appalling agreement negotiated by the Conservative Party has been a complete disaster for our country, particularly for small businesses who are held back by reams of red tape and new barriers to trade.

So many young people I talk to are simply frustrated that they are the first generation who are having to start their career while reaping the consequences of the Conservatives botched deal. And it seems evident from these benches that the government knows that the UK must rectify the dismal trade deal negotiated by negotiated by the Conservatives. And I'm yet to hear a compelling reason from the government as to why Ministers keep refusing to negotiate a new customs agreement with Europe. The steps that the government is taking to rebuild our relationship with the EU are welcomed by the Liberal Democrats, but I urge the government to be bolder.

This House voted in favour of joining a bespoke UK EU customs union just last month, and I urge the government to seize this momentum, reach out to our European allies and negotiate a deal which would be mutually beneficial, creating countless new jobs for our young people here in the UK. The government cannot ignore the difficulties facing our young people any more. Our young people need to be provided with a pathway for success and fewer barriers to getting onto the career ladder, but I am afraid the government is failing to facilitate this.

So I urge Ministers to listen. Adopt a joined up strategy to tackle youth unemployment, invest in young people's skills, boost apprenticeships and work based training, and support our businesses to create good quality jobs. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Alice Macdonald.
16:58
Alice Macdonald Portrait Alice Macdonald MP (Norwich North, Labour )
-
-
Hey. >> Hey. >> It's a pleasure to speak in this debate on such an important subject youth unemployment. And when I think of this subject, what think of this subject, what immediately comes to mind is the young woman I met on the doorstep during the election campaign. He told me how she had been looking for work for a long time, and just didn't know how she was going to get the job. The hopelessness she felt was clear. Like her, far too many young people were left stuck at home and let down under the last government because, as we have heard, it was during their last term in power that the number of young people not in education, employment or training shot up, growing by almost 50% between 2021 and 2024.

They left a situation for young people where doors appeared to only close and never open. The government is determined to change that, and so am I. And speaking to young people in Norwich, I know that they want that change too. That's why opportunity has been one of my key priorities since day one, with a focus on opportunity for children and young people, and young people have spoken to me about some of the specific challenges they face in Norfolk. My hon. Friend, hon. Member on the benches opposite alluded to it.

For example, poor transport infrastructure, meaning it can be difficult to get to work. And of course the challenge of mental health. But we need to better understand why so many young people have been left behind. Which is why I welcome the Alan Milburn Review, which will do exactly that, because the causes of youth inactivity are not simple. We can't put them down to one single factor. They are complex, they're not one size fits all. And we have to look at the structural causes as well.

And it is crucial within that review that the voices of young people themselves are heard. I know there has been a call out for evidence, but I hope the Minister could expand on how young people in Norwich and across the country can get involved in this consultation. And I also want to mention the specific challenges faced by young people with Send. This was a theme that parents and young people have raised with me time and time again in Norwich North, that they felt that too often there was a cliff edge at 16 where young people were left at risk of being left without adequate support, to either continue into education or to find a job that met their needs.

And I know there is much we disagree on in this House, as we have heard today, but I do hope that we can all agree that we do want a country where young people are supported into good jobs, work and employment and are able to fulfil their potential. So I want to welcome the government's approach, and I wanted to touch on some of the programs that are being rolled out so far, the 360 youth hubs, and I am pleased that there will be three in Norfolk, including one in Norwich, and thousands more training and workplace opportunities in sectors from construction to health and social care for young people on Universal Credit.

And of course, the jobs guarantee. That means that 18 to 21 year olds on Universal Credit have been looking for work for more than 18 months, will be provided with six months of paid employment, and we must also focus on early intervention. This is key, as youth futures have identified key factors that increase the risk of young person being not in education, employment or training include poor school attendance, low attainment at GCSE and exclusion. And that's why the schools White Paper will also be so important, and why it is vital that this is a whole of government approach.

So I welcome also that the government is investing in a new preventative tool that will help share data between councils and schools so that we can identify and support young people most at risk. Madam Deputy Speaker, I just want to turn to the local. I'm working closely with the local DWP Job Centre in Norwich City College and the hon. Member for Norwich South to identify more work that can be done locally on this important agenda. And indeed, we met yesterday to discuss how we can help match young people with employment opportunities locally.

I also regularly meet with local employers and apprenticeship providers to hear their perspectives, and there is much good work already underway. Last year, I was pleased to welcome the Minister for Social Security and Disability to visit Mind in Norwich. We learned about their excellent local project routes into employment, which helps people living with mental health conditions to find and keep paid employment that suits their individual needs. We spoke to a young person who had benefited from that support, and a local employer who had given that young person a chance, but had also felt many benefits themselves.

I'm pleased the Minister was looking at this project, as it is exactly the kind of thing we should be supporting, and I also welcome the government's investment in the Connector work scheme in Norfolk, working with Norfolk County Council, which will support over 4000 Norfolk residents facing extra barriers into work. And I know that will benefit many young people. Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker. I visited a local sixth form late last year. One of the many questions that I got was about how we can equalise the minimum wage, because they told me that they often felt underpaid and undervalued, and I was pleased to be able to tell them that this government is listening, that paying young people a decent wage does matter, and that, in fact, just a few days later, I think it was we raised the national minimum wage for young people, too, and for any members opposite who challenge this, and it felt like they were a little bit challenging to look young people in the eye and tell them why they don't deserve to be paid fairly, why their futures shouldn't be invested in, and why they don't deserve that support.

Because my message to all young people today is under this government, you won't find false promises or quick solutions that fail to materialise, but you will find a proper plan backed by investment that puts its money where its mouth is and invests in your future.
17:03
Damian Hinds Portrait Rt Hon Damian Hinds MP (East Hampshire, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you Damian Hinds. >> Thank you. >> Madam Deputy Speaker. >> There are many ways that you can. >> Express it, but none of them are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Express it, but none of them are good. Youth unemployment is at 15.9%. It's up 10%. It's up 1.5 15.9%. It's up 10%. It's up 1.5 percentage points. It's up over 100,000 in the last year. It is at a ten year high. Higher, Madam Deputy Speaker, than in the Covid era. And let's be clear this is not economic inactivity we are talking about. It is unemployment. The definition of unemployment is not about who's claiming benefits. It's about having had no income whatsoever, not having worked for a paid hour in the reference week.

It is about being available for work and actively looking for work. That is the number that has gone up, and there seems to be a particular thing about there being an increasing number of people who are both studying and seeking to work, people who, by the way, for whom zero hours contracts are particularly relevant. I'll come back to that point. Unemployment overall has gone up, but it is young people that have borne the brunt. The rate of increase has been almost twice for young people as it has overall.

Now that, to be fair, is usually the case when there is rising unemployment. It is always young people who feel it first and feel it hardest. And why is that? Well, first of all, as my right hon. Friend, the Shadow Secretary of State said, the first thing that employers do when things look uncertain or difficult is stop hiring. You have a hiring freeze. The quickest way to cut down the payroll. Secondly, if you're going to be letting people go, redundancy, I'm afraid, is cheaper when it comes to younger people than on average older people.

And so companies sometimes deploy a LIFO last in, first out. And then of course, there's the secondary effect that there are more experienced workers available who can fill your vacancies. And then on top of that, we've got the situation at the moment that sectors that disproportionately employ young people in shops, in restaurants, in hotels, throughout retail, hospitality and leisure have been particularly hard hit by the National Insurance hike and by the business rates hike. Now I say usually unemployment, youth unemployment tends to rise faster and be higher than overall unemployment.

That is true, but it is not as much true in this country historically as it is in the rest of Europe. Now, there are exceptions to that in Germany and the Netherlands, for example. But in southern Europe, and we remember this after the the crash under the previous Labour government in 2007 eight, and talk of a lost generation in southern Europe when youth unemployment rates soared so high. Now, why should that be different in those countries compared to countries like ours historically? Well, there's a fancy economics term for it, which is insider outsider theory.

It basically says that when you have a system which has very heavily regulated labour markets, has very high levels of employment protection and a very heavy involvement of trade unions when there are economic troubles, all the help tends to go to the people who are in work, and it's those trying to get into work, the outsiders who suffer as a as a result. And so our country historically has had not totally liberalised but more liberalised labour markets. And that has meant that we have not had those problems with youth unemployment historically to the same extent as some of our near neighbours in Europe.

And we have tended to recover more quickly from those problems when they do occur today. Right now we have the historical rarity. I'm not sure it's quite unique in history, but it's certainly historic rarity that the ratio today in this country of youth unemployment to total unemployment in the UK is higher than it is in the EU, and that is before we feel all the effects of the Employment Rights Act. Some effects I'm sure are there already, but we have yet to feel the full effect because that act will discourage taking on new workers and it will especially discourage taking on new, untested workers.

And that is, of course, what youth unemployment is. Now, can I just talk about one aspect of that act, which is zero hours contracts? I know zero hours contracts have a special place in Labour mythology, and it comes from the time when the, the, the, the last leader of the Labour Party, the hon. Member for Islington, used to bring up zero hours contracts every week at Prime Minister's Questions as an epidemic ripping apart our country. We researched at the time how big a deal zero hours contracts were.

It turned out that fewer than 3% of workers had a zero hours contract as their main job. There were others who had it then as a second job, many of them, by the way, working in the NHS as bank staff. And there were lots and lots of students. It turned out the average number of hours on a zero hours contract was in fact 25. And here's the bit that nobody could accept the average job satisfaction of people on a zero hours contract was higher than it was for workers over all.

And now, by the way, they've all been grimacing a little bit. I don't know how many colleagues opposite know that the proportion of people on zero hours contracts has gone up since the general election of 2024. They are just a part of our they're just a part of our economy. They are also heavily skewed towards young people, students working in sectors like hospitality and other seasonal occupations. About 40% of people with a zero hours contract job are under 25.

I myself was once a young person with a zero hours contract. I just didn't know it was called a zero hours contract. And if colleagues across the House think about their first job, perhaps working in a restaurant, perhaps washing up, perhaps working shifts in a in a shop where you didn't know at the start that you were going to be working exactly the same number of hours every week and so on. Actually, it turns out a lot of us had our first opportunity in the world of work through a zero hours contract.

And it will be true. It will be true for people after the Employment Rights Act. Those who have such a contract will have some more some extra guarantees in their contract. But it will also be, from an employer's point of view, a bigger deal, actually adding some risk to take them on. And what will be the balance I would love to give away and I will. What will be the balance for employers and for employees? It is for Ministers. A leap of faith.

The hon. Gentleman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Can I, I appreciate the the knowledge and passion my the the knowledge and passion my right hon. Friend has for this session and I just suggest to him he perhaps underestimates the he perhaps underestimates the impact sometimes these insecure work has on it. My brothers. One of my brother's last jobs. He had to my brother's last jobs. He had to get in the car and start driving to work each morning, to then get a phone call to tell him whether he had a shift that day or not.

Do you not think it's reasonable that people like my brother should be able to know their shift a day in advance? That's the issue. We're really talking about an insecure work. I understand he's making a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

political point, but these are real people's lives as well. Damian Hinds the political point, of course. I think it's right and of course. I think it's right and reasonable in all good employers who want to keep their employees. Of course, they will do the right Of course, they will do the right thing and try to give them and try to give them visibility. The Employment Rights Act does an awful Employment Rights Act does an awful lot more than just let people know for some time in advance about the hours of their next shift.

And Madam Deputy Speaker, with all of the effects that we will see from the Employment Rights Act and what we will see with these taxation changes and others is not it's not going to be mass layoffs that people will see. It's just people, young people not being taken on in the first place. And why does that matter? And the Minister said this herself because of the scarring effects of youth unemployment. We know from studies that you can be if you're out of work in your early 20s, you can still be suffering the effects of that 20 and 30 years further on.

And there are things the government could do to mitigate some of what is happening, including on the regulations coming out of the Employment Rights Act. But I just wonder overall why they are doing it. I think they are doing it because in a world where there have been enough U-turns from this, actually not enough yet, U-turns from this government, but a lot of U-turns. This is something that Labour MPs can bring home and say this is a proper left wing policy that we have enacted.

But Madam Deputy Speaker, do they really want to bring home higher levels of unemployment and higher levels of youth unemployment in their constituencies? Because that is what will happen now. The government have brought in a number of schemes to try and mitigate what's going on, some of which are welcome. We all governments introduce schemes somewhat like these, but the the 55,000 people who will be eligible for the jobs guarantee. Madam Deputy Speaker, is in a context of more than 900,000 people who are young, who are not in education, employment or training is limited in the areas it covers, and I think it's only the eligibility is you have to have been searching for a job for 18 months or more, which obviously would count out many of these young people.

And I welcome connect to work that was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman opposite. I don't think it's particularly meant for young people, but nevertheless it is helpful, I think, for people who are or potentially for helpful for people who've been off on long term sick. So the timings, I thought, sounded ambitious when the government first announced it. And I would welcome from the Minister in summing up where they expect to be at the end of this financial year. In terms of the numbers, including in my county of Hampshire.

I know I've been talking already for ten minutes. I do want to, if I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do want to just set the record straight a little bit about apprenticeships, which has come up a number of times, and I hope I can help the House with a non-partisan description of what has actually happened on apprenticeships in this country over the last 20 or more years. The truth is that under the previous Labour government and also under the first few years of the coalition government, there were many, many tens of thousands of young people doing an apprenticeship who didn't even know that they were on apprenticeship.

So thin and flimsy were those apprenticeships. And yet he may screw up his face. That is true. And the research evidence, the research evidence is available. And that is why we reformed apprenticeships, to say they should be a minimum of one year, a minimum of 20% time off the job with end point assessments and the qualification designed by employers themselves and overseen by an independent Institute for apprenticeships. And yes, when you do that, the number of apprenticeships then does go down.

And the numbers that the Minister was quoting were all from after that change. Of course, when you make the specifications of a qualification considerably more exacting, of course, that has an effect on the numbers and what the new government are doing. Now. Guess what? The minimum length for an apprenticeship. What's it going to be? Eight months, Madam Deputy Speaker, try telling a German captain of industry that you can do an apprenticeship in eight months. Will the numbers go up? Of course the numbers are going to go, are going to go up.

I recently met hairdressers in my constituency and it reminded me, I think, of how all of this, how all of this comes together, and hairdressers like hospitality, business and others, they bring people into our town centres. They're more than just employers and it's not something you can just move online. But they are now facing seriously higher employment costs, including the National Insurance contributions and in many cases, much higher business rates too. And that's before you get to the looming impact of the employment regulation.

They also have very strong tradition of taking on large numbers of young people and apprenticeships. My worry is that with the increase in costs, it will be simply unaffordable to take on young people in nearly the same numbers. And the same is true for pubs and many other employers. We are seeing the early effects of government policy in these youth unemployment numbers we see today. But I'm afraid, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I take no pleasure in saying this whatsoever. Whatsoever. I'm afraid they are going to get materially worse, and I ask the government to take that seriously and act on it, not with some programs, some short term programs to put people just through through a program, but to rethink their approach, to make it easier and to make it less costly to take on young people to start their careers and build their futures.
17:16
Andrew Lewin Portrait Andrew Lewin MP (Welwyn Hatfield, Labour)
-
-
Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm pleased we have an opportunity to talk about young people, how we invest in their future, extend opportunities and do all in our power to leave nobody behind. But I think to have a serious debate about the prospects of young people in work. We need to look back at the unique set of circumstances the unique set of circumstances that people in their late teens and early 20s have faced growing up. They are the first generation to They are the first generation to grow up in Brexit Britain.

They had no say in the decision to, in the decision to leave and to devastate the trading relationship with our single largest trading partner, their opportunities to work, study and travel in the EU were taken away by the party opposite, at great cost to them and to the economy. This is a cohort of young people who were teenagers during the pandemic, patiently abiding by lockdown to protect their families. But with months, if not years outside of the classroom. And to be clear, I supported the public health measures.

But the chaotic way that school closures were overseen were indefensible, and the most fateful days were the fourth and 5th of January 2021. On the 4th of January, they were marched back in to school. On the fifth. They were sent home again here today and gone tomorrow. Much like the conservative MPs that we've seen defecting to reform. But Madam Deputy Speaker Brexit, the chaotic conservative management of the pandemic and Liz Truss blowing up the economy, that was the legacy left for young people by the last government.

This government is resolved to turn it around, and we understand that good prospects for young people must start with a strong economic foundation. Since coming to office, the Bank of England have, in their judgement, made the decision to cut interest rates six times. GDP growth last year was ahead of forecasts, and there are 500,000 more people in the labour market today than there were in July 2024. There are good reasons to be positive about the economy in 2026, but I absolutely recognise we can't be complacent.

I know how difficult it can be for young people, yes, because of the conservative inheritance, but also due to the structural changes we are seeing, there can be intense competition for entry level jobs. There is anxiety about the impact of artificial intelligence, and there are still too many people in insecure work. If a strong economy is the first pillar for success, the second is to have a government that is willing to intervene to help young people. This comes through investment in skills, access to training and, where needed, support to be placed in your first role.

It's vital to invest both in further education and higher education in the community that I represent. I am proud that Welwyn Garden City is home to Oaklands College and Hatfield, home to the University of Hertfordshire. We should be ambitious for at least two thirds of young people to go to college, start an apprenticeship or attend university and across Welwyn Hatfield I believe that number can be higher still. The vast majority of young people still move out of education and quickly into work, but the jobs guarantee is a serious intervention needed to provide some people with the additional support that they need.

The offer from the government is clear. If you're 18 to 21, in receipt of Universal Credit and have been searching for work for 18 months or more, you will be offered paid employment for six months. Now, that full scheme will cost the government £820 million, but this is an active choice to invest in young people and it is a down payment on their future success. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is also the right choice to have passed the Employment Rights Act thanks to the actions of this Labour government, this generation of young people will no longer have to endure exploitative zero hours contracts, but they will have rights to guaranteed shifts.

They will have day one rights to paternity leave, and no longer will people be excluded from statutory sick pay because their pay was too low. Madam Deputy Speaker, the last conservative government wasn't prepared to intervene to support young people. The opposition today and their friends in reform voted against stronger rights at work for young people. The Liberal Democrats bravely abstained. It's only a Labour government that understands for young people to succeed, we need a strong economy, continued investment in education and a willingness to intervene when the market alone doesn't provide the right opportunities.

Young people backed Labour at the last election, and with the Employment Rights Act, job guarantee and a rising living wage, we are backing them to succeed in the economy that we are turning around.
17:21
Joy Morrissey Portrait Joy Morrissey MP (Beaconsfield, Conservative)
-
-
Joy Morrissey. >> Joy Morrissey. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I appreciate that everyone across this House cares about youth unemployment, but the way of tackling it is very different depending on the side of the benches that you hail from. And I see that we have a rising youth unemployment. And the issue here is taxation. We have taxation on our businesses. They are being taxed with the National insurance raid. It's increasing. They're also the business rates on the high street.

If it's hospitality, if it's retail, they are being taxed to the point where they cannot take on another employee. And usually that first employee is a young person. It's someone who they're giving an opportunity to for the first time and making the job market so rigid, protecting workers rights to the point where there will be no jobs available for workers by the time these young people get into employment, because it is so restrictive on businesses, they will not want to take on a new employee, one they won't be able to afford it.

Two, they will be so much restriction on that new employee coming in to work for them. They just won't do it. And you're and we won't see this being dealt with. This will just continue to rise. I have young people who have come to me. They just finished a degree in mathematics from Cambridge. They can't find a job. I have someone else whose son just had a law degree. They can't find a job. I have people from across every sector and their children saying either if it's a business, they can't actually take on a new employee because they simply can't afford it.

And then on the other side, I have parents who are desperate to get their child into any job. And as my hon. Friend mentioned, apprenticeships and zero hour contracts were a way for a young person to get their first job in hospitality, to work in retail, to have the opportunity to start working, working in an environment with other people creates lessons that you take forward in your life to other jobs and opportunities, and that is what we need for young people.

And just to provide, Madam Deputy Speaker, some historic, historic context for what was said earlier from the Minister in 20. In 2010, the Conservatives inherited from Labour youth unemployment of 20%, nearly a million young people out of work before the pandemic hit in 2020, the Conservatives had nearly halved that to just 12% when we left office in 2024, despite the pandemic's effects, it was just 13% the result of fixing our economy, driving up educational standards, making work pay, building an apprenticeship system that fosters aspiration.

I'll give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I was really impressed how she was representing our constituencies and businesses and constituencies and businesses and businesses. The I loved her summary of recent youth unemployment, but of recent youth unemployment, but the reality is, is that as we came into power in 2024, youth unemployment was rising. And so we unemployment was rising. And so we can't blame the problems we're faced with now on the current government. You could argue we're not making it better and we could not making it better and we could do more.

But youth unemployment was rising at the time we took powers and it had been rising for many years.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Joy Morrissey that intervention leads me to the statistics that we currently have today, because it is actually nearly at 16%, 729,000 actually nearly at 16%, 729,000 young people now out of work, a staggering 103,000 higher than a staggering 103,000 higher than a year ago, a further 2.88 million young people economically inactive. young people economically inactive. That is more than when Labour took over from from us. Just to point that out. That's statistically

**** Possible New Speaker ****

accurate. And this is I'll give way. So absolutely accept that youth unemployment is higher now than when he took office. And I regret when he took office. And I regret that. And it's great to see the government do more on it. But the point I was making is the point we point I was making is the point we were taking off, took off us. Youth unemployment was rising and it was rising fast. It has continued to rise, but it was rising. That's the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rise, but it was rising. That's the point I'm making. Well, this is a youth

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, this is a youth unemployment crisis of Labour's own making because of the National insurance tax hikes, because of the restrictions on business. I will make some progress on my speech. There is this will continue to be a problem that this government faces. Mark my words. And in my own constituency of Beaconsfield, Marlow, in the South Bucks villages, we have an incredible restaurant in Beaconsfield called The Greyhound. It is incredible. I strongly urge everyone to go and eat there, and they have a wonderful apprenticeship program that helps young people get their first job in hospitality.

Now this is an incredible opportunity for young people. I've gone to speak to them and they say, this is great. I wasn't enjoying school. I now have an opportunity for a career in hospitality. I'm trained in every level of hospitality. They gave me a tour of the the wine cellar and sort of everything in between, and they love this and they're passionate about it. But the Greyhound is telling me that many businesses, not just the Greyhound, cannot actually continue their apprenticeship programme because of the backdrop of the National Insurance tax rate and an eye watering hike in their business rates, they simply cannot continue this very successful program that has changed young people's lives.

This is a government that failed to listen to the urgent calls of businesses to stop their employment rights bill, which will destroy jobs, creating rights for jobs that will no longer exist. Young people need businesses to be able to create jobs for them, not be hamstrung by tax and employment policies that force employers to have to curtail opportunity. This is also a government sowing utter chaos into our apprenticeship system at every turn. With Labour governments rising, youth unemployment, indeed, all unemployment becomes a sad inevitability.

But different choices can change that course for our young people and create a better future. Lowering business taxes to enable businesses to create jobs will help tackle this problem. Putting evidence before ideology and education so that standards rise and don't collapse. Scrapping business rates on the high street. You will. You'll see so many people coming back, so many businesses coming back, so many young people being employed. It will be a tremendous win for this government if they try that.

Also try reducing the tax burden for anybody under the age of 25. So scrapping the National Insurance contribution for under 25. And this government will see a tremendous rise in, in, in the take up of of people, young people taking their first job with a business because you are reducing the risk for that business. Instead, we're forcing overregulation onto businesses, crippling them, closing them and actually curtailing opportunities for young people, creating an apprenticeship system built on aspiration, that is employment, that is about employment choice and stability, so that we continue with the great work that was already started and we continue to build that.

So young people have an opportunity through apprenticeships to get their first job and start their first career. This is the future our young people deserve.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Yes, Naushabah Khan. Hey.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hey. Madam Deputy Speaker, the. Debate today. the. Conservative Party.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Conservative Party. Now. While I certainly. Do not welcome the. Numbers that we are seeing in youth unemployment and recognise youth unemployment and recognise the challenge we have, this was not an issue that was created today, but was overseen by 14 years of
17:29
Naushabah Khan Portrait Naushabah Khan MP (Gillingham and Rainham, Labour)
-
-
but was overseen by 14 years of their government, with young people steadily pushed into the margins, leaving nearly a million young people NEET on their watch. It is now quite convenient for them to come to this house and point fingers at those who are tasked with fixing the damage they caused, and let's not forget what they did to oh no, I will continue and let and let's not forget the damage that they caused when they cut youth services by 70% in real terms.

Since 2010, a government that presided over the rising NEET numbers year after year cannot claim surprise. The consequences of hollowing out our skills system that once gave young people a route into meaningful work, whilst also watching more and more young people fall out of the labour market due to ill health. The Leader of the Opposition said in her speech today when referring to the Member for Clacton, that Britain needs an engineer, not a used car salesman. It's quite funny, isn't it? 14 years of conservative government has left a generation of young people who might not have the opportunity to be either.

When Labour, when the last Labour government left office, they left a strong foundation of support for young people. A national careers guidance service, robust apprenticeships and a clear vocational pathway. 14 years later, those foundations lie in ruins. Connections advisers are gone. Opportunities for training has been slashed and, as I said, nearly a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

million young people were left economically active. Shipley. Well. I will not give way at this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will not give way at this point. We are now left to rebuild what should never have been dismantled. Now it is time to see dismantled. Now it is time to see exactly what this Labour government is doing. I welcome our youth is doing. I welcome our youth Guarantee that will create 350,000 new training and workplace opportunities, supported by 360 opportunities, supported by 360 youth hubs across the country and the investment of three quarters of £1 billion in apprenticeships that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will equip 50,000 more young people with skills for the future. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. I think we also recognise that the traditional path, one that allowed me to succeed, going to university, is not necessarily the university, is not necessarily the right path for everyone with a growing skill shortage, particularly in sectors such as particularly in sectors such as housebuilding, and that we need for the infrastructure of the future, it is vital that we go further in encouraging young people to use their talents and feel confident that these career paths are also valued and given the respect that they deserved.

I've made many visits to Mid-kent College that serves my constituency in Gillingham and Rainham, where young people are learning trades and are really passionate about what they do. They have skills in bricklaying, carpentry, welding, hairdressing, woodwork skills that my university degree could never have given me. And we must ensure that these avenues are fully supported so that young people can contribute

**** Possible New Speaker ****

meaningfully to our country's future. I will go. To hon. Member for giving way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To hon. Member for giving way. She's talking about further vocational education. It's very important. But I think the other aspect of it is that it actually aspect of it is that it actually helps those young people where school has not been a success, and it's not just about the skills that it's not just about the skills that they learn, it's about that arm that is put around them. Does she share my concern that in my own constituency of North East Fife, constituency of North East Fife, the rural Agricultural College in Cupar has effectively mothballed its building and moved a number of its courses online, meaning that young people studying animal care, for example, are missing out on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

those arm supporting opportunities that they desperately need. Can I thank the hon. Member for her intervention? And I do completely agree that these routes are available to young people, offer an alternative, but also offer an alternative, but also offer them a space where they can have an opportunity to thrive, and they might not have been able to do they might not have been able to do that in a traditional academic setting. So I recognise the need for us to ensure that all those opportunities are are protected in opportunities are are protected in whichever way possible.

So I recognise the work that she's doing in her constituency to continue to promote that. I know many of the young people, young constituents in Gillingham and Rainham will welcome this government's approach. More specifically, Jack, a 19 year old constituent of mine, wrote to me and said I am trying to build a future for myself, but without anyone giving me a chance, it feels impossible to get started. I want to work, to contribute and become independent, but at the moment I feel stuck and unsupported.

Madam Deputy Speaker my heart broke reading that, and I know that we have a lot of work to do as a government to get this right, but the members opposite should also recognise their part in creating this legacy that has left thousands of young people who might feel despair or hopelessness. We cannot have a generation stuck in limbo and truly struggling, not because of the lack of their talent or drive, but because the system has been deliberately dismantled. When I was 19, living a few streets away from Jack, where he lives today, my future did not feel the same way it does for him.

And this is what we've got to recreate that sense of hope and opportunity in this country. I'm glad that through my office, in the actions of this government, we may be able to give Jack the help that he needs. But it is a moral stain on our country that we have allowed young people to reach a point where they will put those words to paper, and it feels like a reality. So I hope that we can get to the heart of this issue, and I will back the government in terms of what it is doing to tackle youth unemployment as a matter of urgency.
17:35
Bradley Thomas Portrait Bradley Thomas MP (Bromsgrove, Conservative)
-
-
Bradley Thomas thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Well, the facts Deputy Speaker. Well, the facts speak for themselves, and 15.9% is the rate of youth unemployment for the rate of youth unemployment for those aged between 16 to 24, that's 700,000 people, 946,000 young people aged between 16 to 24, categorised as NEETs. That's that's not in employment, education or training. An 11% drop in adverts during the 12 months from July 2024 to July 2025, in a staggering 14.6% increase under this Labour government.

In the unemployment rate of those aged between 16 to 17. And it's quite clear when I go out and about amongst my constituency and talk to businesses, particularly small businesses that are functioning in retail, hospitality, leisure, the first rung on the employment ladder for so many, they are crying out. They are making it known loud and clear that the tax rises brought about by this government, rising energy costs, rising, sorry, rising bureaucracy are eroding not just their margins, but their sense of confidence as businesses.

And that, perhaps, is the most corrosive effect of all. Because once these businesses are gone, the opportunities for young people to get on that first rung of the employment ladder diminish. And I'm particularly struck listening to comments across the chamber today. Madam Deputy Speaker, what I consider to be the fundamental ideological difference of the two sides of the House between my party and the government, and that is where is wealth created, where is wealth generated? Government does not create wealth.

Government can play a role in catalysing the foundations of our prosperity. It is right that government leans into this and creates schemes where necessary, but at its core it is small businesses. It's empowering individuals to take risks that will enable the economy to prosper. We see it time and time again. It's noble that the government government wants to intervene to support businesses and creating jobs. It's noble that the government wants to create routes for young people to develop their skills, to enter jobs of the future, but we're just not seeing enough hard action that acknowledges the reality of where wealth is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

generated. And I will give way. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He talks about differences on two sides of the differences on two sides of the chamber, and we've heard today that most of the answers coming from the government is we've got a government programme for that. Does government programme for that. Does he think that most young people would prefer a rebranded government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

programme or a job? Well, the best welfare programme of all is a job. Nothing. Nothing of all is a job. Nothing. Nothing will come close, both in terms of the earnings that people can receive in recognition and reward for their contribution, but also in terms of their self-confidence. And we haven't heard very much, if anything, during this debate about incentives for those to take risks themselves. Ultimately, every single business that employs people of all ages have been created by someone who's taken a risk because they've been empowered to put something on the line, whether that's capital in terms of money, it could be time.

You know, every small, every business, whether small or large, started off by somebody taking a risk. And our economy is becoming increasingly absent of risk. We're so risk averse, and this is only exacerbated as a result of the pressure being placed on businesses across the board. Whether it is those rising and rising employment costs, whether it's the rising energy costs, whether it's the rising bureaucracy, and we're hearing many organisations that are experts in this field directly critique the policies that have come from Government Centre for Social Justice, the Institute of Directors, the British Chamber of Commerce and UK hospitality are all saying collectively that the choices made by this government are having a detrimental and corrosive effect on the employment prospects of society as a whole, but particularly young people.

So I urge the government to focus less on work programmes, to speak directly with those who take the risks, to employ people of all ages. Government needs to get off the backs of those who are taking risks. It needs to support them. It needs to be less burdensome. In the words of the Prime Minister, when he was elected and gave his very first speech in ten Downing Street, he said the government was going to tread much more lightly on people's lives. This government is doing the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

absolute opposite Madam Speaker and it needs to change here. Chris Vince. Thank you. Madam Deputy. Speaker. And it's a pleasure to speak in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And it's a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I want to start by thanking my hon. Friend, my right hon. Friend, the Minister and also hon. Friend, the Minister and also the Shadow Minister, for starting this debate, because it is a really important debate, and it's hugely important that members from across important that members from across the House have the opportunity to speak about it. The previous member who spoke suggested that members on this side of the House were risk averse.

I'm going to prove that I'm going to take a risk this afternoon, and I'm going to attempt to do a speech where I make no political points, and the risk is, if I do make a political point at any time, I will allow the hon. Member for Beverley to do an intervention on me. I think that's very fair. Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to start by
17:40
Chris Vince Portrait Chris Vince MP (Harlow, Labour )
-
-
taking the House back to lockdown in March 2020. I'd made the decision I was going to leave decision I was going to leave teaching, not going to go into why? Because I don't want to make any political points. But I decided time was it was time to leave time was it was time to leave teaching, and I went to see my head teacher and said, look, I want to, teacher and said, look, I want to, I want to resign. And he convinced me to stay on until September of the the next, the start of the next academic year.

So I had in my notice on the 23rd, on the 22nd of March, 2020. Now, if anyone knows anything about their history, you will know. They will know that residing on the 22nd of March, 2020 was quite a gamble because the following day the the country changed and we went into lockdown and I found myself working from home on my lessons, that sort of thing. But thinking to myself, I've got to now find a new job during lockdown. And you know, I wasn't worried about it in April or May or June.

But when we got to August, I was starting to think, oh my gosh, in a couple of weeks time, I'm going to be unemployed and I want to make that point. And, you know, I'm not going to pretend I was particularly young in March 2020. So I'm not trying to claim I'm a young person, but the reason I wanted to just tell that particular story, because for me, the idea of being unemployed was terrifying because I recognised the huge impact being unemployed for any length of time would have on my mental health.

And I think members across the House will agree that actually people that do suffer from mental health and there's lots of different degrees, we recognise that. But actually work can be a solution to mental health issues. That opportunity to that opportunity to give back to society, to provide gives that self-worth, which is really, really important. Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to make most of my speech today about the work that Harlow College are doing, because, no, that's a political comment.

I can't make that one. I came to this House not to be negative, not to talk down the country, but to talk up Harlow. And in Harlow over the last year, the number of young people not in education, employment or training has gone down. And the one of the main reasons that that is, is the work that Harlow College has done, and I particularly Madam Deputy Speaker want to pay tribute to their principal, Karen Spencer, who has actually written a few things.

Not too long, not not as long as my mother would write. Don't worry about what Harlow college are doing working alongside schools in my constituency of Harlow to actually get the NEET rate down in Harlow, and I want to thank them for the work they're doing. Harlow College developed a targeted NEET programme that recognises the complex barriers many young people face through flexible entry routes, small provision groups and strong pastoral support. Learners are helped to rebuild confidence, re-engage with the education and progress into further study employment.

Importantly, these students are fully integrated in college life, including English and maths enrichment activities and digital support. Harlow College also recognises that preventing young people coming becoming NEET must begin early, and I think this is a really important point that we can all understand. I know young people in Harlow who have been out of employment for, for a number of years, whose parents perhaps have been out of work for a number of years, and we've got to change that culture.

The college works closely with local schools, including Passmores Co-operative Learning Community. I have a community co-operative which is technically political, but it is the title of the of the the multi-academy trust, and I want to particularly pay tribute to Vic Goddard, the the director, the executive head of Passmores Co-operative Learning community, for the work that he's done in working with the college, because it's got to work both ways, working with the college, with college staff and going directly into schools, discussing careers, supporting applications and helping young people prepare for this.

These interviews, this early collaborative approach reduces the risk of young people falling through the gaps at key transition points and demonstrating the vital role that further education colleges play in tackling NEETs and supporting social mobility. Madam Deputy Speaker, the hon. Gentleman for Beverley hasn't intervened, so I don't think I've made any political points, but I just want to finish by saying I am absolutely determined that young people in my constituency of Harlow have the best opportunity moving forward.

I'm delighted that this Labour government are investing in my town, that the UK Health Secretary will have its permanent home in Harlow, which will be the high tech, high

**** Possible New Speaker ****

skill jobs for the future of young people in Harlow. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Shivani Raja.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Shivani Raja. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Every young person I speak to in Leicester wants the same basic Leicester wants the same basic things. They want to work, they want to earn, to learn and to build want to earn, to learn and to build a future for themselves. They want the dignity that comes from that first pay packet, the confidence that comes from responsibility and that comes from responsibility and the chance to prove themselves in the workplace. They do not want to sit on the sidelines of our economy.
17:46
Shivani Raja Portrait Shivani Raja MP (Leicester East, Conservative)
-
-
And let's be honest, Madam Deputy Speaker, neither do we. I hear constantly about the government's constantly about the government's ambition to do things, their ambition for more people to be in employment, the ambition for this, employment, the ambition for this, the ambition for that. But Madam Deputy Speaker, ambition does not create jobs. It's not just the create jobs. It's not just the government that has ambition. Young people have ambition. They have the ambition to succeed, to buy a house ambition to succeed, to buy a house of their wages, to raise a family ambition in our young people is not lacking.

But again, ambition does not create jobs. Jobs only exist when employers can afford to take people on, to take a risk in expanding or even starting a business. And right now, this government's policies are making that harder, not easier. Yeah, what young people lack are opportunities. Entry level jobs are disappearing, not because young people are unwilling to take them, but because businesses are increasingly unable to afford the risk of hiring them. This government repeatedly underestimates how employers respond to rising costs.

I know the government front bench and a large section of the party opposite have never worked in the private sector. I know they won't understand the risks of starting a business, or the risks of working in the private sector. I know they never had to meet a payroll or had sleepless nights about whether there is enough cash to take any salary at all, or whether taking on another member of staff will cripple them. I come the private sector, I understand businesses, my family run higher employer, national insurance, rising business rates and increased regulatory risk all feed into the same calculation.

When margins are tight, businesses do not take chances. They prioritise experience over potential and that is rational behaviour. But it locks young people out of the labour market. As we've heard in the House today, youth unemployment now stands at 15.9% and nearly a million young people are not in education, employment or in training. And that is not because young people have stopped trying. It is because the number of entry level opportunities available to them is shrinking. Retail, hospitality and leisure are where many young people learn how to work.

They learn reliability, communication and resilience, and these sectors operate on tight margins and they employ a disproportionate number of young people. Yet they are precisely the sectors being squeezed hardest by this. Government and business groups have been clear about this. Yesterday we heard the government announce further changes to business rates, including additional relief for pubs. Now any support for struggling businesses is welcome, but temporary discounts, transitional reliefs and future reviews does not change the fundamental problem. Costs are rising faster than confidence and uncertainty discourages hiring.

In my constituency of Leicester East, claimant counts already sit above the national average. For young people aged 18 to 24. The number claiming unemployment related benefits has risen over the past year, which is hardly surprising given that businesses tell me that they are scaling back entry level recruitment in response to these rising costs. The story I hear again and again is the same. Employers want to grow, but they can't justify the risk. And when the door to work closes, young people do not suddenly stop wanting to contribute.

Instead, they are pushed towards welfare, not because they choose dependency, but because opportunity has been taken away. And that is how our benefit system becomes a waiting room rather than a springboard. And this matters not just economically, but socially. Without early work experience, young people struggle to progress, skills fade, confidence falls, and the distance to the labour market grows. And that is how temporary unemployment becomes. Long term disengagement. Madam Deputy Speaker, this does not have to be the outcome.

There is another way to get young people back into work, and we conservatives believe the answer is not to manage decline through temporary reliefs and reviews, but to remove the barriers that stop businesses hiring in the first place. If this government is serious about tackling youth unemployment, it must stop focusing on managing the consequences of higher costs and start removing the barriers that prevent businesses from hiring in the first place. And that means backing small and medium sized businesses, reducing the cost of employing people and ensuring that our tax and regulatory system rewards job creation rather than punishing it.

Young people want to work. They deserve the chance to work, and it is the responsibility of this House to make sure that government policy opens the door to opportunity, rather than quietly closing it. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sean Woodcock much, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a real pleasure to speak in this important debate on a speak in this important debate on a vital topic, and there have been many numerous fascinating contributions across the House, contributions across the House, which is why I was so astonished at the contribution from the front bench, which was patronising young bench, which was patronising young people, when really she should have been apologising to them. Hundreds of thousands of young people fell out of employment, education and training on their watch.

Now, in Banbury, youth employment is lower than the national average. I don't think that would surprise anybody. So how Soho farmhouse celebrity farmers Chipping Norton set. It may be assumed that youth unemployment is not something we know. You would, however, be wrong because there are deep pockets of deprivation in places like Grimsby and Ruscote, both of which I served as councillors for, but also in Chipping Norton itself. There are too many young people there who've been failed for far too long, and the result is they they don't do things.

They don't learn to drive. They find it difficult to get a job. They end up having shorter lives than people just down the road from
17:52
Sean Woodcock Portrait Sean Woodcock MP (Banbury, Labour)
-
-
them as a result. But in rural areas too, you'll see that things like the decimation of buses that like the decimation of buses that we saw under austerity has led to some kids being unable to go to college, get into town, to go go to that job. And so the cycle continues. The difficulties continues. The difficulties affecting our young people should actually anger all of us and upset actually anger all of us and upset us. British sense of fairness, because our young people have so much to offer.

And during the pandemic in 2020 2021, young people were asked to make sacrifices not made by any previous generation. Freshers week at university or colleges done via zoom. Kick about for your mate down the park. Not allowed a night out on the town. Banned. And what did they get in return? They were told by party opposite at the last general election. Go and do national service. This is a party who didn't help them get into and stay in work. With youth employment growing by almost 50% between 2021 and 2024.

Now under the under them, the UK was the only G7 country whose unemployment rate was lower than before the pandemic. They want to talk about records. That is your record. The only G7 country where that is the case. They want to come here and talk about what this government is doing. They're the ones who closed youth centres. This government is opening youth hubs. This government are rolling out programmes to get people into work. In contrast to the conservative plan to cut support this, government are overhauling job centres so that they support people both looking for work and businesses looking to recruit.

We're also getting buses back on the road. By the way, this Labour government is providing a jobs guarantee. The opposition are guaranteeing absolutely nothing because they've learned absolutely nothing from the 14 years that they were in government.
17:53
Roger Gale Portrait Rt Hon Sir Roger Gale MP (Herne Bay and Sandwich, Conservative)
-
-
Graham Stuart gentleman for >> Graham Stuart gentleman for giving way. Unless he's finished, he's finished. We'll let him do that. >> Sir.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sir. Roger Gale thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'll be very brief. In her remarks earlier this In her remarks earlier this afternoon, the hon. Lady, the Member for Gillingham and Rainham, the Kent Member of Parliament, praised the work of the Mid Kent College and the training that it's offering for young people in construction trades. And she was right to do so. And I'll add to that the work of the East Kent colleges, in similar vein for also doing a tremendous job under quite difficult circumstances.

Classes, but there is a really small point in offering that training in skills, only to see disappointment at the end of it because the opportunities have gone. Yeah. Young man or young woman trains as an electrician or a plumber or a bricklayer. They expect to then go on to earn money to have a job as a plumber or an electrician or a bricklayer. But in the construction trades in East Kent. And she knows this. People are being laid off.

House building is grinding to a halt, houses are not selling, the market is flat. And that's all as a result of the fiscal policies of this government. Madam Deputy Speaker, in towns like Herne Bay and sandwich, Birchington on Sea and Westgate on Sea, in my constituency, very many of the jobs are hospitality based. They are the directly in hospitality, the pubs, the restaurants, the small hotels or they are dependent upon visitors that those other businesses attract.

The seaside amusement arcades, Dreamland in Margate. All of these businesses are dependent on people having money to spend and being able to employ staff. But they're not. Those staff are not being taken on, and those staff are the young people. Yes, I may be getting on a bit, but I can remember it. My first job was washing up in a restaurant, actually in Stratford on Avon, because I needed to earn some money and I was able to walk in and do it.

That's not happening. Now. They're laying off staff, they're not taking them on. And those staff, and it was said earlier by my right hon. Friend, those staff are the young people who are not being employed. Why? It is as a direct result of the fiscal policies of this government, directly or indirectly. It is National Insurance, directly or indirectly, it is business rates, directly or indirectly, it is the cost of inputs, the cost of electricity. You can't run a restaurant or a pub without heating and lighting, and the food is put on the table and there are pubs closing in my constituency one very recently, a couple of weeks ago, I heard that lovely riverside pub, a place bizarrely known as Plucks Gutter, but the dog and duck had shut because the young couple who were running it, who had a splendid summer season, found that the end of the summer business crashed.

They couldn't deploy, employ the staff they couldn't employ to pay the rates, they couldn't employ the pay, the for the food, the electricity, everything else that goes with running a good little riverside pub. So it's gone now. Please, God, it'll come back again. But they have had to retrench and they put their heart and soul into this. And what I really want to say is it is no good. We don't want sticking plaster. Thank you. We don't want schemes.

We don't want to be told, yes, you can do this, you can do that. There are these opportunities, these young people. Soon my grandchildren want jobs. They want the dignity of being able to go out, do a hard day's work, whether that's washing up in a cafe or picking fruit in an orchard or whatever, and get a pay packet at the end of it that they have earned, that they can spend as they want. That is the dignity of employment.

That is what I fear this government is denying them.
17:59
Graham Stuart Portrait Rt Hon Graham Stuart MP (Beverley and Holderness, Conservative)
-
-
Graham Stuart thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a pleasure to take part in this debate. How do we, as so many colleagues, certainly on this side of the House, have asked this afternoon how do we persuade an employer? How do we create the incentives for an employer to take a chance on a young person who may have no work experience? They may be full of ambition, fresh ideas, curiosity, but with little or no experience to offer. When that same employer could choose an older candidate who has proven reliable, familiar with the workplace.

And if we can answer that question, Madam Deputy Speaker, then we'll help more than one person. We help ensure that the door to opportunity for people to have that dignity of work that my hon. Friend has just talked about to be provided in 21 years as a nearly 21 years as a member of Parliament, now with the hon. Lady, the Minister, she, like me, will have visited hundreds of schools and asked thousands of students. I've certainly done so. From Holderness Academy to Withernsea High School, the same question what do you want to be when you leave school? But not once, Madam Deputy Speaker has a child replied unemployed and for good reason.

Young people are ambitious. They want the dignity of work that my hon. Friend spoke about so passionately just now over the indignity of welfare. They want to climb a ladder of opportunity. They want not fall into the trap of dependency. And yet. And the Minister reflected this in her remarks. Study after study tells us the same hard truth. Young people who experience long term unemployment are more likely to end up poor, sick and more isolated than their peers.

No options, no hope. No way should we be consigning our young people to that fate. But Labour governments have done this before, and some of the contributions. I never want to question anyone's honesty, but to be so selective in this data, to talk about the 14 years so relentlessly, and then not give youth unemployment figures for the 14 years, not a single member opposite. They've picked some three year period around Covid, which surely anyone fair minded, I mean, the the hon.

Gentleman back there, I thought he did. He made a fair point, a fair statistical point. He said, OK, it's gone up under Labour, which he conceded how refreshing. But he said it was going up when, when we came to power and that we should deal with it. And that was a fair point, a point well made. But in in 1997, youth unemployment stood at 14%. By 2010, it had climbed under the Socialist Party opposite to 20% by 2024.

By 20, I'll make a little more progress and then I'll happily give way. Having referenced the hon. Gentleman, the very least I can do. By 2024, it had been brought back to below 14%. So again and again, conservatives have brought youth unemployment down and I've just touched on others have touched on. The Minister has touched on just how damaging it is for young people to be unemployed, how it has not just a short term horrific impact. It has a lifelong impact. I don't quite know why that is the case, but data are study after study shows that it is.

And now less than two years in, the number is 16% and rising. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, we've seen this film before. And unless we unless the government changes course, we know how it ends. So how do we change course? And I think colleagues on this of the House have tried to indicate to colleagues opposite. I know that they do lack experience of running businesses that so few of them have ever actually had to make that huge decision, that risk filled decision of employing someone, of employing more people, having to find the money to pay them at the end of the month, as well as pay all the taxes.

But you do it by changing incentives. As any good economist knows, the single single biggest cost for almost any business is its workforce. Yet this Chancellor has chosen to increase the minimum wage and so many other costs on business. In turn, the cost of employing 18 to 20 year olds has risen not by £2,000 this just since July 2024, not by £3,000, Madam Deputy Speaker, but a staggering £4,095 in less than two years. So if we understand that behaviour is driven by incentives and you make it much more expensive to employ a young person compared to someone who's older, what happens? Well, it's not a surprise the rate of youth unemployment has gone up.

And let me give way to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hon. Gentleman. I do thank him for giving way, and I do thank him for reflecting on longer than just the last few on longer than just the last few years. But if he's been in this place for 21 years, he'll remember you refer to 2010, you would have. you refer to 2010, you would have. It wasn't because we had a socialist government in 2010. Although I'm a big fan of Gordon Brown, it's because we had a global Brown, it's because we had a global financial crisis and unemployment was high in the UK, but it was high elsewhere as well.

But he will elsewhere as well. But he will remember that part of his government's response to that was austerity. And does he want to reflect on the impact of that on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our young people? Well, I'm the hon. Gentleman makes a very fair and reasonable makes a very fair and reasonable point. The point to reflect on, though, is if he goes back and looks through the data of that last looks through the data of that last quasi socialist government, youth unemployment stayed stubbornly high unemployment stayed stubbornly high throughout. And it and actually, it wasn't just the 2008 crash. The truth was, throughout that period, we had a much higher level of youth unemployment than we should have done.

And of course, this austerity, the government overspent. We inherited that massive deficit and we slowly brought it down through the 20 tens. But we overspent each and every year. So this myth of austerity, if that means living within your means, well, we didn't live within our means. We overspent each and every year. But by the time we got to Covid, we managed to get that right down because we show fiscal responsibility, because we know that if you spend money you don't generate today, you impose the burden on the very young people.

We're now imposing unemployment upon. So just to deal with the minimum wage and members opposite touched on it, oh, do we want to face young people and say they're not worth these higher pay? Well, if they don't have the experience and if they lose out on getting a job in the first place against an older person because they haven't got even costs competitiveness to use it, they are in trouble. So since its introduction in 1998, there has been a development rate, a lower wage for younger workers.

Deliberate. It's a very sensible for a very sensible reason. When young people enter the workplace, they're doing exactly that. They're developing developing skills, confidence, discipline and the ability to work productively alongside more experienced colleagues and employers were explicitly permitted to pay less in order to reflect an economic reality. Madam Deputy Speaker, I don't doubt the good intentions of the party opposite of its Cabinet and indeed of the hon. Lady who I may come in on intervene on me in a moment, but good intentions don't disguise the truth, because they haven't run businesses, and it shows.

They don't understand how employers make decisions on how behaviour is incentivised by abolishing the development rate. The Chancellor wanted to signal that she is on the side of young people. Well, put us in a political divide. You, your Tories. You don't want to pay young people a fair and decent wage. Well, of course we do. But we want them to have a job. The insider outsider issue that my right hon. Friend touched on earlier, the effect that the Chancellor has had is the opposite of that which she's desired.

She's not helping young people. Many have received a short term pay rise, but hundreds of thousands have received the ultimate kick in the teeth. Not a pay cut, Madam Deputy Speaker, but no pay at all, because the job they should have been offered has disappeared. In a puff of the Chancellor's smoke after the first Budget, a survey by the Beverly Chamber of Trade found that 88%, 88% of their members said they would be less likely to employ young people because of the rise in the minimum wage.

Despite that warning, the Chancellor returned with a second Budget and destroyed even more opportunities with another £26 billion tax raid. Madam Deputy Speaker, we can but pray that she is out of the door before she completes her tax taking trilogy. If the Chancellor changes nothing, we need to change the Chancellor. But what would the Conservatives do differently? Madam Deputy Speaker, what would start with a simple truth? Employers create jobs. Not Ministers, not schemes, not programmes. Employers, private employers.

They're the ones that generate the wealth. The ladder of opportunity isn't built by ministerial good intentions. It's built by creating incentives for the behaviours you want. And the behaviour you want from employers is to take the risk, to feel it's worth their while, for their family to invest in and give an opportunity to a young person. But under this government, the first rung of the ladder is being sawn off. Young people don't begin at the top. They begin with a Saturday job, the summer shift, their first payslip.

That's where confidence is built, habits are formed and futures are forged. When those jobs disappear, the ladder doesn't get longer. It just gets shorter and steeper. Under a conservative government, we will abolish business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure. Not 10% of them are 100% of them. The very sectors where so many young people take their first step. Cutting costs, give businesses the freedom to grow and hire. And you don't need a vast bureaucratic number of people to administer a scheme.

When you simply lower the costs for employers, they get on with it. We create that will create real opportunities for young people to learn, earn and prove themselves. Under Labour, businesses face another three years of higher and higher costs, heavier regulation and constant uncertainty, leaving young people blocked, frustrated and struggling to get a foothold in the job market. So that's why we will repeal Labour's Job Destroying Employment Rights Act, because you cannot regulate your way to prosperity. That act introduced 28.

Count them major reforms placing significant new requirements on businesses £5 billion in costs by the government's own estimate, perhaps the most damaging to young people is the planned changes to zero hours contracts requiring guaranteed hours and compensation for cancelled shifts. While well-intentioned and I fully accept that these measures reduce the flexibility that both employers and young people value so as they can balance their studies with gaining experience. Businesses will hire fewer young workers, leaving a generation without the chance to learn, earn and prove themselves.

And if we see the youth unemployment rate continue to go up as it did under the previous Labour governments, from the 14% inherited from the Conservatives to 20%. I hope the hon. Lady will say now on the floor of the House, that if that were to be the terrible outcome and the scarring impact on young people, she would not seek to stand for the Labour Party because

**** Possible New Speaker ****

she would recognise at the next election that she'd failed us. I give way to the hon. Lady. I thank the honourable.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable. Member for giving way as an employment lawyer and in fact a partner in a law firm that employed 50 people in equity partners. So I do have some experience. I remember 1998, when the minimum wage came in 1998, when the minimum wage came in for over 18, the same figure for over 18. And I remember the over 18. And I remember the Conservative Party changing that. So if you were under 25, 25, you were paid less.

Your rent doesn't cost less. When you're 24. There is still that differential now for under 21 of £2 an hour. It still

**** Possible New Speaker ****

exists. So how can you say that that differential is no longer there? Because it still is. Even now. It is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is. The hon. Lady is quite right to mention what we're talking about here is balance. None of us. We're not talking about total employer not talking about total employer free for all. On the one side, what you're looking at is getting that balance, and it looks as if that balance has gone wrong. The hon. Lady must know this. She she can't be. What have been the great external economic shocks over the external economic shocks over the last year and a half? They haven't really been there.

There's no reason other than the policies of this government that have led to this increase in youth unemployment, the loss of nearly 100,000 jobs in hospitality. It is about getting the balance right, and this government has not done it. The what the Conservatives will do is align incentives, cut costs and free businesses to hire get the balance right. And in doing so, we will give businesses the freedom to take a chance, give young people the chance to prove themselves because a conservative government stands for work, not welfare, for opportunity, not dependency.
18:12
Lewis Cocking Portrait Lewis Cocking MP (Broxbourne, Conservative)
-
-
Yeah, yeah. OK. >> As we. >> Have heard, the number of young people who are not in education, employment or training is at its employment or training is at its highest level for more than a decade. Astonishingly, the most recent figures show that 946,000 young people are in that position. That is almost one in every eight young people across the country. We can all agree that that situation is completely unsustainable and it is damaging to our society. But despite the promises, the government's actions have only made it harder for young people to find jobs.

To the. To the surprise of no one apart from the Chancellor and her backbenchers, increasing the cost of employment through the rise in National Insurance has led to more unemployment. Last month we saw the biggest monthly fall in payroll employees since the pandemic, and the unemployment rate across the United Kingdom is at 5.1%. So what's Labour's response? They just keep increasing benefits. Welfare spending will rise £18 billion this year and is on track to increase by another 70.

£73 billion over the next five years. And the biggest driver of that increase is spending on working age adults. New claimants for personal independence payments are 78% higher than pre-pandemic levels, and of that, 110,000 graduates under the age of 30 are now claim at least one benefit without being in work. Why would a young person today take on the risk of their idea and start a business? All hours of effort into a job, when they see more and more of their peers getting by on government handouts? I come to this issue with a very simple belief the best form of welfare is a well-paid job, and that must be our guiding principle as a country.

I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I tempt him with a very simple belief? And that is, unemployment is like any other commodity. The more you pay for it, the more you will have of it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the more you will have of it. The hon. Member makes a right hon. Member makes an incredible hon. Member makes an incredible point. And that is precisely what businesses tell me. As I said, it's come to no surprise of none of my constituents and none of my businesses in my constituency of Broxbourne, apart from the Chancellor and the Labour Party, that if you tax jobs more, there will be less jobs for people to go to. And and we have been making that point on this side.

And I'm always surprised that when we hear from government MPs and Labour MPs, when they come out and they say, well, we've spoken to businesses in my constituency and everything seems fine. I mean, just speak to businesses with a conservative MP. They give you a completely different, a completely different message. More people in decent, sustainable employment and a life of benefits is better for our economy and our public finances. To show young people there can be a better future, we must change the economic model to properly reward employment and change our education system so that young people are prepared for the world of work.

As I've said before, in this place, we should be more creative about what we're asking young people to learn at school. Countless employers in my constituency have told me that when they hire school leavers, they lack important skills, such as writing an email, speaking with customers over the phone, understanding basic finance and understanding the language of contracts. It's not that young people today can't or won't develop these skills, nor that is the fault of our brilliant teachers. The curriculum just simply isn't geared to preparing young people for the world of work in the modern world.

That is why we should be inviting local businesses, entrepreneurs and employers into schools more regularly so they can share their knowledge and experience to encourage students to think about how they can get their ideas off the ground and what it takes to run a viable business. Madam Deputy Speaker, I was told when I asked the question in this place by a government Minister from the Dispatch Box, that is government that creates economic growth in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this country. Now, let me just say gently to the government, it is not the government. It is not. Us as MPs that create economic

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Us as MPs that create economic growth within this country. It is all of our constituents out out there across the United Kingdom there across the United Kingdom that put at risk, take their ideas forward, create those jobs and create that economic growth locally. create that economic growth locally. And and of course, employ lots of people. You could learn in school about marketing, economics, maths and law, all without knowing you're actually learning these skills and all without a textbook insight.

That sort of system would help our young people navigate the crucial period after leaving school and make them more attractive to employers. And I've seen the fantastic work at the Broxbourne school, which teach T levels a business T level where they actually go out into the world of work, have an apprenticeship alongside learning in the classroom. That is what we need to gear our education system towards preparing young people better for the world of work that we now see in the 21st century.

And I've heard a number of speakers from the government side, and I'd just like to say that I, I was educated and went through my whole education in the United Kingdom under under New Labour and under Tony Blair. And I remember Tony Blair saying that he wanted half of all young people to go to university. Now, university might be the right choice for some young people in this country. It's not the right choice for everybody. And when I was at school, picking my choices about what I would do after school, the word apprenticeship wasn't even in the vocabulary.

There was no offer of apprenticeship. You were essentially went to university, or you fell off an edge of a cliff and you did nothing. Now that is not a record that I would be proud of after when Labour New Labour was in power last time. So I think they need to reflect on what they did last time in government, because it clearly didn't work then and it's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way. Hon. Gentleman must be really pleased about what the Prime Minister has said about the new Minister has said about the new target of two thirds of young people being in either higher education or apprenticeships and training here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

training here. I'm pleased about that target. Anyone can come to this house and stand at that despatch box and make a target and and make it sound good, but we want action on the ground. The government has been in power now for 18 for 18 months. And when now for 18 for 18 months. And when I speak to my constituents, we don't see action. When I speak to young people in my constituency, we don't see action. We need to move faster and further and further on this.

I will give way one more time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Good gentleman would also be very pleased to see the Further Education White Paper as well, which will put some of those things

**** Possible New Speaker ****

into action. Look, I gently just say to the hon. Lady, you had 13 years to come hon. Lady, you had 13 years to come up with a plan for government when you were in when you were in opposition. That paper should have landed the day after the general landed the day after the general election. She should be getting on with it, not 18 months, not 18 months down the line. My message to months down the line. My message to the government is clear.

Yes, make the obvious changes to the tax that businesses from all of our constituencies are crying out for, but also show you're really serious about creating economic growth, tackling youth unemployment, and bringing forward fundamental changes to education in this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

country. Yeah yeah yeah yeah. Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now I turn 40 next week. So I hope so I so I so I do hope that doesn't render me too old to doesn't render me too old to highlight the realities faced by some of our young people. They feel let down. Some even speak of intergenerational unfairness. And the facts are stark. Youth
18:19
Peter Bedford Portrait Mr Peter Bedford MP (Mid Leicestershire, Conservative)
-
-
unemployment is rising, home ownership feels out of reach. NEET levels are at unprecedented highs and youth savings are almost non-existent by any serious measure. Being a young person in Britain today is getting harder and harder. It is therefore no surprise that since the general election, support for the party opposite amongst 18 to 24 year olds has halved. The government simply doesn't understand aspiration, personal freedoms and it doesn't understand opportunity. Young people in Mid Leicestershire, and indeed across the country are increasingly starting to realise this.

We on these benches understand that promoting aspiration, freedom and opportunity is the best path out of poverty and improving social mobility indeed getting on in life. Put simply, we must help our young people to help themselves. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a shocking indictment that this government's economic policies, such as the rise in national Insurance, the burdensome regulations of the Employment Rights Act and the utter decimation of our hospitality sector, that youth unemployment now stands at above 700,000, with NEETs close to a million.

Even our brightest graduates are struggling to find work now. This is really unsettling for young people and it is holding back their potential. Hon. Members should not just take my word for it. Earlier this week, I hosted the Institute for hospitality here in Parliament, and delegates told me that the sector has lost over 100,000 jobs, many of which were traditionally taken up by young people at the very start of their careers. So I asked the house, what message does this send to young people of this country? We should be offering them opportunities, not giving them their p45s.

This is a betrayal of the next generation because young people do not want a life on handouts. They want a chance to stand on their own two feet.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Madam Deputy Speaker, sadly, personal responsibility means very personal responsibility means very little to this government. Surely it is the government's duty to send a positive message to our young people that through hard work, through determination, through responsibility, you can achieve responsibility, you can achieve economic freedoms and success. You can own your own home, you can have that nice car and you can take that nice car and you can take those family holidays. You can build a life that you want to create for your own graft, and that you and your family can be proud of.

And it is increasingly clear that it is only us on these conservative Benches that understand this. We are on the side of hard pressed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

friend. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and he and he doesn't look a day older than 30, so it can't be his fault. It can't be his 40th birthday coming up. Does he agree with me that we need to go agree with me that we need to go further than that? Of course we need economic growth in this country, and we need to attach jobs country, and we need to attach jobs and let the people outside create that economic growth.

But we also need to look at the education system so that we prepare young system so that we prepare young people when they leave education better for the world of work that employers are crying out for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend, his intervention and I absolutely agree with him. One of the campaigns that I've also been articulating is about been articulating is about financial education, because I think that's also key to unlocking the opportunity for many of our young people as well. But as I was saying, many, many of these, only us on this side of the house believes in young people. We are on the side of hard pressed taxpayers. We are on the side of small businesses, and now, more than ever, we are on the side of young people.

I am a conservative because I believe that economic freedom comes through hard work.
18:23
Harriett Baldwin Portrait Dame Harriett Baldwin MP (West Worcestershire, Conservative)
-
-
Yeah, yeah. >> Yeah, yeah. >> Shadow Minister Harriett Baldwin. Yeah, yeah. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. And I think this has been a really excellent and engaging debate where I think everyone on all sides of the House has recognised this is an important issue we should be dedicating time to. And indeed it is a crisis because youth unemployment is rising faster here in the UK than anywhere else in the G7. And we've had some fantastic contributions from these benches.

We've had my right hon. Friend, the Member for East Hampshire, who, as a former employment Minister, I think, spoke in an extremely well informed way, but also had some very practical things which incorporated into a call to action. We had a passionate speech from the Member for Beaconsfield, talking specifically about the Greyhound as an exemplary business in her constituency. The Member for Bromsgrove, I think, made a very apposite comment about the best welfare program for young people is a job, and in an outstanding speech, the Member for Leicester East shared her deep experience of working in a family business and how important it is that in our retail and hospitality sector, those jobs exist to teach young people reliability,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

communication and resilience. I would love to. I'm extremely grateful to my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend, and while she's picking out remarkable contributions to this debate, contributions to this debate, although he's not in his seat, she particularly struck by the Member for North Norfolk, saying that the for North Norfolk, saying that the Conservatives should apologise for not having in their motion any mention of transport to help young people get to work when the much people get to work when the much longer Liberal Democrat motion, ironically, has no mention of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

transport either. I think my right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and. Indeed my my my hon. Friend from Herne Bay and Sandwich, I think, spoke extremely eloquently about the important importance of the dog the important importance of the dog and duck in his constituency, but also how terrible it is for the also how terrible it is for the local community that it has closed because of all the extra costs. The my my right hon. Friend, in his contribution from Beverley and Holderness was absolutely on the nail in terms of some of the statistics and the fact that we've seen this film before, we have learnt about the importance of the ladder of opportunity that is built by good intentions, and that you need to create those jobs in the private sector.

You can't regulate your way to prosperity. And my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, in a speech which I thought was very practical and befits his background in both the private sector and in local government, had some very sensible points to make.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is that my hon. Friend asking for me to give way. Give way. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. I find it striking during the the Minister opposite speech that she seemed to be lauding jobs created by the government. Does my created by the government. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it's ridiculous to suggest that the government should create jobs

**** Possible New Speaker ****

instead of business? Yes. My my hon. Friend is spot on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My my hon. Friend is spot on because it is that foundation of private sector prosperity that will create the tax revenues that we can use to pay for excellent public services. And I think that was a point that my hon. Friend from Mid Leicestershire, who I agree, the House, is shocked to learn that he will be 40 next week. Made made a similar point, which I thought illustrated the importance of business and of the private sector. And at times, Madam Deputy Speaker, I felt, and I hope you'll permit this in the chair.

A quote from Mark Twain came to mind about lies, lies and statistics. And I'm using it as a quote. Madam Deputy Speaker, to summarise what I think was some of the contributions. So I want to just sort of set out for the record what I see as the statistics that I'm afraid, as facts are a matter of record, that youth unemployment is now 15.9%. It is a rise of 2.5% on this government's watch, and we've heard from a range of contributions, 729,000 young people are unemployed in this country, and that is a scandalous 103,000 more than the previous year.

And that number doesn't even include those who were signed off as long term sick. Indeed, there are nearly 1 million young people who are not in education, employment or training, and that is up 25,000. Since this government came to power. Many of them are university graduates. The centre for Social Justice has warned that over 700,000 university graduates are now out of work and on benefits, and many are fleeing the country looking for opportunity elsewhere. We saw last year.

Can I just finish my sentence? I'll give way to my my hon. Friend. Last year there was net emigration of 59,000 young people under the age of 24

**** Possible New Speaker ****

from this country. I give way. Proportion of benefits claimants

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Proportion of benefits claimants that are under age 24. In Sleaford and North Hykeham the number of people on unemployment benefit under the age of 24 is 25% of the under the age of 24 is 25% of the total, which is clearly a very large amount.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

large amount. And I think as we've seen so often in this debate, it is a tragedy and that every young person tragedy and that every young person deserves that chance to move into the world of work. And I think what we're seeing from these statistics, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that this is not a blip. It's a trend, and it's a trend that's moving in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wrong direction. I would love to. Extremely grateful. Does she look forward to the minister's look forward to the minister's reply, as I do in a moment, because youth unemployment has gone up from youth unemployment has gone up from 14% to 16% already. Does she want to hear from the Minister at the despatch box, a commitment that he despatch box, a commitment that he will ensure that this government reduces it back down so that they can, for once, end their time in can, for once, end their time in power in 2029, however short lived they may be in in power, they may

**** Possible New Speaker ****

end it with a lower rate of youth unemployment than they started. Yes. I certainly hope that we'll hear a plan of action to tackle this alarming crisis, and I certainly hope that we'll see a less selective grouping of statistics than we did from the Minister when she opened the debate. Because, Madam Deputy Speaker, this government has made it more expensive. It's made it more burdensome. It's made it more risky for businesses to hire young people. And this is not a view that I'm expressing from a partisan point of view.

This is I'm going to try and follow the example of the Member for Harlow. I'm going to try not to be partisan by quoting from external organisations here, the Federation of Small Business, for example, it warns that many firms are now scaling back recruitment with young workers the most exposed. The highly respected Neutral Institute for Fiscal Studies, has warned of a worrying rise in unemployment among young workers, citing policy driven increases in labour costs, and the National Institute of Economic and Social Research has highlighted a cooling labour market with disproportionate effects on young people.

So how has the government managed to have such a terrible impact on our young people in its first 18 months? First of all, there is the National Insurance rise. The Institute of Directors has described the National Insurance rises as a direct disincentive to hiring because young people are the least experienced, the least established and the most vulnerable to cost cutting. When you make it more expensive to hire employers, hire fewer people. It is not complicated. Second, we have Labour's minimum wage increase now since the 2024 general election, the cost of hiring a full time minimum wage worker has risen sharply across every age group.

For over 21, the annual cost has increased by 15%, but for 18 to 20 year olds, it has jumped by 26%. Despite the fact that there is no employer National Insurance to pay for that age group and for apprentices, it has risen by 25%. In fact, since Labour got into government, it now costs £4,000 more a year to hire an 18 year old full time. So I give way to a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

member from the governing party. To be a member from the governing party, and I do thank you. governing party, and I do thank you. Thank you for giving way. Of course, I am sure she would not be telling those young people in her constituency that they do not constituency that they do not deserve that pay rise, particularly when what this is about is making sure two people side by side, doing the same job to the same standard should get the same pay irrespective of age.

Surely that is a good thing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a good thing. I'm very sad to see that the hon. Gentleman does not recognise that that young person can now be standing next to another young person who is unable to get a job, and surely he must agree that the level at which people are being paid has had a an effect on the fact that there are fewer people in these jobs. The Federation of Small Businesses has said that these rises. Well, they don't have to listen to me.

They can listen to the Federation of Small Businesses again, Madam Speaker, and then I'll give, give way again. These rises risk pricing young people out of the labour market. That's not me speaking. That's the federation of small businesses. And I'm sure the hon. Gentleman will agree with them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I thank the Minister and the Federation of Small Business will, of course, be looking for answers to those policy challenges that they are rightly putting back to they are rightly putting back to this place. So what would her answer to them be in terms of how much they should reduce, how much much they should reduce, how much they pay young people by in order to make that balance that so many members opposite have talked about this afternoon? By how much does

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this afternoon? By how much does she think the minimum wage should be reduced for young people so they can be guaranteed that job? Well, I've got perhaps news.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I've got perhaps news. That's a bit of a shock to the hon. Gentleman, which is that it's his party that's in power. It should be his frontbench that he's having this conversation with and his Chancellor, because labour market economists at the Resolution Foundation have noted the Resolution Foundation, by the way, not normally considered to be right leaning. They've noted that when minimum wages rise faster than productivity, employers tend to favour experienced workers, disadvantaging young applicants. So the very people that Labour claims to champion are the ones being priced out of the labour market.

The third thing, Madam Deputy Speaker, that Labour's business rates reforms have also piled pressure on our high streets. Hospitality, retail, small firms. These, as we've heard time and time again through this debate, are the very sectors that traditionally give young people their first job. Indeed, my own first job was behind the bar at a now defunct pub, and it taught me an enormous amount, and I was very grateful for the opportunity. And indeed, the Confederation of British Industry has said that rising business rates suppress investment and hiring.

When you increase fixed costs for employers, you reduce their capacity to hire. And then lastly, Madam Deputy Speaker, but perhaps the most damaging of all is Labour's Employment Rights Act. It introduces sweeping day by day one rights across the board and the government's own economic analysis of the bill says higher labour costs could reduce demand for work, damaging the employment prospects of the same workers. The package is trying to support. The risks are highest for workers with the weakest attachment to the labour market and the youngest workers, since they are still gaining skills and experience.

This is not a partisan point. This is the government's own impact assessment of their own legislation. Indeed, the Youth Future Foundation has said the risk profile of recruiting young people has increased, and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development reports that employers are already reducing recruitment plans, particularly for inexperienced workers, due to regulatory uncertainty. So for large firms, I will give way to my hon. Friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

An excellent speech and I'm sorry to interrupt, but I wanted to ask her about those people who are writing hundreds and hundreds of writing hundreds and hundreds of applications for graduate graduate schemes and who are finding the locked out of graduate schemes because they've been deprioritized because they've been deprioritized because of the colour of their skin. Why should the prime. The deputy Prime Minister's son or the or the children of our of our of our leader Kemi Badenoch, the hon. Member for Saffron Walden.

Why should they be deprioritized? should they be deprioritized? Because why should they be prioritised for jobs over the tractor driver from Lincolnshire?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Dan Norris well, she makes a very, very good point and I would I very, very good point and I would I would make the point, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the third party Speaker, that the third party testimony that I have been giving shows that for large firms, the legislation is a headache. For small firms, the legislation is a deterrent to employment and for young people in our country, it is a disaster because when employers are forced to choose between hiring an experienced worker or taking a chance on an 18 year old with no track record, the government has made that choice brutally simple, and the result is fewer opportunities, fewer first jobs.

A generation shut out before they've even begun. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Labour government's policies are not pro-worker. They are anti opportunity. They are killing youth employment with higher taxes, higher costs, higher risks for employers and young people deserve better. They deserve a government that understands how jobs are created, how businesses operate, how opportunity is built. They deserve a government that will not price them out of the labour market. They deserve a government prepared to reform the welfare welfare system so they do not become trapped in welfare benefits dependency.

We on this side of the House, we conservatives will stand up for those young people. We will abolish business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure. This will benefit 250,000 businesses and revive our high streets. We will break Labour's doom loop with our golden economic rule and save £47 billion. We will abolish stamp duty. We will introduce a £5,000 first jobs bonus backing the next generation, and we will repeal every job destroying, anti-business, anti-growth measure in the Employment Rights Act.

We will double apprenticeship funding by ending debt trap. University degrees, will overhaul the sickness and disability benefit system. We will hold this government to account and we will fight for a jobs market that gives every young person the chance to succeed.
18:39
Andrew Western Portrait Andrew Western MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Stretford and Urmston, Labour)
-
-
Yes, Minister. >> Andrew Western. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And if only the party opposite had had 14 years. >> To do.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To do. Much of what the opposition spokesperson has just outlined. But spokesperson has just outlined. But it seems that the party opposite never tire of pulling apart their own abysmal record, because today they have chosen to focus on the crisis of opportunity that they handed down to young people, and which this government is determined to address. They were perfectly happy, it seems, for youth, apprenticeship starts to plummet by nearly 40%. They sat and watched as the number of young people, neither learning, not earning, spiralled upwards by 300,000 in 3 years, and they were devoid of ideas to help young people overcome the barriers to work that they face.

But perhaps worst of all, Madam Deputy Speaker, when confronted with the undeniable proof of their failure, they blamed young people instead of supporting them. This government will never treat the next generation with such an attitude, which was at best ambivalence and at worst contempt. Instead, we are clearing up the mess the previous government left in its wake, giving young people the opportunities to succeed and the support they need. And we are determined, not at the moment, and we are determined to deliver this on the huge scale required to meet the size of the challenge we inherited.

That is why we are refocusing apprenticeships towards young people, and we are also bringing support to where they are by expanding youth hubs to help to over 360 areas across Great Britain. This is just one part of our youth guarantee, Madam Deputy Speaker, which we are rolling out so every young person gets the chance to earn or learn as part of the more than £1.5 billion made available for employment and skills support at the Budget, creating around 355,000 new training or workplace opportunities.

This includes a jobs guarantee with subsidised paid employment for around 55,000 young people. These are significant interventions. Madam Deputy Speaker while the party opposite offer nothing, the vision they have not at the moment, the vision they have to offer young people is as bleak as the reality of their record low paid, insecure work and a cold shoulder instead of a helping hand. We have seen where that leads and we have chosen a different path. I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the Minister for giving way. He knows that youth giving way. He knows that youth unemployment was at 20% when we came to power, and it was down to came to power, and it was down to 14% when we left power. Can he commit that his government, with this vast array of programmes, will this vast array of programmes, will bring youth unemployment back below the level that his government inherited? Because previous Labour governments have failed in that governments have failed in that respect, they've shoved up youth unemployment with all the damage that goes with that.

Can he commit today that his government will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ensure that the numbers comes down? And if they don't put their hands up and admit their failure? Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Well, that is why we are making the interventions that we are. Madam Deputy Speaker, in the form of the Youth Guarantee, the increased investment in the growth and skills levy. But I would just and skills levy. But I would just gently say to him that he will be aware that the rate of youth unemployment rose by 4% in their unemployment rose by 4% in their last two years in office, and was rising at the point when they left office.

And we have heard today, excuse after excuse, attack after attack from the party opposite on the fact that youth unemployment is rising. When it was rising when they left office. This is not a new problem. It is a significant challenge, one that we are serious about addressing. But if the party opposite wish to continue with their policy of collective amnesia on the mess they left, they will never have anything to offer young people. And so, turning Madam Deputy Speaker to some of the specific contributions of members opposite and beginning with the Shadow Secretary of State, who showed that the Conservative Party has suddenly developed empathy for young people after a period in office in which the they left us with a NEET number of almost 1 million, they compared the youth unemployment rate with other G7 countries.

When we have the second highest youth unemployment rate in the G7 now, we are not complacent. We know that there is work to do. I am aware that it is a different figure, but it is relevant when looking at the overall picture. As the right hon. Gentleman is fully aware, we heard, of course, of the fact from several members, but first by the Shadow Secretary of State that nobody on the front bench had ever worked in a business. I suggest that she checks the record, but certainly both myself and my right hon.

Friend who opened the debate worked for many years in the private sector. I managed a small business, I worked in a global business, and I did several other jobs in the private sector. In between the suggestion, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the party opposite cut the welfare bill, halved unemployment. It's like a pick and mix of flattering figures from various moments of their time in office. But we like people up and down. This country will judge them on the legacy that they left at the point in which they left office.

A spiralling welfare bill that disincentivised those people from looking for work, and the only G7 country with a lower employment rate than before the pandemic, they are not prepared to face up to the mess that they left our country in. And they do this time and again, and I admire the chutzpah for continuing to table issues, for opposition day debates, on which their own record is absolutely appalling and is the considerably, by a considerable margin, the most significant factor in what we face today.

But that does not mean that the public will forgive or forget what they left behind. Turning to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, and she asked in particular about the impact of AI on the workforce. And I just want to assure her that the government is cognisant of that, very mindful of the need to keep a close eye on this, and have recently stood up a new cross-government unit that will specifically look at the AI impacts on the labour market, as well as offering free AI foundations, training for all workers.

She raised some concerns about the defunding of level seven apprenticeships. And look, I'm not going to pretend, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this is not a difficult decision that the government has made, but we have chosen to target the apprenticeship funding that this that this government has to spend on young people because they are less likely to have a relationship with an employer who might be able to fund their training, they are less likely to be able to access some of the other opportunities that people who are perhaps accessing higher level apprenticeships have.

And of course, there are other routes, including a more traditional higher education route for people to access instead of a level seven apprenticeship. She asked specifically about the timing for the rollout of the Youth Guarantee. The first tranche of that will be in place from April the 1st 55,000 opportunities. But by September we will see the rollout of the full 300,000, she went on. Madam Deputy Speaker, to criticise the National Insurance increase in the Budget and the impact that that has had, but then set out that the Liberal Democrats would cut business rates, cut VAT and scrap that National Insurance contribution increase.

And I have to say gently to the hon. Lady that this is the problem with the Liberal Democrat position. They never say how they would pay for it. They never say what they would do. She lambasts the decisions of the first Labour Budget. Would they choose to withdraw the money that has gone in? Additionally to the NHS, it is not a credible position to only set out what you are against. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, we did hear a number of excellent contributions from my right hon.

Friends for Norwich North, Welwyn Hatfield, Gillingham and Rainham, Harlow and Banbury. They were excellent contributions that not only highlighted the toxic legacy of the party opposite, but set out the range of key interventions that this government is making, including, but of course, not limited to, the Youth Guarantee. The right hon. Gentleman from East Hampshire, I think, asked a question on the timing of connect to work, but I may have lost track.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It was certainly. On connect to Work by the end of this financial year, which is the first year in which it operates.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

first year in which it operates. For that clarity. So he will be aware that connected work is already live in two thirds of already live in two thirds of delivery areas. By April. That will be all areas in his area of east be all areas in his area of east Hampshire. We expect that that will support up to 4800 people and is support up to 4800 people and is already live well in the round with the £18.7 million, but I will I will confirm for him separately the figure for this financial year.

But that is the aspiration in the round with the funding that has been made available there. He then launched a staunch defence of zero hours contracts. He will know that we have a fundamentally different view of that. It is my view that insecure work is a blight, not knowing what hours you have to work each week is hugely problematic for those on challenging budgets, and it is just a fundamentally different perspective that we have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on this side of the House. Yeah. That principle to bank staff working in the National Health Service who have what is in fact a zero hours contract, a bank staff zero hours contract, a bank staff contract, in order to top up in other roles in the NHS when that support is needed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support is needed. Prime Minister challenge in the NHS is markedly different and I would freely acknowledge that. But would freely acknowledge that. But but the hon. Gentleman, the right hon. Gentleman is talking about other roles in the NHS because it's not unusual for people to be holding more than one job if they are operating as bank staff, so they don't have the uncertainty about receiving any, any funding at all. The other question that the right hon. Gentleman had, I think, was a criticism that the Youth guarantee or the jobs guarantee only kicks in after 18 months.

That is the final stage of a range of new interventions that this government is putting in place, including an additional supported conversation at 13 weeks, followed by four weeks of intensive work support with specialist teams. So it is not just the jobs guarantee after 18 months, but a broad range of interventions that are being put in place. The hon. Lady for Beaconsfield, I don't think is in her place, but she said that apprenticeships were an opportunity for young people to find work and I quite agree with her.

But the reforms of the party opposite have the effect of delivering a situation where, as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson said, the average age of those entering into apprenticeships was significantly increased and we are seeking to reverse that trend, it's important that we do so. It is a key mechanism for giving young people the skills that they will need in the future. I believe. She also called this a youth unemployment crisis of this government's making, which I fail to see can possibly be the case when there was such a stark increase in the final two years of the party, opposite in the youth unemployment figures, the hon.

Gentleman from Bromsgrove said that the welfare support is the the best welfare support of all is a job, so he will be delighted to see the additional 513,000 people that have been that have entered into employment over the past 12 months, and the hon. Lady for Leicester East also not here, I think, said that she was tired of hearing about this government's ambition, but the party opposite had a paucity of just that, not at the moment, because they left almost a million NEETs a welfare system that disincentivised work, something we've begun to address and an employment rate lower than before the pandemic.

They can accuse us of being too ambitious if they like. Madam Deputy Speaker, they had given up on delivering opportunity for our young people, something that this government will never do. The hon. Gentleman from Beverley and Holderness, right hon. Gentleman, possibly. My apologies, asked how do we encourage an employer to take a chance on a young person by not charging National Insurance contributions for under 21, or for apprentices under 25? By fully funding apprentices at SMEs, by placing young people in six months of guaranteed work, if they are out of the workforce for 18 months, so that they have the chance to prove themselves.

A range of interventions that we are putting in place because we recognise that there is a challenge with youth unemployment. It is long standing, it is not new, but we take it very seriously. Certainly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for allowing, if you take the point that the honourable, the right hon. Gentleman made the exact extrapolation to what I believe the Conservatives are suggesting is, is the way you can incentivise that employer is by allowing them to pay employer is by allowing them to pay less than the minimum wage or indeed cut the minimum wage rate for young people, which I would oppose. Would the Minister?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

oppose. Would the Minister? I certainly would. And I note that the opposition spokesperson, in her closing contribution failed in her closing contribution failed to say, having complained about the increase in the minimum wage, what level the Conservative Party think it is acceptable to reset that at. I personally could not look young people in the eye and justify such a cut to their wages, but the party opposite seem very happy to do so. In continuing her closing contribution, she also pointed to the excuse me, Madam Deputy Speaker, the lack of a plan of action, but this was set out comprehensively by my right hon.

Friend, the Minister of State for employment, underpinned by the £1.5 billion for the Youth Guarantee and Growth and Skills Levy funding increase, but not limited to those interventions alone. These attacks on the national minimum wage increase are, frankly, a smokescreen for a party that has targeted young people with their policies for 14 years and would very clearly continue to do so. Now, the the hon. Gentleman from Mid Leicestershire, I can't resist, Madam Deputy Speaker, commenting on the fact that I would have felt it was more likely to have him in the young people category than in the 40 plus category.

But I know that I note that he himself has had a change of employment status, Madam Deputy Speaker, because he was indeed on the frontbench on Monday and has now returned to his previous position in the PS pigeonhole. So it's a thriving labour market on the conservative benches, if nowhere else. But he he pointed to youth unemployment rising, home ownership falling and NEETs on the up. That is a brave take, Madam Deputy Speaker, when every single one of those facts was true in July 2024, he then asked and again, daring.

But he is an hon. Gentleman who I know is is certainly daring, if nothing else, what this had done to our voting in the voting intentions of young people where the Labour Party were concerned. I have to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that if I was a conservative member of this place and I have no intention of being, I don't know how much longer he intends to be one. I would not be pointing to any other parties polling amongst 18 to 24 year olds, because theirs is truly dire, because of the appalling legacy that they left

**** Possible New Speaker ****

behind. Certainly. Yeah. Thank you. Speaking of daring,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Speaking of daring, the Leader of the Opposition today has said, quote, we don't want any more centrist ideas in the more centrist ideas in the Conservative Party. What does the Minister make of that in terms of their future with young people?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their future with young people? I would say to my hon. Friend that if that is the position of the that if that is the position of the Leader of the Opposition, conservative members may need to find a new home other than reform. But I think the issue here, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that we are dealing with a significant I'm not sure where that where that came from, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I think it I think it is for somebody who knows a little bit about political journeys himself, and he will allow me to simply, simply leave it there.

But I am I am concerned, Madam Deputy Speaker, we've heard a lot today, as I said, about a spiralling welfare bill, about the rise in youth unemployment. But we had an opposition spokesperson closing the debate, refusing when directly asked to set out what the party opposite would do. And if this is the best that they can offer on one of the few days throughout the year in which they have control of the Order Paper no idea, no clue and no plan, and highlighting multiple problems in our society inherited directly from them, as the facts point to.

I think they will be having rather more opposition days before they come back to this side

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the House. The question. Is that the original word stand

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is that the original word stand part of the question, as many as are of that opinion say I. I the are of that opinion say I. I the contrary. No. No vision. Clear the The The question The question is The question is that The question is that the The question is that the original word stand part of the question. As many as of that question. As many as of that no.
18:58
None Portrait Division
-

No. Tellers for the noes Deirdre Order,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

order! The eyes. To the right 91.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the right 91.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noes to the left 287.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noes to the left 287. The ayes to the right are 91. The noes to the left 287. So the The noes to the left 287. So the noes have it. The noes have it unlock.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We're done. The question is that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the proposed words be there added As many as of that opinion say aye. I many as of that opinion say aye. I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. I ayes have it, the ayes have it. I declare the question as amended to be agreed to. We come now to motion number three on climate change, Minister, to move formally. The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion say

**** Possible New Speaker ****

aye. Of the contrary, no. no. No.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No. The division is deferred until Wednesday next.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wednesday next. I beg to move that this House do now adjourn. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do now adjourn. Pippa Heylings.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

do now adjourn. Pippa Heylings. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm grateful. For the. Opportunity to raise the issue of the distribution of education funding, because this debate goes to the heart of what kind of education system we want as liberal Democrats. We want every child to be provided with the opportunity to succeed and reach their full potential. The government and MPs from across the chamber all agree. I'm sure, however, that the current system is not working as well as it should, and now is the time to tackle this historic, unfair distribution of education funding.

Every child should have access to the same resources and opportunities, regardless of where they live or their level of need, and that unfairness in funding across local authority areas shapes what local schools can offer, how quickly children receive support and ultimately affect whether families experience education as a source of opportunity or a source of constant struggle. And that is wrong. The national funding formula and the high needs block of the Dedicated Schools grant were intended to bring fairness and transparency to school funding, but historic proxy factors remain embedded within them, and these factors lock in funding patterns from decades ago, protecting some areas regardless of how they've changed, while capping others.

Even as pupil numbers rise and needs become more complex, I will give way.
19:14
Pippa Heylings Portrait Adjournment: Distribution of education funding Pippa Heylings MP (South Cambridgeshire, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Speaker thank you and can I >> Speaker thank you and can I commend the hon. Lady for South Cambridgeshire for bringing this forward. She is absolutely right to bring an issue. It's incredibly bring an issue. It's incredibly important. Doesn't matter where you are in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the problems are the same. I feel over the last couple of years in the life of representative, I've seen a rise in the number of those who have special needs requirements, where schools are deteriorating and need work done, and these problems seem to be a burden upon the education authorities.

So does the hon. Lady agree that maybe now is the time for the Minister and for government to do a review of how they allocate their funding, and by doing so will bring about something

**** Possible New Speaker ****

positive for all the schools. I would agree with my hon. Friend, and it's exactly why we need this debate at the national level, and I would like to recognise the work undertaken by the F40 Fairer Funding campaign, the F40 Fairer Funding campaign, which has provided comparative historical data for the whole of the country, exposing the huge variations in funding allocations per pupil by local authority. And per pupil by local authority. And nowhere is that unfair disparity than in my constituency of South Cambridgeshire.

Cambridgeshire remains in the bottom quartile nationally for both the dedicated schools grant and the high needs block funding per pupil ranking 133rd out of 151 local authorities in the year 2025 to 26, and that ranking has been the same for more than a decade. Despite the unprecedented growth in Cambridgeshire and the consequences of this a stark. So if Cambridgeshire schools were funded at the same level as Lincolnshire, a shire county funded close to the national medium, they would receive an additional £23.8 million every single year, and that equates to roughly £118,000 per year for a typical primary school.

Think of that equally. If Cambridgeshire were funded at the same level as neighbour of Peterborough, schools would receive around £33 million more annually. So that's the scale of the gap we are talking about, one that's impossible to justify. And this chronic underfunding

**** Possible New Speaker ****

interacts directly with the crisis and special educational needs and disabilities provision. I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will. Give way to my hon. Friend. First of. All. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and she's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friend for giving way, and she's raising incredibly important points on the distribution of funding. But does she agree that the distribution of funding during life distribution of funding during life stage is also important? Because, according to the Early Intervention according to the Early Intervention Foundation, the NHS is spending 3.7 billion a year on the cost of late intervention. So in theory, the government could spend an extra special extra 3.7 billion on early intervention on send at no extra

**** Possible New Speaker ****

net cost to the government. Thank you, my hon. Friend makes a hugely important point and we see a hugely important point and we see we've got cross chamber agreement about how critical both the geographic distribution and the time of that distribution as well. So as I was saying, this interacts So as I was saying, this interacts directly with this crisis and special education needs and disabilities provision. So as well as being historically low in our as being historically low in our county, it cannot meet the rising demand.

Whilst there has been a 72% increase in high needs block funding since 2017, over that same period in Cambridgeshire, the demand for education, health and care plans has risen by 91%. I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way and then I'll come to. I thank my hon. Friend. For. Giving way. I got some data this week that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I got some data this week that told me that our local authorities told me that our local authorities are spending £60,000 per child extra on independent special schools versus maintained special schools, versus maintained special schools, and that the southwest of England, only one third of children are able to go to state maintained schools. to go to state maintained schools. Would my hon. Friend agree with me that as schools are having that money taken away from them to support the councils, the problem

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is just getting worse. Thank you. I couldn't have put that. Better myself. So absolutely.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So absolutely. That again. Is one of the issues, which is a causal. Factor in in the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Factor in in the. Problems that we're having. So what we're seeing is this gap between funding and spend widening between funding and spend widening year after year. And all of this in my area is compounded by rapid population growth. So population growth. So Cambridgeshire and Peterborough are forecast to grow further by nearly 17% between 2023 and 2041. Schools are expanding quickly to meet demand, yet funding lags behind reality. Growth funding is limited, tightly constrained. Section 106 funding supports buildings not stuffing or ongoing SEND provision.

So whilst Cambridge growth is seen as the golden goose for the national economy, local families, schools and councils are being penalised for growth. On the point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That I will give. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As a vice chair of the F40 Group, I As a vice chair of the F40 Group, I understand exactly what the hon. Member is talking about. And as an MP for Cornwall, which has the 13th MP for Cornwall, which has the 13th lowest, send funding. But but with the hon. Member agree that we do the hon. Member agree that we do have a very welcome focus now on send and we do have increased funding and that the schools white paper and the Send white paper, paper and the Send white paper, which is forthcoming soon, is a very good opportunity to look closely at the Send system.

And maybe, although it will be very difficult to address those massive discrepancies in one go, maybe start to look at how Send funding

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is used across the country. Thank you. And the point that you've raised I will come to and you've raised I will come to and have key has been raised. Have key questions, Madam Deputy Speaker for the Minister, exactly around that the Minister, exactly around that point, a stark reality keeps county councillors and their finance councillors and their finance officers awake at night. Cambridge's overall dedicated Cambridge's overall dedicated schools grant deficit stood at £62.8 million at the end of 2025, and forecasts now show that the high needs block deficit will be rising to around £94 million by March 2026, and potentially to £200 million by April 2028, and they're now paying around £3 million a year to service the interest on that debt.

And this places the county in severe financial risk. I raised this question with the Minister, McGovern, when we had the meeting about local government finance order. We mustn't.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Refer to honourable and right hon. Members by name, albeit that the hon. Member for Birkenhead now, the hon. Member for Birkenhead now, I think was the Minister in post. We still don't refer to her by name.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Pippa Heylings. Thank you. So everyone now needs to know

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So everyone now needs to know what will happen to this debt in 2028 when the government centralises its funding as it has announced, if that debt is not absorbed or absolved by government, then Cambridgeshire, like many other councils, could be facing S114 bankruptcy territory. That's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what's keeping them awake at night I will. Is she aware that there is a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is she aware that there is a device called the statutory override, which allows local authorities not to declare a deficit in their accounts, but deficit in their accounts, but nevertheless they are still incurring a debt in relation to schools funding. Gloucestershire is schools funding. Gloucestershire is almost at the bottom of the league. We've had some terrible news this We've had some terrible news this week that one of our school private schools is closing. It's been in existence for 100 years. 170 staff will lose their jobs, 324 pupils will have to find a other schools, of which, at the end of the summer when it closes.

Undoubtedly, when these private schools close and we've heard Exeter Cathedral School is closing part of its function at the end of the summer. Undoubtedly, when these private schools close, some of these pupils will have to go on to the state system. That will put even further pressure on the on the whole system. Does she agree that the the reason cited by this school was the 20% VAT on schools, and it's having an unfair effect on those children in those schools?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I'm sorry to hear what's happened with that school, but I think what we need to look in the think what we need to look in the round is what's happening to all schools and all school funding. And I do appreciate the mention around the statutory override, and I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the statutory override, and I will be coming to that in my comments. Further on, I will give way. I'm really grateful for the Member for securing this debate. Really important. But sadly, your falls below Cambridgeshire and falls below Cambridgeshire and Gloucestershire on the tables and also we're now the lowest funded authority under the new fair funding formula, but certainly have high levels of deprivation. Does she agree with me that when looking at school funding, and I would say pupils in in York are worth as much as they are in Camden, does she not agree with me that we need to look across the piece, because we're also the lowest in health funding as well? And of course, if we've got low funding across the board, it means our children are getting even less funding.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. And I think it goes to the heart of it. Every child, no matter where they live, deserves, you know, the rights and the opportunity to the best education they can have. So you've gone right to the heart of it. And independent to the heart of it. And independent analysis. If I come back to the issue of this debt that's coming out, the deficit, the holding around the statutory override, around the statutory override, independent analysis suggests that by 2028, nationally, the national by 2028, nationally, the national dedicated schools grant deficit could lie somewhere between 5.9 billion and £13 billion.

That level way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you for giving way, and I'd like to congratulate you on I'd like to congratulate you on securing this debate. Torbay unitary authority is the most deprived local authority in the deprived local authority in the southwest of England, and also the most deprived local authority that has the joy of having a Liberal has the joy of having a Liberal Democrat MP. However, we are also a Democrat MP. However, we are also a member of the F40 group and in 2023 we signed up to a safety valve agreement and this effectively snatches send placements from children in our systems.

Would my right hon. Friend agree with me that what we need to see is the white paper around send being driven out there fast because children's lives. Childhood is a very short period of one's life, and children don't have the time to wait.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, I completely agree. And what does this mean for our schools? It's not a surprise that currently 37 primary schools across Cambridgeshire are operating in deficit. Schools haven't got any headroom left. They can't absorb headroom left. They can't absorb further pressures without making damaging choices about staffing, class sizes and support. And I've class sizes and support. And I've heard from the schools in my constituency Linton Infant School, Linton Heights Junior School, Trumpington Meadows Primary School, Fulbourn Primary School Combatant Primary School and Barrington Primary School.

And they've all told me that they've got children on their send register way beyond the funding that they have. They're spending their core budgets because they care and they know that they've got a statutory duty as well. And they have so many in Barrington School also told me that staff are educating children in an area of rapid housing growth, paying up front while waiting months for funding to catch up, and those schools who are paying up front for their ehcp when the funding arrives, it falls well short of the true cost of full time support.

So this makes responsible staffing and financial planning also impossible. But I want to place on record the amazing work that all of those staff do across all of our schools. And as the chair of children and young people at Cambridgeshire County Council, Councillor Edmund Murphy said it is essential that every child has a good education that addresses their needs and supports their wellbeing. Teachers are working hard and many children do have a good experience, but all schools must be able to support children locally and that requires staff and facilities which only proper funding can provide.

And we can't lose support of the families and carers that are at the forefront of this. Alicia and Harry Watson are parents of Penelope and Flora, Penelope's ten year old autistic with PDA traits, severe anxiety and complex sensory and eating difficulties. And she's been on the waiting list for diagnosis for over two years for the ehcp. They are facing the horror that many parents in my constituency have had to face navigating adversarial tribunal processes, exhausting all channels, doing the right things.

As she said, throughout this process, we have felt completely out of sight and out of mind. Passed between services, told to wait, told thresholds were not met, told funding was not available, told support was being explored while months went by and nothing changed. But importantly, Alicia's had to give up her NHS career as a care coordinator, work she loved and was proud to do in the public sector. She did not leave by choice, as she said I left because my children needed me to step in where the system would not, and this is affecting productivity and economic growth as well.

It's emotionally devastating, inefficient, expensive and avoidable. If funding were aligned with need earlier. And so, Madam Deputy Speaker, as the government looks to unveil the Send reforms through the schools White Paper, we urge it to ensure sufficient extra funding is in place and a reform of the funding formula. I would like to ask the Minister for clarity and certainty when will the government publish the overdue Schools White Paper? Whether the government intends to review and rebalance the proportion funding formula for the high needs block funding so that funding levels are fairer between different areas, and how will fast growing counties or unitaries with local government reorganisation like Cambridgeshire, be funded proportionately and fairly, so that schools, councils and communities are not penalised for growth? And finally, when the statutory override ends in 2028, will the government take over responsibility or leave local authorities facing bankruptcy, carrying historic send debt, which is in no one's interest? Definitely not the children's and the young people whose education we are all striving to improve.

Thank you, Minister Georgia Gould.
19:29
Georgia Gould Portrait Georgia Gould MP, Minister of State (Education) (Queen's Park and Maida Vale, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and a huge thank you to the Member for South Cambridgeshire for securing this debate on this securing this debate on this important matter. And I really appreciate the time that the hon. Member took to to meet me to lay Member took to to meet me to lay out these concerns in person. I think we had a very constructive conversation, and I wanted to echo the hon. Member's, thanks to all the brilliant teachers and staff who are working so hard in, in their constituency, and also to to thank my hon.

Friend, the Member for Truro and Falmouth, who also came to speak to me about similar issues, the work of the F40 group and the need not just for support for schools, but also for the the wider professionals that that wrap around schools in communities around the country. And I wanted to to start, I think with where where you ended with the stories of of families and I've travelled around the country speaking to, to thousands of, of parents and young people, and sadly, that experience that you set out is all too common.

That fight for support, the exhaustion of having to kind of navigate different systems, parents who've had to give up their jobs to, to to make it a full time job to to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

try and get support for their children. Chris Coghlan. Thank you for giving way. On the point about the terrible fight that families have, the Minister will know that I wrote to the Education Select Committee with 653 family testimonies across 114 local authorities of harmful, unethical authorities of harmful, unethical or unlawful behaviour by local authorities on send. If I just read authorities on send. If I just read one. Sorry, these testimonies have 195 references to suicide and as one of them said, my child now has PTSD, has lost the full use of their arm, is covered in scars from failed suicide attempts.

The Education Select Committee wrote to me saying that these testimonies corroborated their own findings about the failures in local authority governance. So does the Minister agree with me that there can be no case for weakening children's rights on Send, given that families trust in local authority governance has collapsed? Thanks.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And I think that, you know, the the stories that the hon. Member has stories that the hon. Member has collected are unimaginably awful. And I commend the work that's gone And I commend the work that's gone on to to listen to, to families and to to engage with the Education Select Committee. We were taking their report very seriously. It's one of the the documents that's really informing our approach to reform, as is the conversation with reform, as is the conversation with with families around the country.

And we've been really clear that that what we need is more support earlier. And the hon. Member talked earlier about the the critical nature of early intervention. And that is that is what families have said to us. We need to have greater partnership and earlier support, but they also are very clear that we need a system that is that protects their legal entitlement to, to extra to, to additional support in education. But I think that that, you know, we have seen and I think the stories we've had today have shown that the failure of that investment in early intervention.

And the hon. Member talked about the urgency of bringing forward the reforms. And we are determined to to bring them forward. We said in the first part of this year, we're working very hard on that, but we we wanted to to ensure that we had the voices of parents, of young people, of teachers at the heart of that decision making. We took the time to to do the further engagement. The proposals we will take forward are strengthened by that engagement, by the contribution of families and members across the House.

But we haven't been waiting to invest and to take action, and we have already invested in Best start in Life hubs that include Leeds for special educational needs and disabilities. We we've put 740 million into capital for specialist places, and we've announced 3 billion into further capital that will be this year will be setting out how that will be distributed across the country. And just recently, we announced a further 200 million into support for teacher training and to make it compulsory mandatory for teachers to have continuous continuous professional development on special educational needs and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

disabilities. Of course. Grateful on the point about distribution across the country. Does she recognise that under the Does she recognise that under the current system, with the high needs block per pupil, a pupil in block per pupil, a pupil in Westminster receives £2.8 thousand, whereas in Devon the sum received as part of the high needs block is is less than half that amount per pupil. Would she, when designing the new system, ensure that it's less a postcode lottery and that there's not this certainty of of less funding in rural areas like mine?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. So we we had to move quickly to bring extra funding into quickly to bring extra funding into the system. Hon. Members will know we put an extra billion into the high needs block. And we use the high needs block. And we use the the funding formula that was available. But as we look forward to to reform, we will be reviewing to to reform, we will be reviewing that in line with our reforms and very much at the heart of what we want to achieve is ensuring that want to achieve is ensuring that that wherever you are in the country, you are getting good quality, consistent support.

And so, despite the the dire situation that we inherited, the government prioritised education spending. We've invested 1.7 billion in 20 26 to 2027, in additional education funding. And that is critical to support schools as, as we've heard, to be able to to give young people a positive, mainstream education. But we we absolutely recognise that as we go forward, we need to continue to work to make sure that that meets the needs of the future. And we will be setting out more in the In the schools white paper.

But there was also a question about the statutory override and the pressure on councils, something that I'm very aware of. In previous role, I led a council, both the the financial pressure on on councils but that but the that the need for strong accountability on council performance and I think we need to recognise both but we, we know that the size of the deficits that some councils are accruing may not be manageable with local resources alone. And we're going to be bringing forward arrangements to assist with them as part of the broader reforms.

And the government will be saying more about this as part of the upcoming local government finance settlement in early February. And the government has been clear that send pressures will be absorbed within the overall government Budget from 2028 to 29, such that the government will not expect local authorities to need to fund send costs from general funds, and we will obviously be setting that out in in the future. So I really appreciate the the strength of feeling from across the House, the cross-party working from from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

everyone here. And I think that, of course, I'm very. Grateful to the hon. Lady for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. We've already heard this evening about the difficulty of parents getting ihcc and then of parents getting ihcc and then even when they've struggled to get them, and 90% of parents do eventually get them, their provision is not provided. The government is spending record amounts on send. And yet we're still not really solving the problems. So there's clearly something wrong with the system. We're eagerly awaiting the white paper, but can we be assured that the actual system itself is going to be thoroughly examined to see how it can be overhauled?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I can absolutely assure the hon. Member that that is the work we're doing and that, you know, this is something that needs we need to look at it at every level. So we've heard the importance of early intervention importance of early intervention today. There's also critically important that we have the strong partnerships across local authorities, schools and health that we look at the provision in every school, in every community. And that was why the teacher training announcement was so important, because our expectation is that every teacher and every school should be a teacher of young people with special educational needs and disabilities, that we're looking at the fabric of our buildings, we're looking at the accountability systems.

We're looking at the support that's put,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

put in place. Vikki Slade I'm grateful to the. Minister for giving way. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister for giving way. I raised a few weeks ago some of these very excessive charges had a bit of pushback from some residents saying that my child needs these saying that my child needs these very expensive schools, but can the Minister confirm if they're looking Minister confirm if they're looking at companies that are coming in and making profit at the expense of our children, rather than those children, rather than those children who have very complex needs, those children who are in more than I've got 78 children in one local authority, where the charge is more than £100,000.

30 of those children are from one school alone.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you for that question. And I think that the the £3 billion that I think that the the £3 billion that we've put into specialist places is to ensure that there is high quality provision across the system, quality provision across the system, and we know that that specialist, independent specialist schools play independent specialist schools play an important part of the system. But there should excessive profits should not be being made off the should not be being made off the care of of children.

And we want to see the money going into the system, going into supporting children. And we also want to to ensure that every child has the right to an education within their local community. And I talk to too many children who are having to go into transport for two hours, sometimes to to, to get an education. And, you know, as I've travelled around the country and looked at this system, I think there are two things. There is a system that is absolutely in crisis, and I hear that from every single part of it and failure in every part of it.

But there and we've heard some of the examples today, but I think there are also dedicated people who are trying to make it work. Some of them you mentioned in, in the hon. Member's comments in their constituency, you know, Sencos that are going the extra mile, local partnerships, schools that are really deeply thinking about how to provide an inclusive education and the difference that that makes when you meet parents who are having a positive experience, who tell you, who tell you that they can finally breathe because that support is is in place, you know, the there there are green shoots of that change happening of partnerships between special schools and mainstream schools, things that we can build on.

And so, you know, we we take very seriously the responsibility of this. This is generational change. And I think my commitment is that to work in partnership with everyone who cares about this issue, I really appreciate the opportunity to continue these conversations and to continue to talk about the work we're doing. And we will be when we do set out the schools white paper, there will be full consultation on the work we're setting out. But I think we've heard really powerfully how important it is because we cannot continue to to fail children with special educational needs and disabilities and their families, but also not give the right support to teachers, teaching assistants, health professionals who are trying

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to support them every day. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do now adjourn. As many as of that opinion say aye. The ayes have it.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page