Commons Chamber

Wednesday 18th March 2026

(began 2 weeks, 6 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:34
11:34
11:34
None Portrait Q1. What steps she is taking to help ensure reliable broadband services in hard to reach areas of rural constituencies. (908394)
-

Joe Morris thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, I spoke to my constituent Luca, who spent months
11:34
11:35
11:36
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:42
Liz Kendall Portrait Rt Hon Liz Kendall MP, The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Leicester West, Labour)
-
-
Naushabah Khan.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question number four, Mr. Speaker. Secretary stay. With permission, Mr. Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I'll answer this question and question nine together. Every child question nine together. Every child deserves the best possible start in life, and that applies as much to the online world as it does to the real world. We know families everywhere are grappling with the impact of phones and social media. That's why we've launched our national consultation with, and we've had over 25,000 responses so far. We want to hear from everyone, in particular children and young people themselves, and that consultation is going to be one of the first of its kind to specifically hear from them with the child friendly design.

We also want to make sure the views of children with special educational needs and disabilities and those in needs and disabilities and those in care, are particularly reached out to. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Parents of Gillingham and Rainham strongly backed this government's efforts to keep children safe online. Does the Minister agree that repealing the Online Safety Act, as reform have pledged to do, would recklessly expose our children to online predators and leaving without the protections they deserve, and that any party serious about families must have a credible plan for child online safety, not simply tear up Tijuana.

Yeah.
11:44
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:47
11:47
Liz Kendall Portrait Rt Hon Liz Kendall MP, The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Leicester West, Labour)
-
-
Adam Thompson for. >> Five Mr Speaker. >> I am very proud that this Labour government has put the biggest investment into research and development of any government ever, development of any government ever, with a record £38 billion for UKRI, including £14 billion for curiosity led research. This week we announced our ambitious plan to buy usable, usable, large scale quantum computers by the early 2030s, backed by £2 billion of funding. A world first. Backing our world leading quantum sector because we're determined to do everything we're determined to do everything to back our brilliant British scientists, innovators and entrepreneurs.

 Adam Thompson. answer. And despite the massive government increases in funding generally. In a recent meeting of the Select Committee, we heard how the Science and Technology Facilities Council. STFC is currently dealing with a significant reduction in funding, particularly in particle physics, astronomy and nuclear physics. While Michelle Docherty, the executive chair of STFC, placed the blame squarely on decisions made prior to her arrival and explained her efforts to sort out the mess. It's the scientific community, research professionals and UK science that's going to feel the science that's going to feel the brunt of this funding crunch.

What's the Secretary of State doing then, to ensure that UK science is then, to ensure that UK science is not damaged by STFC historical failings?
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:51
11:51
11:52
11:53
11:53
Liz Kendall Portrait Rt Hon Liz Kendall MP, The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Leicester West, Labour)
-
-
To topical Kirith Entwistle number one Mr Speaker. So stay.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No woman or child should live in fear of having their image sexually having their image sexually manipulated by technology. That is why in the last six months, we've made intimate image abuse and cyber flashing priority offences. Under the Isa, we've criminalised the the Isa, we've criminalised the creation of non-consensual sexual deepfakes and mandating those images are taken down within 48 images are taken down within 48 hours. We've introduced an offence banning AI notification apps and we stood up to Grock and X, but we know technology moves fast as and as a government we have to keep up.

as a government we have to keep up. So where we need to go further, we will. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Whilst I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

am. Proud of the steps our government has taken to advance online safety, we are merely online safety, we are merely playing catch up. What more is the government doing to ensure we keep pace with the reality facing women and girls, and how will it address emerging technologies like AI smartglasses, which are operating without scrutiny?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

without scrutiny? I thank my hon. Friend for this question. One of my reflections in this job is that it took eight this job is that it took eight years for the Online Safety Act to come in, and it's still yet to be fully implemented. We need to move faster. MPs discuss a Finance Bill every year. Technology moves incredibly fast, so I am always prepared to take further action where I need to. where I need to.
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:00
12:00
Keir Starmer Portrait Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)
-
-
opportunity to ask anyone who attended Club chemistry on March 5th, sixth or seventh to come 5th, sixth or seventh to come forward? Please to receive antibiotics? And Mr. Speaker, yesterday President Zelensky yesterday President Zelensky addressed parliamentarians. Many people were there and I had the people were there and I had the opportunity to reaffirm to him that no matter other international events, the UK support for Ukraine will not waver. I also welcome Prime Minister Carney and NATO Secretary General Rutter to Downing Street for further discussions on international security.

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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

meetings later today. No. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I first of all associate my self with the comments and the condolences made by the Prime Minister regarding those people affected by the meningitis outbreak. New data the meningitis outbreak. New data today shows that nearly 60% of hospices are considering cutting frontline services in the West Midlands. Saint Giles Hospice has Midlands. Saint Giles Hospice has already reduced beds and reduced staff due to financial pressures. So with services being cut, can the Prime Minister explain why hospices are being told to wait until autumn for the new framework? And will he commit today to proper long term commit today to proper long term sustainable funding to secure this vital lifeline for the future?
12:02
12:03
12:03
12:04
12:04
12:05
12:06
12:06
12:07
12:07
Kemi Badenoch Portrait Rt Hon Kemi Badenoch MP (North West Essex, Conservative)
-
-
Five minutes. >> But, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, this is important. He does want to talk about anything does want to talk about anything else except what I'm asking him. Three times I have asked him if the Prime Minister spoke to Peter Mandelson three times. He has refused to answer. We can only assume he did not speak to Peter Mandelson from the documents published, we know he left the questioning of Mandelson's relationship with a convicted paedophile to two of Mandelson's closest friends, one of whom was also friends with a convicted paedophile.

Asking those questions

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should have been his job. Why did he fail to do his duty. Prime Minister?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. Speaker, so her position is that the shadow justice Secretary is defending British values when he is defending British values when he says Muslims praying together in Trafalgar Square are not welcome. Trafalgar Square are not welcome. Mr. speaker, even Tommy Robinson, I can hardly believe I'm saying this, has said today that if the shadow has said today that if the shadow Justice Secretary had made these hateful comments two years ago, the Conservative Party would have kicked him out. Now, Tommy Robinson isn't some sort of moral signpost.

He was pointing out how much their party has changed. They're more inclined to his views. And he's right about that. The fact that right about that. The fact that he's sitting on her front bench shows she's too weak and has got absolutely no judgement.
12:09
12:10
12:10
12:11
12:12
12:13
12:14
12:15
12:15
12:16
12:17
12:17
12:18
12:19
12:19
12:20
12:21
12:21
12:22
12:22
12:23
12:24
12:25
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:28
12:29
Greg Smith Portrait Greg Smith MP (Mid Buckinghamshire, Conservative)
-
-
Yeah. >> He changed, but with the upcoming HS2 reset, will he make a personal intervention to ensure that my constituents and communities living with this hell on earth of a construction project are finally treated with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fairness and respect that they deserve. Prime Minister. Can I thank him for raising this?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank him for raising this? I do know how much it impacts his constituents and how deeply they feel about it, and it is important, feel about it, and it is important, as we reset and clear up the mess that was left that we bear in mind and have in our mind's eye those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that are most effective and make sure that it is fair and that their voices are heard, and we will do so. Oliver Ryan.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oliver Ryan. Thank you. Mr Speaker. Burnley. Manchester Road station is a key driver for growth. It's Burnley linked to Manchester and Leeds and more importantly for them, it's their link to Burnley, which had over half a million journeys last year. And yet it's inaccessible. Despite big empty promises from the last Tory government. We're no further to fixing it. Promise was a promise of funding was made which promise of funding was made which never came. Will he help me get this delivered and back? My campaign to make Burnley Manchester Road an accessible, modern station Road an accessible, modern station fit for Burnley's ambition? Yeah.
12:30
12:30
12:30
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:34
12:35
12:35
12:35
12:36
12:36
12:37
12:37
12:37
Abena Oppong-Asare Portrait Ms Abena Oppong-Asare MP (Erith and Thamesmead, Labour)
-
-
understanding of menstrual and gynaecological health, including measures to counter inaccurate or measures to counter inaccurate or misleading information online relating to menstrual and gynaecological health and for connected purposes. Mr. speaker, in this bill, I'm addressing one aspect of women's health menstrual health. Menstrual health is health. Menstrual health is surrounded by misinformation, fear and failure to support millions of women and girls. For women who menstruate, the experience of asking for advice or even medical treatment is routinely dismal.

Ask any woman from school days onwards. It's a nightmare or stigma, shame and a failure of the NHS to help. The recent Women and Equalities Select Committee report states and I quote stigma around menstruation, sex, fertility and childlessness is a barrier to discussion of reproductive ill health, it continues. It contributes to delays in diagnosis and treatment, and can lead women and girls to turn to online forums, to self-diagnose, or to avoid seeking treatment altogether. And of course, that self-diagnosis can be missed, misguided and dangerous by dubious online fake cures and claims the internet is not a safe place for clear, expert advice for girls and women wanting to know about their periods and menstrual health.

A poll commissioned by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists found that over half 53% of women in the UK who had experienced symptoms of pelvic floor dysfunction did not seek help from a healthcare professional. 1 in 5 that is, 21% felt too embarrassed to seek support. In 2018, a YouGov poll found that period shaming happens at home, in the workplace and at school in the UK. The Royal College further noted that there is immense societal pressure on women and girls to conceal their periods due to beliefs that menstruation is unhygienic or unclean, and talking openly about periods is often not considered a social norm.

We live in a modern day society with an openness to address all manner of including mental health. Yet talking about menstrual health remains a stigma shrouded in shame and embarrassment, and, frankly, medieval attitudes held by many in the call for evidence, the Women's Health Strategy had 29% of respondents who said they did not feel comfortable talking to healthcare professionals about gynaecological conditions for teenage girls aged 16 and 17, this rose to 40%. So these shocking figures show that this stigma has real world consequences on women's health.

Women and girls get the wrong advice or dangerous advice or no advice. Their shame means that their conditions and diseases are not diagnosed. Sadly, conditions such as endometriosis, adenomyosis, fibroids, polycystic ovary syndrome, pelvic inflammatory disease. Pelvic organ prolapse. Prolapse, ovarian cysts and others are far too often missed, leaving many women to endure years of unnecessary pain. The time for diagnosis for endometriosis has actually gone up, not down, with women waiting on average nine years and four months.

And for women of colour and women from other ethnic minority backgrounds, that average wait is 11 years. Why, you might wonder, are women of colour waiting longer? Well, I'm afraid to say we suffer discrimination within the health system. Our pain is dismissed, our concerns are ignored. There is well documented bias embedded in the NHS when it comes to black women's health, leading to poorer outcomes and terrible experience for so many women. And we must also address to the cultural assumptions within some communities which tell girls that periods are punishment or dirty or something to be ashamed of, or something to be kept as a secret, a dangerous cocktail of misogyny, misinformation and myth leading to all girls, to leading to girls and women who are misinformed, mistreated and misdiagnosed.

So my Bill aims to tackle that stigma and get society talking about periods and menstrual health. Let's start. Let's smash the stigma. Starting in schools with teachers well equipped to support their pupils, no school girls should suffer in silence. Let's use the rollout of more diagnostic hubs and the shift to more community based preventative care to raise awareness about menstrual health, more public awareness campaigns on the same scale as NHS sepsis campaign and not just the public, but also medical professionals from the very start of their careers.

Every doctor needs proper training on menstrual health to spot endometriosis, fibroids and other gynaecological conditions early to give proper advice to their patients to debunk online myths and misinformation, to be aware of and tackle racial bias within the healthcare system. We need every employer to be aware of menstrual health, to have proper systems of support in place for the workplace, to have period products available for free. To recognise that if a woman needs time off because of their blinding pain, they are not making it up.

So I welcome the work of the TUC and the trade unions in this area. We also need to have more difficult conversations. We need more men squirming in their seats as we discuss our periods, our bleeding, our pain. And we need to stop talking in euphemisms, all those little silly terms about periods, disguising the reality and stopping an open conversation. We need more women's voices to be heard. And not just that, but women to be actively leading the design and delivery of the healthcare system.

The NHS must no longer be male by default. And I speak to so many women and girls who have been let down, whose mental and physical health have been damaged. This must stop. The upcoming women's health strategy must be more than a document, but a manifesto for revolutionary change. Or else what is the point of it? Yeah, no more girls crying and changing rooms. No more workers hiding in toilets. No more shame. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Member have leave to bring in the bill. The question is that the hon. Member have leave to that the hon. Member have leave to bring in the bill, as many are of that opinion, say aye, of the that opinion, say aye, of the contrary, no, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Who will prepare to bring in Bill?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

prepare to bring in Bill? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Marsha de Cordova Olly Glover Paulette de Cordova Olly Glover Paulette Hamilton Carolyn Harris. Christine Jardine. Tulip Siddiq. Valerie Vaz. Gill Furniss. Kirsteen Sullivan. Simon Hoare. Sir. Alec Shelbrooke Simon Hoare. Sir. Alec Shelbrooke

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Menstrual Menstrual and Menstrual and Gynaecological Health Bill. Second Reading. What day?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

17th of April.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

17th of April. The 17th of April. We now come to the opposition day motion on the to the opposition day motion on the fuel duty. I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I call the opposition spokesman to move the motion. Shall. Secretary Mr. Holden.
12:47
12:47
Richard Holden Portrait Rt Hon Richard Holden MP (Basildon and Billericay, Conservative)
-
-
government, in its infinite wisdom, has decided that this is a moment the opportune time to cancel the fuel duty freeze. The last government, the last conservative government, kept for 13 years, protecting hard working people from paying extra to get to work, to have appointments, to visit friends have appointments, to visit friends and families. Conservatives cut this by £0.05 a litre in 2022, the this by £0.05 a litre in 2022, the biggest cut ever in fuel duty £0.05 a litre, and that really helped when the economy was facing headwinds from Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine.

Yet under this government, on top of the countless tax rises they have already shafted us with, we can't even get through two years before they decide that the British people need yet another tax rise. And it is a tax rise in a sneaky and stealthy way. Labour are busy deploying their salami tactics one penny in September, the back to school tax, £0.02 in December, the Christmas shopper tax, £0.02 in March. Spring time for taxes. And we shouldn't forget that A5P litre increase in duty actually means six per litre increase, because on top of the tax VAT is added to.

In September last year in this chamber, the Transport Secretary trumpeted and I quote, that Labour had frozen fuel duty. That is what we have done. Yet we know this is simply not the case. It reminds me of my childhood watching Chris Tarrant on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, saying, but we don't want to give you that, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Lady said said as said, not once, not twice, but three times. Three times, Mr. Speaker, that tax rises are now coming and they're coming in September, December and in March next year, with economic growth at a dismal 0%.

That's right. 0%. The British people deserve better than underhand taxes, swindling them out of the pounds in their pockets, and to pay for what? Mr Speaker to pay for more welfare. A tax on every car, every van, every motorbike and every bus. This is a tax on hauliers too. A tax on businesses, a tax on families, a tax on the country over. It is these families, thanks to her government, who will be forking out

**** Possible New Speaker ****

an extra £156 a year. I'll give way to my hon. Friend. First of all, can I congratulate the Shadow Minister and the opposition bringing this forward? And it's very important that we do this. Consider this. We're fast this. Consider this. We're fast approaching a crisis that cannot be circumnavigated. The shadow Minister agree that government must Minister agree that government must consider reopening North Sea production and to produce enough for our needs. If government continues to refuse to play their continues to refuse to play their part to secure the fuel pass.

And does the Shadow Minister not agree that fuel duty can and should see the benefit of self-reliance and not dependent on volatile nations, which it is at this very minute?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Quite right, gentlemen. Mr. Richard Quigley, I cannot agree more with the hon. Member. We need to get back to drilling in the North Sea. It's quite clear that Norway is drilling on one side of the same basin and actually getting the same basin and actually getting the benefit of those jobs of the tax revenue. It's bemuses me as to why we're not doing it here, am I right, hon? Friend, the Member for Surrey East has consistently said Surrey East has consistently said from these benches, as the shadow energy Secretary, that's exactly what we should get on and do.

I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way on the same point, grateful to my Right. Hon. Friend, and he makes a powerful point about North Sea oil powerful point about North Sea oil and gas and says it won't make any difference to the global price of difference to the global price of oil and gas. But billions and billions of pounds in tax will be billions of pounds in tax will be lost as a result of having no new licences in the Arctic. Those billions could be used to replace billions could be used to replace the revenues generated by fuel duty.

So in fact, if the government wished it, it could convert those billions into into cuts in price at the at the pump for every single family in the country, including

**** Possible New Speaker ****

those in rural Beverley and Holderness who are suffering today. My right hon. Friend makes it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My right hon. Friend makes it incredibly important point. The. The government is currently forgoing tax revenue, which is going into the coffers of other going into the coffers of other Treasurys right across the right, across Europe and across the world. It's for going that is, for going that. It's for going that revenue. that. It's for going that revenue. And why? To what end? They they will. We'll see if the Ministers will actually answer that question as to why they're willing to forgo that hundreds of thousands of jobs, billions of pounds every year.

They could spend it on anything they wanted to, and they're not even going they're not even going to do. order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order papers are not there to trip all the way through and give solutions to a problem. I have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

solutions to a problem. I have great confidence in the Minister to answer when he comes up. Richard Holden indeed, Mr. Speaker, for reminding the right Speaker, for reminding the right hon. Member of Israel, and indeed, indeed I will. I will give way to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

indeed I will. I will give way to my hon. Friend. Does he agree with me that the government's policy. Fails on its.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Fails on its. Own terms because it says it wants to subscribe to net zero and make us much greener the way we approach our energy consumption. And yet we know that importing LNG from countries like the US is a causes a multiple in terms of the carbon cost, then extracting the stuff in this country within our own territorial sea would do. And therefore, if they're serious about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

net zero, they will be pumping LNG from the North Sea and not importing it from the US. Richard Fuller the hon. Member

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Richard Fuller the hon. Member makes an incredibly important point, and I think he he makes it really and I think he he makes it really clearly as well. And he's in agreement with the Committee on Climate Change, who say we're going to have to be using oil and gas to have to be using oil and gas well in to the second half of this century. So why on earth shouldn't we drill our own at lower cost and we drill our own at lower cost and bring in those jobs and taxation? And also, obviously with the environmental benefits of doing it on our own doorstep as well, and doing it under British regulations as well.

So we're not going this isn't going to be extracted in other countries with lower regulations, lower environmental standards. The best environmental standards in the world exist in our North Sea, and I'll happily give way to the hon. Member.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Part of this part of the debate is really around sustainability and around net zero, and obviously, honourable colleagues have made a number of interventions already around that, and I understand that the Shadow Minister's position. But does he Minister's position. But does he agree with me that actually, whilst we're also focusing on the hiking fuel duty, the government are also increasing the charges on electric increasing the charges on electric vehicle drivers. So it's both sets of drivers that are being hammered by this government who haven't thought through the consequences of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their policy. My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point as well at this at this juncture, it's very clear that the government is also trying to undo the damage that is done by its own new tax, and actually, it's having to put more money in in terms of the electric car grant than it's going to get out from these pay per mile schemes, which is actually the government previously said it would not introduce. So the government is actually costing itself more money by imposing a tax.

It's quite incredible what the government is up to when it comes to the North Sea, or whether it comes to taxation policy. And I will in a moment. The Taxpayers Alliance has said that almost £40,000 of fuel taxes will be paid by the average driver over the course of a lifetime after this tax hike, and it will be a high proportion of that income. If you're on a lower paid job and need a car to get

**** Possible New Speaker ****

about. And I'll give way on that point. To my hon. Friend, I think. I thank the honourable. Gentleman friend for giving way. Gentleman friend for giving way. Just to make a couple of points, however, and he's talking about how money may be spent from taxation. Just to highlight the point that Just to highlight the point that local authority road maintenance budgets fell from 4,000,000,000 in budgets fell from 4,000,000,000 in 2006 to 2,000,000,000 in 2019, so halved in that 13 year period. And halved in that 13 year period.

And then just to look at inflation, where you see the Bank of England's data shows from 2006 to 2026, the overall inflation ran at 74%, but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fuel inflation was just 58%. Indeed. And on that second point,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And on that second point, obviously the inflation would have been higher overall if the fuel inflation had been higher overall. The hon. Member makes an important The hon. Member makes an important point about potholes and road maintenance as well. It is interesting that he stood on a manifesto at the last general manifesto at the last general election, which promised an extra million potholes will be filled a year. We saw the figures just a few year. We saw the figures just a few weeks ago saying that exactly the same number of potholes was filled in the last year as it was in the last year of the last government.

So I look forward to seeing, actually, his government starting to deliver on any of the pledges. It's it's proposed and it could perhaps it could do so a bit more easily if it had that tax revenue coming in from the North Sea, which is what this side of the House would like to see. Now, this is a Labour's regressive tax rate. Do we really expect do we really understand, I think from the government benches, just how punitive this tax measure is going to be? Of course not.

Of course not. How could we when it feels like the. I will give way to my hon. Friend in just a moment. How could we understand when it's actually rural communities that are going to be hit hardest by this, as it is always with transport? The truth is that the DFT and the Treasury working together are more like watching an episode of hustle. The con is on and it's being

**** Possible New Speaker ****

perpetuated by this Labour government and I give way to. My friend. Agree, though.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That in large rural constituencies like mine, it's not just constituents having to pay at just constituents having to pay at the pump the additional fuel duty they pay through everything that they buy, because everything has to they buy, because everything has to be transported into these rural areas or the services that they areas or the services that they acquire. So they pay twice and makes this tax rise doubly regressive.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My right hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point. It is incredibly important point. It is not just those who have a car who will be paying for this, although they will be paying the most. It's not just those who rely on a van not just those who rely on a van for their business or work to get around, but it's actually everyone. Whether you use the bus or whether Whether you use the bus or whether you're using a. Just go to the shops, because the truth is that everything has to be transported by road in this country.

This, this, this tax rise is going to have huge inflationary pressures right across the board, not just in terms of the individual fuel, whether that's for heating or in today's debate for road transport. But the hon. Member is absolutely right. It will play right across the board into so many other areas, areas which have not even been considered, I don't think,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

by the Treasury at this moment. And I'll happily give way to the hon. Member this point. All his. Arguments stand.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Arguments stand. And that was before the war in Iran. So the Prime Minister stood there on Monday saying the freeze there on Monday saying the freeze is still in place. Yes, that was before the world has changed literally around us. So does he share my concern that actually this government isn't being reactive and following the change, because there is going to be a big impact and a is going to be a big impact and a knock on, and the Prime Minister is touting this as though it's some new policy brought out that was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

actually in the Budget from last year. My hon. Friend makes an important point about that, and important point about that, and he'll also be aware that when the fuel price goes up, actually the government's VAT revenues from fuel government's VAT revenues from fuel go up at the same time. So the government's actually already seeing hundreds of millions of seeing hundreds of millions of pounds a year extra in VAT, purely from the fact that the duty that the the price has gone up itself, the the price has gone up itself, the underlying price.

But my right hon. Friend makes another important point, that this is a moment for the government to reconsider on this side of the House. We oppose this measure at the Budget because we thought it was the wrong thing to do to hit working families, but it's doubly the wrong thing to do when prices are also going up internationally. But I've already

**** Possible New Speaker ****

given way to the hon. Member, but I have to give way to the hon. Lady. Thank the hon. Member for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank the hon. Member for giving way. Would he agree with me that the 53 million is welcome but calculated out? It's about £35 per calculated out? It's about £35 per household, which is nothing in the grand scheme of things. Would he agree that fuel duty should be cut, agree that fuel duty should be cut, VAT should be removed and the North Sea opened up and that's a. As well as fertilisers and red diesel which are impacted heavily as well. We need support now for people.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Lady raises a really important point. And actually, with those revenues from reopening the North Sea for oil and gas, she North Sea for oil and gas, she raises a number of different areas which that money could be spent on. We've got to open the North Sea, a cost free alternative, an environmentally positive alternative, in order to get that tax revenue in. And then obviously, tax revenue in. And then obviously, we can look at all sorts of different things that members on all sides of the House would want to spend money on.

I'll just make a little bit of progress. We've seen since Labour came into office just how much they've hit transport across the country today. And the 5PA litre fuel duty rise is just the latest in those. First of all, they abolished. First of all, they abolished the much loved £2 fare cap which. Which this side of the House on buses had had pledged pledged at the general election to continue through the entirety of this Parliament. So that side of the House has put bus fares up 50%.

They've also up airport business rates by a staggering 295% on average, 295% on average. Now, who's benefited from that? Certainly not passengers, certainly not the airlines, and certainly not British business. And you know what else they've done. They've also raised air passenger duty with passengers facing a 15% jump in one year alone, followed by permanent increases year after year after year of between 3 and 4%, just to get on a plane. And you know what else they've done in the last few weeks? They've actually raised the price of railcards for the first time since.

Maybe they'd like to touch on this one. Do you remember this one, guys? Nothing from this one. 2013. That's the first time in over ten years we're seeing rail cars. Senior Railcards veteran railcards young people's railcards new taxes on people right across the country, all being raised by this government. A 16% rise the first time since 2013. And they didn't even know about it, because they don't care about young people, about old people, about the people being affected by these tax rises hitting people right across the country from September.

And Labour have just introduced a new policy that will leave ferry passengers. Ferry passengers on the Isle of Wight also facing bigger crossing charges, £30 more per crossing, hitting family holidays in the UK and people just trying to get about their daily lives from the Isle of Wight as well. Labour are stealthily onside as their tourist tax absolutely hammering, working, absolutely hammering, working Britain and those taxes. Those are just the taxes on transport that they're imposing. There's plenty of others to go out and I'm happy to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

take any interventions. If any hon. Members like to mention, I give way to my hon. Friend. I thank my hon. Member for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Member for. Allowing me. Is it worth emphasising that the Conservatives froze fuel duty for 14 years, which took £100 billion off the cost of driving? That's tax cuts by us over driving? That's tax cuts by us over the last 14 years. In contrast, this government has increased taxes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this government has increased taxes by £66 billion in the last two years. It's outrageous, isn't it? It's quite right. And he and some of those tax rises, some of those tax rises are hitting many of the companies who are also going to be hit by these fuel duty rises today. I've spoken to hauliers in my own constituency and across the country, already facing increasing business rates, already facing increasing national insurance costs and now being hit with a fuel duty

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rise as well. I'll give way to the hon. Lady. My hon. Friend, for giving way, and he's giving a great speech, as and he's giving a great speech, as we always expect from him. Does he remember in the Budget in 2024, when the Chancellor then stood when the Chancellor then stood there and said that increasing fuel duty would be the wrong choice for working people? And she said then working people? And she said then that was because of uncertain global events and that the cost of living remained high.

Does he remember anything changing between

**** Possible New Speaker ****

remember anything changing between now and 2024? Because I don't think it's gotten any better, does he? I, I totally agree with the hon. Lady. She's absolutely right. And she's a real champion, actually, for the North Sea oil and gas sector, which is largely based in her own constituency as well. So on top of these taxes, on rail cars, on ferry prices, on airlines, on airline business rates, obviously hiking bus fares by 50%. What else are labour up to? Well, they've been talking about something quite a lot called Simple Affairs.

Now what they're actually doing is cutting out the cheaper fares preferred by passengers and replacing them with more expensive journeys. In fact, that's been confirmed in a letter to me by the Secretary of State herself, who I noticed isn't here today. She says some passengers may pay more under this new structure, but will gain perhaps more flexibility in their return journey. Well, my own constituent, Mr. Nottage of Ramsden Bellhouse, near Billericay, has been quite perturbed by having to pay an extra 10% and he's having to pay an extra five a year for his senior railcard as well.

Hardly. Rail prices frozen under Labour actually. Rail prices going up on working people right across our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Member. My friend is making a passionate speech about the increase in rail fares for his constituents in fares for his constituents in Billericay, but he will also be aware for drivers in Billericay, like in the South Side in Bexley, like in the South Side in Bexley, have also faced increases in the Dartford Charter bridge charge being hiked by 40% by this Labour government in September. The government in September. The introduction by Sadiq Khan of the Blackwall Tunnel charge for those trying to cross east to south and trying to cross east to south and likewise the other direction, the expansion of Ulez for those that need to travel into London again against the wishes of people in outer London, so does my hon.

Friend agree that this isn't just the government's tax increases on drivers, but it's also the increase of the mayor of London on everybody in the outskirts of London need to travel in and out.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The incredibly important point this isn't just about the Labour government, it's also about Labour mayors and Labour councils having mayors and Labour councils having their war on motorists up and down the country. And we see it, whether it's a dark charge or the Ulez charge, or the fact that we even charge, or the fact that we even saw Zipcar having to cease operations in the UK because of the mayor of London's extension to mayor of London's extension to electric vehicles of that congestion charge.

Every day we're actually seeing a reduction in actually seeing a reduction in shared transport options under this Labour government and this Labour mayor here in our capital city. It's an absolute disgrace. I'm sorry. I need to make a tiny little bit more progress, but I'll happily come back to my hon. Friend later on. However you travel, Labour are after you. Is it about. Is it a train? Is it a plane? No. It's Labour's tax man coming for you. And where will this money be spent? Where will this money be spent? Mr.

speaker, all this extra money that we're taxing off the public, not on hard working families, not to create jobs and boost opportunities, but to fritter away on more welfare, because this Prime Minister and this government front bench are too weak to stand up to their own back benches and ensure that welfare is kept under control in this country, picking the pockets of hard working people to pay for those who choose not to work. And when it comes to paying at the pump.

Rachel Reeves has been happy to try and lay the blame at the feet of petrol stations. But what makes up most of the cost of a litre of petrol? Her fuel duty is by far the biggest chunk. In fact, in fact, taxes make up 55% of the cost of fuel and it's going up under labour. And when the Energy Secretary was presented with these sickening stats, he claimed that's why with frozen fuel duty. Well, why on earth therefore, don't they actually do what we did and freeze it all the way through? In fact, they could do it today.

They could do it today. They could do it today. But they're not going to do it because they are too afraid of their own back benchers when it comes to welfare. And I am surprised, I'm surprised that hon. Members are aligning themselves with the spluttering spinelessness of Mr. Miliband. Sorry. The hon. Member for Doncaster North, we know that for her and Ed, when the facts change, when countries all around the world change, Labour just dig in. Just like with their pathetic.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh, sorry. Torbay also called Rachel Reeves the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If we can stick. And Ed, Exchequer. If we can stick. And Ed, I don't think he's quite the title. And I know you wouldn't want to do that. Of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that. Of course. Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. Member for Doncaster North should also always right hon. Member should always get his his proper should always get his his proper title, just like just. But this is very similar, Mr. Speaker, to Labour's pathetic intransigence Labour's pathetic intransigence when it comes to the zero-emission vehicle mandate, they remain entirely aloof, soldiering on whatever the cost is to British companies, to British workers, to British taxpayers. Just like the electric car mandate, the impact on industry, the unions, their own paymasters, for crying out loud, the Financial Times, even the renewables sector.

Everyone knows that we've got to have a change to the to the electric vehicle mandate. Everyone on this side of the House also backs driving forwards with North Sea oil and gas exploration. And what and what do Labour do? What do labour do? They just bury their head in the sands and instead turn to taxation to. In order to pay for their policies? And I give way to the honourable.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Member. Can you try and make a better effort when you want to get, you know, just waving your hand out, you're not a taxi rank now, I think. you're not a taxi rank now, I think. Are you giving way to Mr. Stewart? There you are, Graham Stuart. Give him.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

him. Oh it's me. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Off the chair. It might help. I don't know whether I'm being

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I don't know whether I'm being picked on or especially stood out, but anyway, I thank you. I thank but anyway, I thank you. I thank you for selecting me. The other aspect which the. My right hon. Friend hasn't turned to today is the fact that the Clean Power 2030. By bringing it forward from 2035, it means that we are overpaying for the renewables. We're locking those overpayments in for 20 years. So as well as the immediate negative impact on our economy and most importantly, on our constituents, does my right hon.

Friend agree that locking in long term contracts for overpriced renewables is going

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to put up the cost of living even further. Is an incredibly important point, and this is one which has actually and this is one which has actually been raised with me by electric vehicle charge point manufacturers and companies here in the UK. Some and companies here in the UK. Some of them are literally on the verge of collapse because of that high cost of electricity. So although the government says it's pursuing a green agenda, but it's actually doing, is making electricity so expensive that nobody can operate a business in this country without business in this country without paying such high energy prices, that it becomes uneconomical to do so.

And he makes an incredibly important point exactly on that point. And I'll give way to the hon. Member.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very grateful. He mentioned his perception of the intransigence of this Labour government, to which I would add, brittle hubris in their pursuit of not achieving any form of economic growth. And does he of economic growth. And does he agree with me that the Chancellor would not have to keep dipping the pockets of hard working people in pockets of hard working people in the midst of a cost of living crisis? If she had a clue how to achieve economic growth.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

achieve economic growth. Well, it's not often that I would agree with with spokespeople from the SNP, but I'd very much do so today. I think it's an incredibly important point that the hon. Member is making. This is the Labour Party came to office talking about how growth is our number one priority. Has anybody heard them say that? Has anybody heard the hon. Member say that on telly recently? I certainly haven't. It's their talking points. It's suddenly been put to one side and we can all see why.

Because on their on their watch growth has totally collapsed, inflation has gone up and unemployment has gone up and growth has collapsed. On his watch. For all of his highfalutin ideas, the hon. Member is part of a government. The hon. Member is part of a government that has collapsed growth in this country, and he can't even accept it. No, I've already given way to the hon. Member. I've already given way to the hon. Member previously. Now we are all praying for a U-turn on the fuel duty policy on this side of the House now.

We are very welcome. One now, we'd rather they'd never come up with a in the first place, just like on the previous 16 U-turns we argued against before they did the policy in the first place, and then had to U-turn on them, just like on the after. Just like on the family farms tax where they've partially U-turned, just like on the grooming gangs when they've U-turned, just like on Windsor fuel, where they've had to U-turn as well. After sticking the boot in, we would really hope that they will think again about this, but I'm not holding much store by that.

What's really worrying me and families and up and down the country and members on this side of the House as they go to their constituents who are facing cost of living pressures right across the board, people running businesses, really having to make decisions now as to whether they're going to hire that next person or in many cases, sadly, have to let people go because of the taxes already imposed by this government. This is just another tax, another tax on businesses, another tax on pensioners and families up and down the country.

They've stuck the. I will give way to the hon. Lady.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So much to my hon. Friend for giving way. Gosport isn't a rural area, but it is reportedly the area, but it is reportedly the largest town in the UK without a railway, so people rely upon their railway, so people rely upon their cars to get around. We all know that the Chancellor can't control the events in the Middle East, but government is about making choices. government is about making choices. And does my hon. Friend agree with me that the choice really here is whether we're going to keep punishing traders who've already had so much punishment from this government, and whether we're going to keep punishing people who don't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have a choice about whether or not to use their cars. Yeah, I think the honourable. The hon. Lady makes a really important point that this is about choices. But actually she's also right that many people don't have that choice as their cars, and that choice as their cars, and nobody has a choice as to whether they actually have to go to a shop and buy food, because that's going to be delivered by some form of to be delivered by some form of road transport at some point.

So everybody will be paying for Labour's tax or road duty. Road fuel duty increases. That's what's actually happening in this in this legislation, around the choices that this government is choosing to make and who it's choosing to balance the books on the back of. And it's choosing to balance the balance. The books on the back of Woking Britain, on businesses up and down the country. They're facing tax after tax, new bill after new bill in a relentless pursuit to do our country down and throttle anything that seems to give a half chance of delivering growth, all to pay for a ballooning welfare bill.

They would put Dumbo to shame because they haven't got the guts not to reduce welfare. Heaven forbid they don't even have the guts to try and slow the pace in increase in welfare. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, they voted against we voted against tax hikes in the Budget because they're the wrong thing to do for growth in our country, for families, in our country. We voting. We're voting against it today because in the circumstances now, especially of soaring prices in the international environment, the saddle motorists with an extra hike in their cost of getting around is the wrong thing to do.

That is why the Leader of the Opposition tabled a motion before this House. That's why we are urging honourable and right hon. Members across this House to say no to Labour's hikes on fuel duty.
13:14
Torsten Bell Portrait Torsten Bell MP, The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Swansea West, Labour)
-
-
Yeah. Paper. I call the Minister to move the amendment. Minister tourism. >> Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Second time lucky and I beg to move the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister, and I thank the Shadow Minister, and I thank the Shadow Secretary of State for opening today's debate. The government recognises that fuel costs matter enormously to people right across the country. Fluctuations in pump prices cause fluctuations in working people's bank balances. The effects are real and the effects, as we've just heard, are widespread. Around 80% of us drive each week. That's why the government has already taken action to ensure that fuel remains affordable.

In November's Budget, we extended the temporary five per litre cut to fuel duty for a further five months. Additionally, we cancelled the inflation linked increase planned for 2627. Our fuel duty changes will save the average motorists over £90 in 2627 alone. A van driver will save an average of £100. I'll make a bit of progress then. I'm sure I'll give way to the hon. Gentleman. He's always very enthusiastic and did actually stand up on this occasion. So that is what a learning curve looks like.

It's a shame the frontbench haven't found 1 in 14 long years. The rising to more than £800 for the heavy goods vehicles. It's not the best. There's much more to come and there's sector specific support continues. I'm enjoying the enthusiasm for the likes of agriculture and horticulture who retain access to red diesel after it was withdrawn from most sectors in 2022, and our extension of the temporary £0.05 fuel duty cut includes a proportionate reduction for rebated fuels, including red diesel. Now the context, of course, as I'll make a bit of progress and I will give way in the context, of course, as the Shadow Secretary of State noted, is what we are now entering the third week of the ongoing conflict in Iran, a conflict whose effects have spread directly across the Middle East and indirectly around the world.

And in responding to that conflict and those effects, the government's priority will always be the national interest. The immediate focus is on protecting British nationals in the region, taking necessary action to defend ourselves and our allies. That is supported not just by the Chancellor's decision to deliver the biggest uplift in defence spending since the end of the Cold War, but to improve access for the Ministry of Defence to the Special Reserve, to deploy additional

**** Possible New Speaker ****

capabilities to the Middle East, I will give the hon. Member first and then come straight to him. I am grateful to the Minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way with the Straits of Hormuz effectively closed, does that not prove the point that we have been making for years, which is to say how important it is to have new licences in the North Sea have new licences in the North Sea for our energy security? And can I ask the Minister, since he is known as Torsten Bell? So I'll ask him as Torsten Bell? So I'll ask him about tax. Does he accept that not having new licences in the North Sea will lose this country? Sea will lose this country?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Billions in tax revenue? Yes or no? Opposition is to deliver a stable transition. That was the position of the party opposite. position of the party opposite. They are the party that introduced the energy profits levy. We, the gas and energy from the North Sea. gas and energy from the North Sea. I'll answer the question will be part of the energy transition in the UK for some decades to come as the UK for some decades to come as several energy. Several members of mentioned.

That's why the Chancellor met with the industry just in recent days. It's why we're just in recent days. It's why we're setting out proposals to allow tie backs that will actually help get us gas out of the ground in the near future. Longer term changes would take significantly longer, but none of what I've heard from hon. Members is an excuse for rejecting the tens of billions of pounds of renewable energy investment that is also important to delivering domestic energy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

security for this country. But I'll make some. I'll give way, and then I'll make some more progress. Julian Lewis.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Julian Lewis. I like the Minister very much, not least because he represents the Welsh seat of my birth and upbringing, and because I have such respect for him. I'm going to try respect for him. I'm going to try and make a point to him that I've made so far with zero success to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, amongst others. It all well and good to talk about spending the greatest increase on defence since the end of the Cold War.

If you're comparing the post-Cold war period to a period now, which is still in a, shall we say, a a quiet defence period, but we're not. What we need to spend now is not to be compared with what it was like after the end of the Cold War, but what it was like during the Cold War and during the Cold War, we regularly spent between four and a half and 5% of GDP on defence. If he recognises that there's some merit in that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

argument, could he try and persuade his colleagues to stop making this false comparison? Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Well, I thank the hon. Member for his question and his kind remarks, even if they were driven by geography rather than personality. But I will take I'll personality. But I will take I'll take what I can get in today's in today's debate. And since we're in the interest of being kind, in the interest of being kind, I also recognise that I also recognise the point he's making about the significant uncertainty we face in this world today. I think, if I'm honest, I would just say that I'm also just comparing, given that that uncertainty always existed to a significant extent, if we're honest, and I think most members on the benches opposite realise that defence cuts year after year in the last decade were a mistake.

The hon. Member is nodding, so I would also offer that by way of comparison. But let me make some more progress and then I'll take some more. I'll take a few more, make a bit of progress, and then take some interventions. As I was saying, we are providing additional capabilities to the Middle East now, but I want to be clear that the UK will not be drawn into a wider war. We on this side of the House have been clear about our approach. We're in the business of protecting British nationals, not of trying to deliver regime change from the air.

We need to deescalate this conflict and we are playing our part in doing so. But the full economic impact of the conflict will, of course, depend on its severity and its duration. The recent events have led to significant increases in oil and gas prices. As of this morning, oil prices remain over $100 per barrel and gas prices at 120 £0.09 per therm. And while oil

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and gas will. Yesterday, the Chancellor congratulated and said that it was congratulated and said that it was great that Norway and Canada were increasing their production of oil and gas and who could disagree with and gas and who could disagree with that other than seemingly herself and the Cabinet? So does the Minister agree that on those same Minister agree that on those same lines, we should be increasing our production from the North Sea and we should be lifting the ban on North Sea licences?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

North Sea licences? Yeah, yeah, yeah. As I've said, oil and gas will be with us for some time. That's why the Chancellor let me finish. That's why the Chancellor met with the sector. But I know but I hear all the chuntering from members opposite. I did not hear as much chuntering when we saw a 70% fall in jobs on their watch in the North Sea. That is. That is what the truth. That is the truth of what you. That is the truth of what you delivered.

And now on top of that, you're trying to double down the party opposite are the party opposite are doubling down on opposing investment in renewable energy too, threatening those jobs. I'm afraid this is a party that believes in energy security, domestic energy security being delivered by a range of sources, including the nuclear that the party opposite failed to invest in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Member has been very patient. I am not responsible when you

**** Possible New Speaker ****

say you. And I wouldn't want that responsibility. responsible. For everything. Mr. speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. speaker. Could I ask the. The Minister was right to point out clearly the inflationary cost pressures that Iran is having. He might be reminded that, of course, the announcement that the Chancellor made on the increase in fuel duty predates the Iranian situation. Were it not to have been. And given the impact that we are seeing on, amongst other things, fuel costs from Iran, would he be thinking and would the Chancellor be thinking now was a good time to make an announcement about increasing fuel duty? The world has changed.

This policy should change as well, surely to reflect the immediacy of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the situation. Yeah, yeah. Well, I thank the hon. Member for his question and his invitation for his question and his invitation to discuss some hypotheticals, but I would just point out that it's only next week that this policy of extending the £0.05 freeze comes into effect. Fuel duty will be frozen until the end of August this frozen until the end of August this year. That is the position as it is. I understand, and I will come on to later how we think about the future, later how we think about the future, because it's a fair question to be asking, but the policy I'm talking about comes into effect exactly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

next week. I'll let the member come back once, then make a bit of progress. I'm very grateful to him. There

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to him. There are a huge number of families up and down the country who manage their household budgets incredibly tightly. They will be thinking about can they afford a holiday this year, etc. and I appreciate August does seem a long way away, but many of those people will be sorting out their budgetary plans. Now, I'm not certain that those just about managing families, as we used to call them, those just about managing households, can wait until August for any clarity or certainty.

Don't play cat and mouse with the British people. Take the sensible decision. Now press a pause on that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to reflect the dramatic change in circumstances that we're seeing. Well, I completely agree with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I completely agree with the hon. Member that families up and down the country are worried about what they're seeing on their TV screens, about the conflict in TV screens, about the conflict in the Middle East, maybe because there are no people directly, but they're much more universally about the effect on all of us, on their budgets. And they expect a government that takes a sensible approach to that. And they want to see that meaning that we are protecting household finances. And I'll come on to that and also making sure that we protect public finances.

And that means taking decisions based, recognising the unavoidable uncertainty about how the future of this conflict plays out. That's what I would say to the hon. Member about his question. I'm going to make a bit of progress and then I'll give way, because the member has been very has been very patient, and I was just coming on to the fact that we are not in the business of delivering regime change from the air, but we do need to de-escalate this conflict, and we'll play our part in doing that.

The the. Yes. Thank you very much. Now, oil and gas prices remain below the peaks they reached in 2022 following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. But I don't want to hide the fact, as we've just discussed, that these are significant increases. Oil is up by 40% and gas prices have risen by around 64% since the end of February. The movement on energy markets we have already seen are likely to put upward pressure on inflation in the coming months, exactly as we've just discussed, but the ultimate size of those effects is highly uncertain.

But what is certain is that in the face of them, this government will take the necessary decisions to help protect both household finances. And as I was just saying, public finances, and I think I will I want to just make the point that making clear that that is the policy and the approach we are taking does give assurance to households about how will we act, given the very real uncertainty? I'll give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To here. It sounds like that as it's under review, should there be a change, the government would look to support the British public and I support that point. Is there some kind of framework the government is using to decide this? Is there a using to decide this? Is there a trigger point of what fuel prices or how long petrol prices remain at that size? Because actually that helps with the previous question about budgeting. So is the government using actual some triggers or is it finger in the air

**** Possible New Speaker ****

triggers or is it finger in the air and just wait and see what happens? Minister I understand why the hon. Member is asking that. I would just gently point out that the level of petrol prices today is lower than petrol prices at the time of the election, when the party opposite had a temporary £0.05 freeze and explicitly did not include continuing that freeze in their manifesto. So I would just offer that offer. I would offer that by way of indication of where we are today.

But let me make some more. Let me make some more progress. We will keep working towards a swift resolution, one that brings stability back to the region, security to Iran's neighbours and relief to households in the UK. Understandably worried about the effect of this conflict. Of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The Minister rightly talks about household budgets, but the other impact, particularly on the gas price, is industrial energy costs in this country, not least for those sectors like the ceramic sector who are gas dependent rather than electric dependent. Now, when the Chancellor was asked about this in the statement last week on gas in the statement last week on gas prices, she pivoted straight to the British Industrial Competitive Scheme, which is an electrical Scheme, which is an electrical subsidy.

What is coming down the line to help the gas intensive sectors, who currently get no relief anywhere, and who are seeing, as the Minister points out, a huge increase in the price per therm, particularly for those sectors now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that are looking to renegotiate their long term contracts. Yeah. Well, I think the my hon. Friend,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I think the my hon. Friend, for his point and I regularly discussed exactly the kind of industries he's raising with us today because he's such a powerful today because he's such a powerful champion on their behalf. Most, most, most firms, obviously will be significantly more hedged than households against changes in prices. But he's absolutely right to say that the effect of energy price rises is very uneven across our industrial base. He's right to highlight energy intensive industries. He's right to highlight what this government is doing when it comes to the increase in the discount delivered by the supercharger in just coming months, and then Bix in the years ahead.

But he's absolutely right to make sure that we do keep concentrating on this issue in the months ahead. And I'm sure I'll be talking to him and others about that. But we do want this war to end as swiftly and quickly as possible, because the longer it goes on, the more dangerous the situation becomes and the greater the impact on the cost of living back here at home. And a rapid de-escalation remains the best way to protect people from further fuel price increases. What I think, despite the bluster today, is the goal of everybody sitting in this House, and that requires a return to the diplomatic process.

It means the security of vessels passing through the Straits of Hormuz, and on that front, the UK will play its part as the global hub of maritime insurance. But I want to be clear, given some of the things that have been said in recent weeks, that this is a compliment. It is not an alternative to physical security of vessels. As the Chancellor said following her call with G7 finance Ministers last week, we are supporting a release of oil reserves and that has helped to some degree to stabilise international oil markets.

We have also asked the Competition and Markets Authority to remain vigilant when it comes to price developments for essentials such as road oil and heating oil. On Friday, the Chancellor of the Energy Secretary met with petrol retailers to make clear that the government will not tolerate anyone exploiting the current situation to make

**** Possible New Speaker ****

excess profits. Of course. Can I ask this very quickly what

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I ask this very quickly what evidence the Chancellor had to suggest that there was profiteering in petrol retailing because the Petrol Retailers Association rightly took umbrage at the implication of the Chancellor, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think that did not go quite the way that she thought it would. Well. I think this government showing that what it cares about is the that what it cares about is the living standards of households up and down this country is exactly what we should. It's exactly, exactly what we should be doing and encouraging all retailers to engage in the Fuel Finder scheme, which I'll come on to a second, is very, very important. And when it comes to heating oil, we have heard, heard, heard, worrying evidence from people.

I suspect the hon. Member has from his constituents about the behaviour of some suppliers. So that is well, let me let me come on to that. So to further support competition in the market, we're introducing the Fuel Finder to ensure that petrol stations publish their prices. This will make it easier for drivers to choose the lowest price. And since the beginning of February, all UK petrol stations have been asked to report price changes for petrol and diesel within 30 minutes. Almost 90% of retailers have already registered, and last week officials were instructed to accelerate the integration of Fuel Finder into major digital map applications.

This will make it easier for drivers to use. This sits alongside action to support households who rely on heating oil. As I was just touching on. As the Prime Minister announced earlier this week, the government will provide an additional £53 million of targeted support for those vulnerable households who may who would struggle to make an upfront lump sum to top up their tanks. This funding has been. I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It sounds as though this is going to be used through the Resilience Fund, which is the replacement for the Household Support Fund. The problem is there are many, many more people who won't fall in that yet. They've seen their heating oil prices seen their heating oil prices double, if not triple plus doubling of the order amount that they have to make. What support is there for to make. What support is there for them? Because if it's going from £500 to £1500 overnight, that's a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

£500 to £1500 overnight, that's a huge impact. And they won't get the £35 from the government. The hon. Member is right, at least within within England, yes, the funding will be delivered via local authorities and that means the mechanism that was the Household Support Fund becoming the Crisis and Resilience Fund in a few weeks. And we've made clear writing to local authorities that they don't need to wait for the new fund to be in place. They can start making commitments today. The exact decision about who qualifies, who qualifies as vulnerable is to be made by local authorities, because one of the things that we have learnt is that different parts of the country have different challenges about within this issue, and so that will be rightly sitting with local authorities to make the difference, but the money will be allocated.

I'll make a bit of progress. I've taken from the hon. Member, but that's exactly why the funding will be allocated on the basis of census data, not via usual mechanisms, reflecting the highly uneven geographical spread of heating oil reliance that has rightly been highlighted by lots of hon. Members across this House in recent weeks, not least those from Northern Ireland but also from West Wales. Now I have today focussed on laying out the challenge facing the country and our consistent approach to this conflict.

But, Mr. Speaker, this is an opposition day, so it would be rude not to talk a little about the opposition, which means talking about the rank opportunism and incoherence they have displayed this week. The Leader of the Opposition said, and I quote, she is concerned that there isn't a clear plan behind these strikes. Well, that is the absolute opposite of what she has been saying for weeks. She welcomed the strikes, welcomed military action that she now says lacked a clear plan.

She called for Britain to get involved in them, called for Britain to be involved in military action she now admits lacked clear objectives. She says her leadership is about consistency, but the whole country can, on this most important of issues, see that she is just making it up as she goes along, a cavalier attitude with not a second thought about the consequences for households here in the UK. You don't get to wrap yourself up in another country's flag playing politics with a serious conflict, and then pretend you never did so once.

The consequences for those living in the United Kingdom become clear. And opportunism is also the word for the opposition on fuel duty, too. For all the froth from the Secretary of State. The truth is, the last government didn't Budget for any extension of the £0.05 cut. They said explicitly it was temporary and on the level of fuel duty. Here is the truth. Through the entire 14 years in office, through. I'm going to come to the 14 years. Wait for it. You're going to regret saying that through the entire 14 years in office, it was never lower than it is today.

In fact, it was higher. It was higher than it is today. For 80% of the time they were in office. Now, I absolutely understand why the shadow Secretary of State is looking so worked up. Fuel prices matter for everyone, especially those travelling long distance. After all, it's around 270 miles from north West Durham to Billericay. And once you've found your new constituency, that is. I know it's called a chicken run, but I'm assuming he drove. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, the opposition may not be serious, but these are serious times.

The cost of living matters. Fuel duty will, in a few weeks time be 11% low £0.11 lower compared with the plans we inherited from the previous government. Our action on fuel duty will save the average motorist over £90. This is on top of the savings from the government's Fuel Finder scheme. We will of course continue to keep fuel duty under close review, but fuel duty is frozen and will remain frozen in the months ahead. Madam. Madam Deputy Speaker, we will continue to be responsive to a changing world, to be responsible in the national interest and with the public finances, and to take the necessary decisions to help families with the cost of living.

That is this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government's promise. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Well. It was clear that the Minister wasn't giving way. The original wasn't giving way. The original question was, as on the Order Paper, since when? Amendment has been proposed, as on the Order Paper, the question is that the original

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the question is that the original words stand. Part of the question I now call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Tim Farron. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for the frontbench for bringing forward this debate today. It's a really this debate today. It's a really important one. And it's important because the impact of fuel costs, both the cost of the fuel for the motorist, but also for those having to heat their homes, is devastating. Over the last three weeks, people's entire ability to Budget, to be able to afford to live, to buy food, to pay the rent or the mortgage has changed.

It's been turned on its head in every city, in every town, every village in our country, everybody is affected one way or another. I don't mean to diminish the impact of fuel price increases in our cities. It's been very huge. But nevertheless, if one lives in a city, the chances are you work in
13:35
Tim Farron Portrait Tim Farron MP (Westmorland and Lonsdale, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
the city in which you live and the chances are you can, if need be, leave your car at home if you've got one and take advantage of public transport. I'm very supportive of a cap on bus fares. I supportive of a cap on bus fares. I wish it was still a £2 cap. The £3. The £3 cap is still a lot better The £3 cap is still a lot better than what we had in the past. Nevertheless, both of them are a fat lot of good if there's no bus fat lot of good if there's no bus to get on at all.

And in rural communities like mine, people on the most modest of incomes have to own a car in order to access our economy or any kind of life at all. You live in Kendal, the new work potentially in Grange Over Sands or vice versa. You live in Ambleside and you work in Barrow or vice versa. You live in Kirkby Stephen and you travel more than 60 miles every day to go and work in the hospitality and tourism industry in Windermere or Bowness.

The impact of these fuel price rises over the last three weeks is utterly devastating. In diesel in Cumbria is 160 pence up to 170 pence in some cases per litre in petrol nearer 140 pence and indeed, red

**** Possible New Speaker ****

diesel passing the £1 mark for the first time. Yeah, I'm happy to give way. Yeah, thank. You very much. I thank the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You very much. I thank the hon. Member for giving way. As a fellow northwest MP representing a rural constituency and even our constituents who do work in big suburban areas like Manchester and suburban areas like Manchester and elsewhere, will rely on getting to the train stations to get there. So even those who do spend a significant amount of time in in significant amount of time in in the larger urban areas still rely on their car to be able to get to what resembles public transport, to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a. Very good point. Absolutely. And that will be the case in our that will be the case in our communities as well. Many people will drive to Penrith or Oxynorm or Grange or Windermere to park, catch the train to their place of work or study, and these are very significant. Of course, it's worth bearing in mind that these fuel costs down the line will have a significant impact on public transport providers as well, and make it very hard for them to continue those services that they currently operate.

His point is very well made and well delivered. Not only though, as I alluded to in my first remarks, really, are we talking about motor fuel costs rising, though? They are, the impact has been mentioned by 1 or 2 colleagues on heating oil and the cost to people heating and running their homes has been immense and is causing real hardship. Already in Cumbria, 46,000 houses are off grid. About 35% of the homes in my constituency are off grid in the area of Kirkby Stephen, Tebay and Bruff, 74% of properties are off grid and rely upon heating oil.

In the Hawksworth area, it is almost 80% of properties and now I asked my constituents and many of them didn't need asking. I have to say to give me their impressions, their experiences over these last few weeks. And it's clear that for oil for heating has as literally doubled or literally doubled in price overnight. Though I've had some reports of trebling in the cost, many can't afford to get any more heating oil until or unless the prices drop. And it's important to remember in a community like mine, only 25% of our housing stock was built before the turn of the 20th century, and so your typical or many properties in my community and in many colleagues constituencies as well, are solid wall properties, very difficult or expensive to insulate.

And this and previous governments have failed to deal with that problem in an adequate way. And so people are spending a fortune heating their poor difficult insulate homes and and are now in a situation where having to pay spend up to three

**** Possible New Speaker ****

times more money on just keeping it vaguely warm. I'm very happy to give when. I thank him. For giving way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For giving way. In my constituency is a mother with a daughter who lives with a disability. She's reliant upon a particular type of prescription particular type of prescription food, which has to be kept at ambient temperature. The temperature of the house drops, the food perishes, and she can't eat with my hon. Friend agree with me that it isn't just a concern facing residents now, and she was prepared residents now, and she was prepared to pay whatever it took, but couldn't secure a delivery at all.

It's also fear of the next crisis and the spike in oil prices, and that's why we need to call for a constituencies.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and it's a reminder that people's experiences of these increased prices are a myriad in type and. And yet they're. What they have in common is a is a shared and sudden hardship which are making people, making people or are making people, making people or forcing them to make incredibly difficult decisions, choices indeed,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

difficult decisions, choices indeed, if they have any choices to make. Yeah. Happily happy. Thank you. Yeah. A very important. Point about the impact on rural areas. And would you also agree that we should also bear in mind the consequences of this price spike on businesses? Many of the businesses in my patch are also off grid. And so having gone through the winter period and perhaps hoping for some good fortune in the spring, they're now facing this big barrier. And indeed, some have already told me that they're cutting back on operations and indeed contemplating closure because of this new pressure.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, indeed. Any effort that the government puts into supporting people throughout this process and businesses especially, will, as he businesses especially, will, as he rightly points out, have a medium to long term positive impact on the Treasury because you can keep Treasury because you can keep businesses in business and therefore making a profit and therefore keeping people in work. therefore keeping people in work. Those companies and those employees will be paying tax and refunding so much of that investment.

So investment, it truly is. So our amendment that we put on the Order Paper today seeks to set out some practical alternatives. It absolutely acknowledges the devastating impact of the government's decision to increase fuel duty from September, and it calls for that to be cancelled. It focuses absolutely also on the experiences of rural and other off grid communities that have been left exposed. I have to say, by years of underinvestment. And it specifically calls not just for the cancellation of fuel duty rise, but when it comes to heating oil, an immediate zero rating on VAT, on heating oil, and then there to be a cap, a price mechanism, price cap mechanism for heating oil like there is for other uses of of energy and to expand rural fuel duty as well beyond the relatively small number of places that it currently operates, and then invest in an emergency upgrade program.

So we're not so exposed to these things in the future. Now, I recognise and welcome to a degree, the government's announcement this week on some support for homes and businesses that are reliant upon heating oil. But I've done my son's and it works out at £35 per household. That is an inadequate sticking plaster. It is not going to have an impact much on the on on household finances, and it is only a sticking plaster. What we actually need is an energy price cap for people who live in rural communities.

Otherwise, rural communities will continue to believe that this government, and maybe others before it, don't really care very much about them. Other people's energy bills are a thing that they will focus upon, but not those for people in rural communities. So it does not even remotely go far enough. Though we're happy that they've at least begun to talk about it now. The impact, of course, are of the massive price rises in energy costs in motor fuel, car fuel and in heating oil and other forms of fuel is absolutely local.

It is house by house, family by family, community by community, business by business. But it's bound to be observed, as others have, that it is triggered by the actions of one d Trump in the White House, and the war has entered the lives of people in Iran and innocent lives across the Middle East, across a whole range of different countries. But of course, it's had a massive impact on the global economy too. And as has been said already, it kind of all comes down to the Straits of Hormuz.

And who controls them? Iran does effectively at the moment. So long as this is true, then whatever the president of the United States says, it is effectively winning. And in the meantime, fuel prices are rocketing quite simply, as the International Energy Agency has noted, the war in the Middle East is creating the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market. That's quite something. Now, I must say that I don't think this makes me an enormous expert in international affairs to conclude that this was all utterly and totally predictable before Donald Trump began this war.

But it's not just, I have to say has been mentioned by hon. Members already. It's not just about oil. It's also about gas, fertilisers, petrochemicals. These are crucial inputs and higher prices. And increased scarcity is going to have a massive impact on our economy more broadly, and on the cost and availability of food production, therefore, meaning that we can look forward to sadly increased food prices in coming months. Always already as a knock on in my community, we are outside of London, the most visited place in the United Kingdom.

We are home to a huge tourism economy. 60,000 people in Cumbria earn their living in the hospitality and tourism business, already struggling because the government's national insurance rise. A year and a little while, a year and a bit ago. We are an economy that very much relies on small businesses 1 in 4, 1 in 4 people in the working in the workforce in my constituency work for themselves. You have a sense then, that smaller businesses, much less likely to be able to withstand these kind of shocks, are the backbone of our economy.

And I'm bound to mention, as I've talked about, food prices, the impact upon our farmers. Let's not forget that this year, by December, direct payments will be over. And so many people, particularly those farming in the uplands of Cumbria, are on incomes less than the minimum wage. They seek to look after our environment, our landscape, the backdrop to our tourism economy and even more importantly, to feed us. And the cost of their production is going to rise as a consequence of all this and the impact potentially on our food prices, likewise be affected that rural fuel, rural fuel subsidy I mentioned earlier on, I am bound to say, as a consequence of the Liberal in government, when we were in coalition, when our colleagues across the UK, not one of them in Wales, by the way, not one of them in Wales, only one of them in Cumbria, a lovely place called Griesbeck.

But that is but that is a a reality. That means that the government has a mechanism by which it could help rural communities. And we would ask that the government considers to it that they would at least double the access and the scope of rural fuel duty subsidy right across the country and bound to say, first and foremost in the lakes and dales of Cumbria, Cumbria. And everyone's going to be hurt by the impact on inflation, reduced demand inequality, unfairness for those earning the least is going to be huge, potentially, and the government's fuel duty rise exacerbates a problem, though, which is, as I said, created in the White House.

The United States needs to fix the problem that it created. It cannot be up to others to save it from its failures to think things through. Now, Colin Powell, Colin Powell, a person perhaps wiser, I think I'll be fair to say, than the current occupant of the White House once said to George W Bush that, and I quote, if you break it, you own it. And that was said of the war in Iraq. Surely the same can be said now to the president of the United States.

I might also gently say, you break it. You own. It also applies to those who egged him on in the first place, and the Conservative and Reform front benches, and therefore NATO allies, I would state, should not be joining Donald Trump in a war he started without ever consulting his allies or explaining his war aims. He wants us to meekly fall in line, but we must not. Donald Trump still cannot articulate his end game or what victory would look like. He went to war thinking the Iranian Iranian regime would fall quickly.

And of course it has not. And that Tehran would not attack the Gulf states or close the Straits of Hormuz. Of course, that was always likely. Why would we align not just with such a moral outrage, but with also such epic stupidity? So whilst I am grateful to the Conservatives submitting a timely and important motion, we must remember that they are part of the reason we're in the mess we're in. So I will wrap up, I will. Madam Deputy Speaker So meanwhile, this against the backdrop of that international situation of extreme danger.

Meanwhile, my constituent fills up at Kirkby Stephen with diesel diesel that costs 25% more than it did three weeks ago. Her home is cold because she can't buy any more heating oil because it's gone up threefold in the last three weeks. She travels to Windermere to earn the minimum wage, and at the end of the day of the day, it was barely worth the bother. Don't go telling her that politics doesn't change things. It really does. And our amendment today aims to change things for her for the better.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Harriet Cross. Thank you very. Much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it's great to be able to speak today in this debate, a really important debate, and I'm really glad that it's one of the topics glad that it's one of the topics that the opposition, led by our leader, the honourable Leader of the Opposition, has brought, because fuel duty impacts because fuel duty impacts absolutely everybody, impacts every family, every household, every business, hauliers, everywhere we
13:49
Harriet Cross Portrait Harriet Cross MP (Gordon and Buchan, Conservative)
-
-
business, hauliers, everywhere we go, everything we see is impacted by fuel duty. And this is no more obvious than in rural areas. Our rural communities rely on cars more than anywhere else. We cannot rely on buses because they are not reliable. We cannot rely on trains because half the time they're not there. We cannot rely on tubes because they are not anywhere near us. Cars are the lifeblood of rural communities. We would be absolutely stuck behind without them and therefore they are vital.

And the majority of the public know that too. There are 36 million petrol and diesel vehicles left in the UK. Every single one of these are being tapped. When the fuel duty goes up. Fuel duty is a tax on every single vehicle, and all those vehicles are driven by somebody. So this tax is a tax on everybody. Rural communities, as I say, feel there's so much more because they are so much larger. And the best way to show this is if we can compare the size of constituencies.

Now, my Gordon and Buchan constituency in Aberdeenshire in northeast Scotland is is a large constituency. It's by no near the largest Scottish constituency, but it is 2076km² that is larger than the combined total of everybody on the front bench for the Treasury team and everybody in the front bench on the transport team combined and multiplied by three. Indeed, if we take out the Member for Selby, who has a large constituency, then the total combined square kilometres for the Treasury team and the transport team is 380km².

So it's no coincidence. I assume, therefore, that they don't actually appreciate how important cars are to get around large areas and therefore how much increasing fuel duty will impact them. And while we talk about distances which are important, price is also obviously vital. And the Fuel Finder which was created is helpful, if not least because it tells me. But in my Gordon and Buchan constituency, fuel on average is 140 £0.07 per litre compared to the hon. Members where it's 139.

So we're already paying more in rural constituencies, we're already having to drive our cars further, so filling up more often at a higher price, fuel duty rises impacts us more than it does urban areas and rural communities do not have a choice as they keep coming back to we have to drive, we have to drive to get to work, to get children to school, to go to doctor's appointments. For example, in my constituency, we've had so many bank closures, it's now constituents in Ellon have to drive to Inverurie in order to fill up their cars.

That is a 28 mile round trip. Sorry not to fill up the cars to bank a 28 mile round trip just to bank that would stretch across many members constituencies from east to west, north to south. But it's not just fuel duty, which this government is targeting. We also saw at the Budget their new charge on EV cars this pay per mile, £0.03 a mile for electric vehicles. And without wanting to go back again, although I will to the size of constituencies, constituents that I have who live in Huntly and who commute to Aberdeen to work often in the oil and gas sector, but I'll come back to that.

They are paying their travelling 17,800 miles a year just to get to work. If you work on 46 weeks a year, five days a week, that means that they're paying £535 for their electric car just to get to work on this paper mile system. But this government have brought in. Maybe they can't imagine having a 77 mile round trip in order to get to work. But that is what my constituents do, and that's what they're getting penalised for. And I would value if, in his wind up, the Minister or Treasury frontbench could confirm that pay per mile for electric vehicles is not going to be a gateway for pay per mile for petrol and diesel vehicles, because that would cripple rural communities, rural families, rural businesses.

It's a slippery slope which they have started with EVs and if it progresses over to petrol and diesel, it will be a hell of a lot worse for a lot of people. But we all know that supply is just as important as price. And the huge amount that we've been talking about at the moment, while we've seen the events in Iran has come down to price, but supply is just as important, if not more important. The reason why we get to the pumps and people panic is because they see the price going up.

They'll panic more if they get to the pumps and there is not a supply. And I'm not saying we're there at the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

moment, but we do need to consider back. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and she's giving a characteristically well-informed speech. Might she reflect on the experience of the Prime Minister experience of the Prime Minister and his Holborn and St Pancras constituency in the cost of moving around by car, or indeed the around by car, or indeed the necessity to move around by car as compared to my constituents in the Isle of Wight and her constituents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in Gordon and Buchan? Absolutely. I think that's an experience that a lot of us can relate to. Some constituencies you do not have a choice. They do not have a choice to use their card. They will use their card. They will keep using their car because they have to use their car. They're using their car. They need to fill up their car. They need petrol and diesel at affordable prices. And increasing fuel duty is making it less affordable. Fuel duty makes up 38% of the cost of a litre of petrol 38%.

The wholesale price is 33%, which feeds into it. So any increase in fuel duty is making prices more and more expensive, and that is in the complete control of this government. Refining is a vital part of the production of petrol and diesel for our vehicles, and the UK has had a good record, a very good record. We are a net exporter of petrol from our refineries, but in the last two years alone, two refineries, a third of the UK's refineries have been lost and this capacity therefore is going down.

This is not least because of the carbon tax, which is up to doubled under this government, making refining in the UK more difficult, putting industries under pressure and ensuring still that this de-industrialisation of the UK under this Labour government continues and de-industrialisation you do not need to look any further than the oil and gas sector, particularly in north east Scotland. The coherence that this government has on its oil and gas policy is non-existent. They know we need oil and gas for years to come.

They say we need oil and gas for years to come. Yet they don't want British oil and gas for years to come. They have the largest tax of any mature basin in the world on our oil and gas. But we have the largest tax on any mature basin which this government extended and increased in their first Budget. They have banned new licences, meaning that reserves will be left under the North Sea, which Norway will drill and we will import from Norway.

There is no coherence in their strategy and because of this ban, we are exporting jobs because the skilled workers in the oil and gas sector who produce our oil, who produce our gas, who contribute to our fuel security, they will move abroad because they have the skills. They are valuable workers, yet other countries value them more than we here apparently value them shown by these government policies, a thousand jobs a month are being lost. Billions in tax revenues are being lost, billions in investment are, and I know the Treasury front bench know about this very well following their recent meetings with the sector.

But the government either from their own sort of ideology or that imposed on them by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and net zero, do not want to use our own natural resources. They prefer to import at a huge cost, at a huge environmental cost, at the cost of work and jobs in order to satisfy themselves. But they are reaching a target which they have imposed on themselves and Madam Deputy Speaker 70% of the UK's energy still comes from oil and gas, and will do for many years to come.

Electricity, which is the power which the government talk about in their 2030 target, is only 20%. So in reality, we are talking about the vast of the energy which keeps this country going, which powers comes from oil and gas. 50% of the gas that we use every day comes from the North Sea. Shutting down the North Sea impacts our fuel security instantly. It impacts our fuel security in the future, and it will keep doing that. There are enough reserves in the North Sea with the correct fiscal and regulatory conditions to support British fuel security, energy security.

But this government has decided it does not want it. It prefers to use that from elsewhere. As we heard yesterday from the Chancellor herself, she was delighted that Norway and Canada have produced had increased production. But why wouldn't we do the same? We can do the same. Why are we still waiting for Rosebank and Jack Dorsey be approved? Why are we sitting on those applications? It makes no sense. All of these come into our fuel security. All of these come into the cost of living for households.

They impact the amount of supply that we have for all the sources that we use energy for. Yet this government are happy to forgo that just for their headline. So Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm delighted that we're discussing fuel duties today for our rural communities, for our businesses, but also because it shines a light on the vital importance of supply of our oil and gas into our refineries, into our cars, into our vehicles. And that is why I'm delighted to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support the opposition's motion today. Simon Hoare thank you indeed. Madam Deputy Speaker, it's a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, it's a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend for Gordon and Buchan, who spoke not only with her usual passion on not only with her usual passion on behalf of her constituents and sector, important to her local economy, but also with the depth of knowledge that the House has come to expect from her. And she raises, I think, an important theme, which I think, an important theme, which I just want to pick up on, which I slightly touched on with the Minister, the Member for Swansea West, in his contribution as he opened the debate for the government.

And that's a lack of either consistency or common sense as a starting point and a fleet of foot to respond to events as they materialise. She's referenced the absurdity of saying in one breath, of course, we're going to require, as we transition to a renewable, clean, green energy source, but we are going to continue to need oil and gas in our economy. But we would prefer to buy it from a third country's production rather than when we have it literally on our doorstep.

And we could be and there's a lack of, I think, imagination and as I say, fleetness of foot from the government as it seeks to oh, as it responds to pressures to respond to a changing landscape. And I would invite the the Treasury Minister on the front bench. Now, just to consider for a moment if you would indulge me with regards to the proposals announced in the Budget for the increase in fuel duty rates, what he would be saying, Madam Deputy Speaker, if he was standing here or at the opposition Dispatch Box, rather than at the government.

And the point I made to the hon. Member for West Swansea was a very simple one. The announcement that the Chancellor made, I didn't support it with regards to fuel duty, but she had a common sense approach to it and she was perfectly within her right as Chancellor of the Exchequer to make that rate announcement. It predates the events in Iran. If a government Minister with the hon. Gentleman, who is the government Minister, as it were, on the opposition benches, was being faced with an intransigence from the government that said, we are still going to plough ahead with this.

We understand that costs are going up, we understand the volatility of the market, we understand the enormous pressures which are being placed on all households and in particular low incomes are elderly, vulnerable and the just about managing. And we were still going to plough on without saying, right, we still want to do it. We may very well do it in the future, but now is not the time we're going to pull the plaster off this particular thing. We're going to say reverse the announcement.

We are not going to do it because the the tail of this fuel pricing crisis is going to be quite a long one, irrespective of whether or not the situation in Iran and the Straits of Hormuz were to come to a conclusion in the foreseeable future, I think the hon. Gentleman, the Minister would be jumping up and down, pulling his hair out, wondering and accusing the government of being tenured and tone deaf. So I when he comes to sum up, and I do hope that the government whips have got the timing of this week's debate right, so that we don't have the ignominy of him wishing to have spoken for a further 20 minutes, and then people dramatically falling ill in the lobby and and and then having and then and then miraculously, Lazarus
14:02
Simon Hoare Portrait Simon Hoare MP (North Dorset, Conservative)
-
-
like Madam Deputy Speaker at the stroke of seven, suddenly rising from near deathbed experiences to from near deathbed experiences to come back in and to get on with their parliamentary business. I do hope that he will just reflect on hope that he will just reflect on the need for rapid response in real the need for rapid response in real time. When he comes to sum up, and may I just address two of the things, or one of the things on that theme, if I may, with regards to the government's amendment in the name of the Prime Minister, we had, as he probably knows, a hugely useful Minister meeting with the Energy Minister and his noble friend, the Lord Livermore, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury last last week, and I think many of us who attended were very pleased that that meeting took place.

And we certainly all took away a variety of responses. But certainly the fact that the government seemed to be to seem to be getting it. But this perpetual repetition, repetition of continuing to work with the Competition and Markets Authority, that is a long term solution with regards to the regulation of the heating oil market. That is not going to solve the problems today. And I don't think in all in all fairness, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a crutch upon which the government can rest and and presume that the House and our constituents are going to be satisfied.

There have to be two speeds of work stream here. Future regulation, medium to long term, immediate help in the here and now. And whilst I'm just discussing the Prime Minister's amendment, of course Fuel Finder can be very useful and Fuel Finder is referenced in the amendment, but he will probably know or will have heard that. Of course, in rural areas I'm going to deal in miles rather than the modernity of kilometres that my hon. Friend for for for for Gordon and Buchan did.

My constituency is about 440mi². We don't have a petrol station on every village green or every corner. People are having to drive five, ten, 15 miles as a round trip in order to fill up their cars anyway. So the idea that sits behind is welcome as it is. Fuel Finder is really only of use to people where they have a larger number of fuel stations able to fill up their vehicles in close proximity, either to where they live or to where they work.

I want to say a word or two about heating oil. Thanks to the figures produced from the House of Commons Library, referencing the census data of 2021 in the southwest, it's about 7.9% of households, so forgive me, 7.1% of households in the southwest of England that use heating oil. The UK average figure is 4.9, and in the North Dorset constituency, that's 13.71. And I believe that those figures do not include LPG, merely sort of traditional heating oil. And it certainly doesn't include the the vital requirement for red diesel that the farmers of North Dorset also have not bringing in this increase on main fuel duty will help everybody in our country, but will, I think, disproportionately benefit those for whom we used to refer to at a certain time in our recent political history as the just about managing.

These are not households who are supported by a raft or interventions of the of the welfare state and benefits. They are not disabled and unable to work. These are people who are doing their best and doing their bit, often working as a couple, often more than two jobs in order to keep the roof over their head and food on the table. And when you talk. So when one talks about the £0.05 per litre increase, when one is in the Treasury, I'm absolutely certain when you are dealing with telephone number sums day in and day out, £0.05 per litre doesn't sound a vast amount, but when the household Budget is so finely balanced that a couple of quid here or there makes all of the difference, then those five P's add up and the argument is, and I don't want to turn this into a rural versus urban debate, but I think it's important for urban members of Parliament to hear the reality of living in rural areas.

You here we are very lucky living in rural areas, beautiful environment, lovely countryside, a slower pace. But everybody recognises. Every economist recognises that the delivery of services, that the cost of produce, that the cost of transport is greater in rural areas, principally for two reasons. As a result of sparsity of population, greater distances to be travelled in order to access them, and higher costs, getting them to those rural markets because they are further away from the nexus of the transportation networks.

So all of these things have a knock on effect. If the choice was or I could jump on a tram, a tube, a bus, a light railway, and I can, I can forgo using my car or my van. Then of course, people would do. It is a way of saving additional expenditure. But colleagues on this side of the House and I think it's depressing. I think I'm right to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that at no time since 1966 has the Labour Party in government had a higher number of rural MPs, members of Parliament representing rural constituencies across the country and unless they're all in deep, deep camouflage this afternoon, they appear they they appear they appear to be showing what I would describe as maybe politely, precious little interest in the welfare of their constituents.

But maybe that is because they realise that the Treasury front bench has almost given up on rural Britain, coupled, probably promoted by a lack of knowledge and understanding and certainly a lack of curiosity to try and find out anything about what it is like to live in our rural communities. Maybe they have given up trying to persuade their frontbench of the need for a change of heart. These benches and and and those of of the other opposition parties will not give up or not.

May I just we'll not we'll not give up making the case and advocating

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the cause for our rural communities. I give way to my right. Hon. Friend. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Just just briefly, the hon. Gentleman is making a really important point about rural really important point about rural areas, but I think those of us who don't represent rural constituencies minds either constituencies minds either semi-rural nor urban, Madam Deputy, we face exactly the same issues as the rural areas. The increase in fuel prices is impacting on everybody in their daily lives, and I think most people now thinking enough is enough.

Will you agree

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with me? Well, I do. I do, and she my right hon. Friend is right to point to the Friend is right to point to the universality of the of the negative impact of of this proposal. I hope that you will suggest. And as a good Yorkshire woman, who I know is always persuaded by the validity of common sense, I hope that she too will. Will will accept the point that whilst everybody said the impact on rural communities is going to be disproportionately felt, and that is particularly amplified when one recalls that on average the annual income of people living in rural areas is lower in comparison with those who are living in urban or suburban urban areas.

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My, my. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He is right to point out there are only two Labour Member of Parliament sitting Member of Parliament sitting opposite in this debate to discuss the increase in fuel duty. Might he the increase in fuel duty. Might he consider the other 400 Labour MPs are right now in a huddle in a are right now in a huddle in a darkened room, with the Chancellor lobbying her to reduce that tax and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

lobbying her to reduce that tax and freeze fuel duties? Or does he think they might have gone home? Yeah. Well, I think I'd probably suggest to my hon. Friend, a lie down with a cold flannel in a darkened room might be a good idea for him, if that's what he thinks that they are doing. I think I think that they have probably given up. And let's just make the point. And I don't want to rub the government members on the benches nose in it.

But with the exception of the whip, who has to be here, the PS who feels that she has to pass important pieces of paper from the official's box to her Minister and the Minister who has to be here, whether he likes it or not, that there in ladies and gentlemen, ends the interest of the governing party on this particular issue. But let me, if I may, amplify a little further the point that I was making of necessity, North Dorset is predominantly an economy of micro and small businesses.

A lot family owned, many not medium sized enterprises are often looked at as sort of something which is is to be aspired to, but it's predominantly micro and small with a few large businesses. They are companies like like Dextra based in Gillingham, in my constituency at Hall and Woodhouse, a brewery that would be known to many colleagues across the southwest and the South. Brewer, they are seeing their costs going up, and I would classify those as the larger employers of North Dorset.

But I don't use this, and I know some some did. I think the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, one sort of said it was a bit of a curl of her lip and a sort of snarl in her voice I don't. I admire but white van man and woman who have got off their backsides set up a business entrepreneurially, maybe employing one person, providing vital services to communities who need that vehicle to either go and pick up kit and product in order for them to fulfil their jobs, to travel many, many miles to their work in order to put food on their table, they are going to be hit.

I think of my farming vets in North Dorset who have to travel distances in order to attend to animal welfare issues. I have a very high percentage, the highest in the county of Dorset, of retired people. I think of the carers who are having to use their cars to travel, to visit, to help, to make sure that they're OK. I think of my farmers who play as the Minister will know, a vital role in delivering not just environmental management but, crucially, food security, who are seeing prices rising as a result of current pressures, not just in the fuel that they are using, but in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fertiliser that they're having to buy. And I give way once again to my writing friend. I'm very grateful to my hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to my hon. Friend, and I think he eloquently sets out that this impacts on just about everybody in their in their about everybody in their in their daily lives, up and down the country, across, across communities. And doesn't it just highlight why, And doesn't it just highlight why, when we were in government, we took great efforts to freeze fuel duty, great efforts to freeze fuel duty, and I would even go so far as to say it's those on these benches that are the friend of the motorists.

Contrast with the other

**** Possible New Speaker ****

benches, who simply see the motorist as a cash cow. My right hon. Friend is right,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My right hon. Friend is right, and I think it's important just to relitigate this point that we froze relitigate this point that we froze fuel duty, not merely because we could, but because there was a could, but because there was a reason so to do. There was a reason so to do. It's why I say this. As a so to do. It's why I say this. As a former local government Minister, we enhanced and protected and preserved the Rural Services Delivery Grant to reflect precisely the additional costs for local government in providing services in rural areas, again, not just slashed but scrapped by the government in the local government settlement.

I'm going to have to declare, Madam Deputy Speaker a an interest here. As a parent of three daughters still at school, but the costs of the school run. When my wife takes our three girls to school, it is a 22 mile round trip from home to school and, and back, and then again in the afternoon, 44 miles, for no other reason than to transport three children to school, to get an education, to fire up their ambition and aspiration. And hundreds of parents across the constituency do exactly the same.

They are going to be impacted negatively as a result of this increase. I think as well about those who are trying to get to hospital appointments. I live relatively close to the West Dorset border, but if I have, if a constituent living close to me has to go to Dorchester Hospital, they are performing something like a 40 mile round trip just to get to a hospital appointment. And I really hope, I really hope because this is not just a tax increase in isolation, but on top of the other inflationary pressures which the government have authored as a result of national insurance and making business regulation and so on and so forth, much harder for business, because all of these costs for those in the business sphere are, by definition, going to be passed on to customers.

And what I really hope is that people do not decide to miss that hospital appointment, not because they no longer need it, because they feel that they can't afford to travel to and from it. The Minister doesn't need me to tell him of the acute pressure which our hospitality sector is facing across the whole of the UK, but particularly again in rural areas. Pubs are facing great pressure, many pubs are closing in the North Dorset constituency, regrettably, but if people are then cutting back on their travel because they feel that petrol or diesel has become too expensive and they have reduced their travels to merely just what they would deem to be the absolute essential and leisure and relaxed purposes are going to be eradicated from their menu of choice.

That, again, is going to have a negative pressure on a sector already hit. So I say I would like to try and wind you up, Madam Deputy Speaker, by saying something like, so, bringing my opening remarks to a conclusion, but you'll be delighted to know she'll be she will be delighted to know that I'm bringing my my overall remarks to a conclusion. Sometimes government move slowly because the process requires it too. Sometimes, as we have seen in other circumstances, government can move where it has a will incredibly quickly.

And if the PS could just leave her Minister alone for just a moment, I would really appreciate the Minister just to listen to this. It's a point I made to the hon. Member for West Swansea. All of these increases, rises in council, tax rises in fuel, both domestic and transport, rises in food prices, etc. is bringing pressure on so many household budgets. The Minister knows that he will see in real time the data from his officials. Families need to make plans.

Can they afford that holiday during the school, summer holidays, etc. Can they afford to travel to go and visit a relative later on in the year? Those sorts of things, I'm sure to the Treasury, these are small matters. These are individual cases. These are vignettes and cameos of people's lives, which slightly are a nuisance to the broad big picture statistician. But these are real lives lived on a daily basis by our constituents. It would be indefensible, illogical, and an act of self-harm for the government to proceed, as the Chancellor suggested that she would, by increasing main fuel duties on the.

From the 1st of September there may well be some. Some tactical guy looking at the whiteboard at number ten, desperately trying to fill in the late summer grid when the house isn't sitting. Going into the third week of August, we'll mention that we're not going to do it. I can understand that in public relations, media management terms, but I say to the Minister, he is a common sense man and I hope he will get the common sense of this.

This has all the signs and hallmarks of an inevitable change of heart from the government. It is not a question of whether, but when he can be sustained by the increase that he's going. I'm sure there will be other calls on him to spend it, but he will be sustained by a massive increase in VAT from heating oil from domestic uses over the next several weeks. So we can agree on it is a question of not whether, but when.

From the bottom of my heart, on behalf of my hard working constituents of North Dorset, on behalf of my farmers, those micro and small businesses, I urge the Minister recognise the common sense, recognise the necessity, recognise that the landscape has changed from just those few short weeks when the Budget was delivered. Make that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

change and announce it soon. Joy Morrissey thank you Madam Deputy Speaker and it is a pleasure Deputy Speaker and it is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset, who has so eloquently championed his local eloquently championed his local area and has covered every point that we could possibly raise, and I shall follow humbly on his shall follow humbly on his coattails today. And fuel duty is a war on the motorist. It is an attack on hard working families who have scrimped and saved to drive
14:22
Joy Morrissey Portrait Joy Morrissey MP (Beaconsfield, Conservative)
-
-
their child to that special holiday, to even take their child to the to even take their child to the school run every day. And this is a tax that is regressive. It is a tax tax that is regressive. It is a tax that is going to hurt hardworking, normal families across Beaconsfield Malo in the South Bucks Villages. Malo in the South Bucks Villages. And it's not just going to hurt hard working families, it's going to hurt SMEs. It's going to hurt to hurt SMEs.

It's going to hurt care workers and all of the key workers who have to drive from outside of Buckinghamshire to work inside the whole area. We have care workers that come from other counties to work in Bourne End in Woburn, in Marlow, because the cost of living is so high and that extra driving, that extra cost on their transport will be devastating to our local care working community, to those that provide vital services to our our fire and police workers who oftentimes are having to drive to the fire station or the police station where they're based.

And that extra cost is the difference between a family making it each month and slightly going under. And that is who we're speaking for today. And it is for the people who are paying their tax, who are working hard, who want to do the right thing but are being punished by this fuel duty increase. Now, I'm also impacted in my constituency by off grid heating oil. I myself have off grid heating oil, and many of my constituents in Dorney, in Woburn and Bourne End, Flackwell Heath, Ivies.

We are so impacted by this off grid heating oil and although we have a proximity to London, we actually are very rural and this increase in cost, I have more pensioners per capita than pretty much anywhere else in. I mean, well, maybe Madam Deputy Speaker you may you may be a number one winner and I could come second, but this extra cost will push my pensioners into poverty. They are barely making ends meet right now. They are humbly going about their business.

They all need transport as well. We have poor transport links so people need to use their cars and my pensioners will be adversely affected by this fuel duty increase and I. It is just incredibly unfair that this is coming in now when oil prices. Given the current level of world events, are causing oil prices to increase anyways. And now on top of that, families and workers and the taxpayer are going to be punished further. And, Madam Deputy Speaker, it would be hard to imagine having this debate today without mentioning the former hon.

Member of Harlow, my friend Robert Hawthorne, who led the charge in raising the issue of fuel duty for years. He was the passionate voice making this clear across the House because high fuel duty taxes are regressive, they affect working people the most. They are a brake on economic growth. We all saw the golden moment on Sunday morning, when the harsh inconvenience of the facts hit the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net zero. The fact that 38% of the cost of petrol is down to fuel duty, a tax entirely in the hands of the government.

Now, this Secretary of State, who could power the entire country with hot air, seemed to get the message, slowly but surely, and there is no problem to which the answer isn't a faster and more ruinous race to net zero. Putting ideology ahead of working families to govern, Madam Deputy Speaker, is to choose, and this government always chooses the most damaging

**** Possible New Speaker ****

economic pathway for families. I will give way. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. She's giving an giving way. She's giving an excellent speech. As usual, I wondered whether she was aware of analysis from the Taxpayers Alliance, which says that the average household will pay £40,000 in fuel duty over a lifetime under the Chancellor's plans that several thousand pounds more than the median disposable income for a household. Does she feel, as I do, that this is an unsustainable burden on people who are already

**** Possible New Speaker ****

struggling to get by? Jo White. It's a shocking burden and it is a burden that many people will not, a burden that many people will not, and many hard working families will not be able to bear. And I'm often not be able to bear. And I'm often told by the sort of London elite that people need to switch to electric cars. They need to do all electric cars. They need to do all these things. Many cannot afford an electric car. Many cannot afford the cost of electricity.

Many the cost of electricity. Many cannot even afford to put fuel in their petrol car. And families will be at breaking point, and they have no other alternative to take their child to school, to take their child to the doctor. It will cause families that that extra burden is what can push a family completely over the edge and. We need to make our economy competitive again. We need to look at ways that we can make energy and fuel affordable for everyone.

And sadly, working people with more costs and higher taxes, while pumping more money into benefit Britain through the weakness of a Prime Minister without backbone, it is time to put working people first. It is time for another government U-turn.
14:28
James Wild Portrait James Wild MP (North West Norfolk, Conservative)
-
-
James Wild. >> Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. In these difficult circumstances, whilst the cost of circumstances, whilst the cost of living remains high, with a backdrop of global uncertainty, increasing fuel duty would be the increasing fuel duty would be the wrong choice. Not my words as it happens, but I agree with them. In fact, that was what the Chancellor said in her first Budget and having increased taxes by £40 billion in that Budget, people might have thought that would have been the end of the talk of fuel tax hikes.

But this government's approach is all about higher spending, higher taxation and higher borrowing. So it wasn't that surprising when, in her second Budget, the Chancellor set out plans to scrap the five per litre cut introduced by the conservative government in 2022, a cut, remember, introduced in the wake of price increases after Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine. And we introduced that cut in recognition that for rural communities like mine in north west Norfolk, a car, a van is a lifeline.

It's not a luxury. They connect farmers to market, help children get to school. As my hon. Friend referred to allow people to get to work or health appointments and keep rural enterprises in business, and every penny added to the cost of fuel has a bigger impact in areas where public transport is limited and journeys are longer. This would be the first fuel duty tax rise for 15 years, taking £3.6 billion from hard pressed motorists. Unless Labour members support our motion, that tax increase will take effect from September this year and see the average family paying £150 more a year, the Road Haulage Association estimates that this increase would add £2,300 a year to the operating costs of an HGV.

Little wonder they describe these measures as a hammer blow for many small businesses. But it gets worse. Madam Deputy Speaker. Labour members often like to talk about the last 14 years of conservative government, but one thing we did over those 14 years was to freeze fuel duty. But from next April, the government will end that freeze and inflation linked rises will then follow. So that will mark the end of support for motorists. That is calculated to have been worth £120 billion over the period of conservative government and through this debate.

Once again, it is the Conservatives speaking up for the British people. When my hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition, challenged the Prime Minister about fuel duty increases last week, he wanted to talk about anything by that topic, as he did again this week, but under pressure, he is beginning to shift his position and has said that this increase is now under review. Where is his leadership? It is utterly lacking. And Labour members, where are the Labour members? None on the backbenches prepared to stand up and speak in this debate.

Even the hon. Member for Rugby is notable by his absence, and they will be whipped today to vote against our motion like they were on the family farm tax, like they were on winter fuel payment cuts, like they were on having a national grooming gang inquiry and more. But I suspect due to their absence, they can sense that another U-turn is coming and the Minister once again is at the despatch box having to defend a policy like he did with the family farm tax, which he knows is probably going to be changed again, like the landfill tax, 3,000% increase that was also ditched by the government under pressure.

It's just that the Prime Minister is too weak to actually make a decision. Now he wants to go up to his study and read some more papers alone, and ponder it and think about what he should actually do. But when people are feeling increasingly that they're working harder and getting less, and that too many people are being signed off on sickness benefits, the government is making their life harder on Labour's watch. Inflation has increased, unemployment is rising month after month and Labour members constituents will see when they had the opportunity to stand up for families who rely on their cars to stand up for the white van man, to stand up for people in rural communities.

They utterly failed to do so. And when the Chancellor was asked about this fuel tax hike and if she would reverse it, she said something very revealing. She said, I'm very loathe to spend government money on something the market should be doing. Government money. There's no such thing as taxpayers money. But this government considers that everyone's money belongs to the state, and they should be thankful to keep some of it. And that attitude explains the £66 billion of tax increases under Labour to fund higher welfare.

It explains the failure of the government to control spending and to live within our means. And it explains why the tax burden is at a record high and only going to increase. And the impact is seen in the latest British Social Attitudes survey, where support for higher spending and taxation is falling and support for lower taxes and lower spending is growing. And that's the approach that the Conservative Party has set out, making £47 billion of savings in public spending, including £23 billion on welfare, and the Minister can have those ideas for free, and we're using half of that to reduce the deficit and the other half to get the economy growing by scrapping stamp duty, by scrapping business rates for 250,000 leisure, retail and hospitality businesses.

But the government is putting up tax at a time of growing uncertainty, and making higher prices is the wrong choice. And that's why I'll be voting to ease the burden on the British motorists and against Labour's fuel duty hike.
14:34
Peter Fortune Portrait Peter Fortune MP (Bromley and Biggin Hill, Conservative)
-
-
Peter Fortune thank you very >> Peter Fortune thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. My constituents in Bromley and Biggin Hill have borne the brunt of Hill have borne the brunt of Labour's slew of anti motorist policies and the impending fuel rise and the impending rise of fuel rise and the impending rise of fuel duty is yet another attack on Bromley motorists. 80% of the households in Bromley and Biggin Hill have at least one car or van, significantly higher than the average in Greater London, and driving is often a necessity for my constituents, particularly those in Biggin Hill, where public transport is often unreliable.

Driving charges in London can now cost up to £40 a day, but even more if you are a van driver. This is a direct result of this Labour government and Sadiq Khan's policies. For a rise in fuel duty will see that cost increase further. In April last year, Sadiq Khan imposed a new toll on the Blackwall Tunnel for cars crossing at peak times. The toll costs them £8 a day for a trip across the river and back. But for van drivers, the bill is £13.

This toll also means there is now only one free crossing east of Tower Bridge at Rotherhithe. This is on top of Labour's expanding Ulez and the congestion charge, fuel costs and parking charges. It's becoming simply impossible for people to drive to work in London, impacting everyone reliant on driving from tradesmen to NHS workers on shifts. Now, back when I was a London Assembly member, I worked to expose Mayor Khan's preparations for road pricing in London, which London centric fully exposed late last year.

Under Labour's plans, motorists could be charged £0.40 per mile for driving in outer London, £0.60 per mile in inner London and £2 per mile with a £5 fee for central London. Now the mayor has repeatedly denied he plans to introduce this pay per mile pricing. But this government's decision to introduce a pay per mile tax on electric vehicles is exactly the sort of cover he needs to introduce it, and I want to reassure my constituents in Bromley and Biggin Hill that I remain steadfastly against pay per mile pricing, and naturally, my constituents were furious to hear.

The Chancellor announced that from April 2027, the fuel duty freeze, which has been in place for 16 years, will be scrapped along with the £0.05 cut in place under the put in place by the previous government, and that fuel duty will begin to rise with the retail price index, with prices at the pump spiking as a result of the conflict in Iran, the argument for retaining the fuel duty relief introduced by the previous government to support cash strapped motorists is even stronger.

And in Bromley and Biggin Hill, we don't have London Underground or DLR. Biggin Hill doesn't even have a train station. People are highly reliant on cars and the Labour Party here and in City Hall needs to understand that the government and the Mayor of London must end their war on motorists and scrap their fuel duty rise and any plans for further attacks on motorists before it's too late.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sian Berry thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are consequences for people using all forms of transport in their daily lives and work from our current and lives and work from our current and persistent reliance on oil for transport from the current rising transport from the current rising costs due to instability in the Middle East and from the ongoing Middle East and from the ongoing freeze in fuel duty. And I agree with the government today, along with all the many backbenchers that have joined in to support the government's case, that it is far too soon to consider the demand for a commitment to further multiple ongoing freezes that the Conservatives motion asks for.

The fact remains that ending the conflict in the Gulf and wider Middle East is the best way to ease fuel market price rises and the risk of. I will not give way for a moment. Thank you. And the risk of profiteering by fuel providers is a far greater threat to household budgets than fuel duty collected for the public purse, and the Conservatives should also consider considering the consequences before offering their support for any more

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of President Trump's appallingly badly thought out decisions. I will give one. I'm very.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very. Concerned giving way. And at what point would the Green Party feel that we should step in to feel that we should step in to support those in rural communities? Green party is often talk about the support needs to be there and government needs to do more. But at government needs to do more. But at the same time, she's arguing that if we can't de-escalate because this is not our war, how do we support our constituents in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support our constituents in Hinckley and Bosworth, her constituency, and up and down the UK? Thank you, the hon. Member, for their intervention. My speech will continue to put the case for alternative interventions that will help everybody in every family in the constituencies mentioned.
14:39
Siân Berry Portrait Siân Berry MP (Brighton Pavilion, Green Party)
-
-
Campaign for Better Transport has pointed out to the Chancellor that the total cost of cancelling all the planned increases to fuel duty, in line with RPI since 2011, has brought real term cuts for motorists. For 14 years and cost motorists. For 14 years and cost the Treasury a cumulative £133 the Treasury a cumulative £133 billion between 20 1112 and 2024 to 25. The additional £0.05 cut, meant as a temporary measure when introduced five years ago, has cost £13 billion alone since then, and the freeze has been regressive.

The fuel duty freeze is has helped the richest 10th of households save nearly three times as much as the poorest 10th. And the soap. Sorry. And the fact remains, the poorest people who can afford no holidays. Whether the government agrees to this motion or not are not driving or owning cars. And yet, through all this time, the cost of bus and rail travel. Not at the moment. Thank you. And yet, through all this time, the cost of bus and rail travel upon which those who cannot afford to own a car rely has continued to rise and rise.

And I will give.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I completely understand what you're saying about public transport, but in rural communities transport, but in rural communities like mine in Yeovil and Somerset, there is no public transport. So how can someone get to college? How can someone get to work? How can apprentices actually get a job? What you're saying is great, but What you're saying is great, but that's a ten year plan. We need action now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I don't believe yes. Start again. I apologise for saying you will the will the member agree with me that that plan is for the next ten years. We need change now. We need

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fuel duty sorted out now. Remember, I'm not aware of that yet. Outlined my plans. I've merely yet. Outlined my plans. I've merely complained about the rising cost of bus and rail fares that is accompanied continued freezes in accompanied continued freezes in fuel duty. So I will move on to the next point in my speech. Hon. next point in my speech. Hon. Members must remember that even in a given family with a car that is a given family with a car that is just about managing the poorest and most disadvantaged members of that family, and I am very aware of the manner spherical gender ratio there has been in this chamber throughout this debate, and this is pertinent to this point, the poorest and most disadvantaged members of any given family that owns a car will be most likely the spouses and the children of the main driver and these people in any part of the country, including in rural areas, often have little or no access to the basic mobility a car can provide.

They are dependent on good public transport services, often absent. They are dependent on safe streets, often absent, and they are dependent on these services to access their jobs, their daily lives and essential services. When that car is in use by the main this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to you. But as she rightly points out, if someone is using an alternative transport like buses, they're still affected like buses, they're still affected by fuel duty as well, even more so. And on top of that, we've already seen this government increase the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

seen this government increase the cost of a bus fare ticket by 50%. So her argument doesn't hold water. Before the Member for Brighton

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before the Member for Brighton Pavilion response. If you are taking an intervention and there are multiple interventions, please indicate whose intervention that indicate whose intervention that you are taking. It makes it easy for the chair to know exactly whose name to call Sian Berry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My apologies. I'm not. I am, I confess, not used to being intervened on in this fashion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm coming more. Often a minority in this chamber, but someone has to make these but someone has to make these points and I will continue to do so.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You don't have to. The. The point about buses is, is is well made. There needs to be is is well made. There needs to be bus services and there needs to be controls on the fares of buses, which there have not been until recent years. These are ongoing injustices that have compounded over the years. While while people buying fuel from the pumps have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

been somewhat protected. But I'm not saying there are easy answers. I'm grateful to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to. The honourable order. Is the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

member taking the intervention? Marvellous. I'm grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker The hon. Lady giving way. I think she has potentially misunderstood my hon. Friend's intervention, which is that she is intervention, which is that she is making the case perfectly rightly, for better public transport in this country. But bus companies, train operators running diesel trains, of which there are still a number, pay fuel duty too. And if fuel duty goes up, that will impact fares.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We do need more robust interventions do need more robust interventions on fares as well, and we do need much more help for bus companies to be able to switch to to electric be able to switch to to electric vehicles and to electrify their fleets. I raised many of these points during the debates on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

points during the debates on the Bus Services Bill committee, and I give my. Because we know that Trump's illegal war. In Iran has absolutely driven up.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Global oil prices. And to give an example, I just yesterday visited Edward Thomas and Son, which is a coach company in Epsom and Ewell. And last Thursday, they were forced to accept an unpriced oil delivery for their regular order of white diesel at 31,080 £0.02 for 18,000l. In February, the same order was 23,614. It's almost a 30% increase. 90% of their work is helping children get to school, to go on school trips, etc. Does the hon. Member not agree with me that this is just unacceptable? These are people

**** Possible New Speaker ****

trying to go about their day to day lives just getting to school. Madam Deputy Speaker I have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker I have incredible sympathy for the people whose cases have been outlined in the course of this debate, and I believe I am setting out a case for action that is that is going to action that is that is going to make a difference, including de-escalating the conflict in the Middle East, which the hon. Members Middle East, which the hon. Members who have been intervening on me briefly supported. I would like to sort of I would like to move on now to the alternative plans.

Transport and Environment has reminded us in its briefing recently ahead of the spring statement at the investments and initiatives that are really needed to help people in transport, poverty and the Social Market Foundation, indeed has pointed out that despite over £100 billion being spent on cuts and freezes to fuel duty, this has made little impact on transport poverty. We have to find ways that are better value for money. Transport and environment have suggested salary sacrifice, public transport, travel cards, reinstating the £2 bus fare caps and in the current context, targeted payments for people who are vulnerable.

Direct support for small businesses, sole traders and low income households. Making sure the help reaches those most exposed to the energy price rises, not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

repeating the regressive tax cuts that have taken place. I will give way to Margaret. Oh thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh thank you. I thank the hon. Member for giving way. And I would just like giving way. And I would just like to say, would you agree with me that in Wales we have it's fantastic news that the Welsh fantastic news that the Welsh Labour Government has put in place a £1 cap on bus fares for young a £1 cap on bus fares for young people and a £3 fare for all older people, people over 18. And isn't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that a fantastic use of funding in the Welsh Labour Government? Thank you. Madam Speaker. I do agree those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Speaker. I do agree those are good initiatives and I would also celebrate the initiatives of the Government in Scotland. LED initiative led by the Green Party there, where bus fares are now free there, where bus fares are now free for people under 22. Young people desperately need this support because they rarely have access to because they rarely have access to the family car. As I mentioned earlier in my speech, I also want to remind the House of the good value that these interventions represent.

They are all good value for money and analysis by the Climate Change Committee just this month has reminded all of us that we can significantly reduce the UK's exposure to volatile fossil fuel markets. If we just think a little bit further into the future and get things done. The committee estimates that the transition would cost around £4 billion a year to make our climate targets. That is the cost of one oil shock like we are experiencing now, but it would deliver huge, huge benefits, including resilience.

The next time this happens and we can predict it might. I would give way exactly to the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and I thought I'd give her some further relief from the interventions of the manosphere. On the party opposite, she's talking about the importance of investing about the importance of investing in clean energy in order to make our country more resilient, to do the right thing for the planet. And the right thing for the planet. And does she agree with me that doing that is often more cost effective for families as well? In fact, just for families as well? In fact, just last week I met with five communities, Climate Action Network in my constituency, and they were talking about some of the great work, great work that they do to encourage and support insulation of people's homes.

For example. Does she agree that that is positive and sorry?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No, no. Have you finished your intervention? Point of order in the intervention? Point of order in the middle of. Let me just let me let the intervention finish. Let's conclude quickly. Then we'll take the point of order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the point of order. And does she agree that the. Investing in clean energy, clean, clean, clean, green, home grown

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clean, clean, green, home grown energy is the way to make sure that we have energy security for our country in the future? Doctor Luke Evans, a point of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Doctor Luke Evans, a point of order in the middle of intervention, I assume this is very pertinent and very urgent. I'm grateful for the chance to
14:49
Luke Evans Portrait Points of Order Dr Luke Evans MP (Hinckley and Bosworth, Conservative)
-
-
raise this intervention. And it's with regards to the intervention that was made in terms of labelling this side the manosphere, I would this side the manosphere, I would urge the chair to preside over whether or not that is something that's suitable to bring in sex to that's suitable to bring in sex to use as a pejorative, just because there happens to be men sat on this side of the chamber debating it. If I was to use it the opposite way round, I would envisage that there could be a problem if I was to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

could be a problem if I was to label all females. Problem. You've missed the speakers. Doctor Luke Evans. You have most definitely got your point on the record. Unfortunately, the chair is not responsible for the language used by members. If only we were. If only we were. But you've laboured your point and it's most definitely on the record. Sian

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Berry may wish to respond to that or not, or continue with her speech. I would very much like to continue with my speech. Madam continue with my speech. Madam Deputy Speaker, but also to agree agree with the intervention I just agree with the intervention I just received. We will never, ever truly protect the families who are protect the families who are struggling with daily living costs driven by fossil fuel dependence. If we don't get our economy and our transport system completely off, the addiction to oil and gas that
14:50
Siân Berry Portrait Siân Berry MP (Brighton Pavilion, Green Party)
-
-
it suffers from. And I would also like to remind the House that every like to remind the House that every £1 invested in achieving climate targets is estimated by the Climate Change Committee to generate between 2 and £4 in wider economic benefits. These include major benefits. These include major public health improvements and NHS savings that could reach another £130 billion by 2050. This is all excellent investments that have been resisted for years and years and years by people who should know better.

So finally, I would like to just quote the Social Market Foundation who have said that government policy to keep freezing fuel duty has inadvertently hurt drivers with policies that end up encouraging car use. They argue that the bigger issue is a lack of investment in alternatives to driving, keeping people reliant on costly cars. So for these reasons, and because the Conservatives should should also consider if they wanted to do the measures they asked for without corresponding consequences for public services, health and well-being, they might have considered that air travellers pay no fuel duty at all in this country, that air travel demand is driven by the most wealthy passengers with the broadest shoulders, including those in the private jets owned by Conservative Party donors and other owners of private jets as well, and that their motion could have gone further and been more practical and less short term in its thinking altogether.

But it remains to me to say that green MPs will not be supporting the conservative motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

today, and I'm grateful for the time that the House has given me to explain why. Doctor Luke Evans.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Doctor Luke Evans. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And I come here today with a mission actually to start with. Unfortunately, for the last two years, I haven't followed closely enough the Labour Party's position enough the Labour Party's position when it comes to what they want to deliver, because I've lost track of whether we're talking about pillars whether we're talking about pillars or aims or priorities or staging points or milestones or foundations. But I do know that at the start of the year, the latest reinvention was a mission, a mission focussed on the cost of living.

Now, this was a slight change, I must admit, from when the government came in, because it's a main aim at that point was to go for growth. That was the government's number one priority. Alas, as we've seen, that isn't happening in the last. Figures say it's 0%. What's more, it was very evident that all the government policies that were being being put in place were actually anti-growth, and that's what we're starting to see. So surprise, surprise, of course, of all vulnerable members giving.
14:54
Luke Evans Portrait Dr Luke Evans MP (Hinckley and Bosworth, Conservative)
-
-
Away in a pithy sentence, could he describe the mission of the Conservative Party? >> To win the next election? >> Yeah, yeah yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah yeah, yeah. Because then we can deliver the change that we're talking about. change that we're talking about. But when we come back to the cost of living, which is this government's number one aim for January, it seems bizarre then that the measures are being brought in place are actually nothing but to support it. The Prime Minister went on the news on Monday with a five point plan to deal with what's going on. Energy bills capped.

Yes, we already know that because it was announced in the Budget and the cap is in place until July. Full fuel duty extended until September. Yes, we knew that because it was in the Budget and then it's set to rise. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him very much for giving way. Could you tell us what the way. Could you tell us what the policy of the Conservative Party was in relation to fuel duty at the was in relation to fuel duty at the last election? By my recollection, it was that fuel duty would have been higher under the Conservatives

**** Possible New Speaker ****

been higher under the Conservatives government. We are grateful. And the best way to decide how someone is going to behave in the future is to look to behave in the future is to look at their past habits. We froze duty for 15 years and actually when there was a crisis that hit in 2022, what did we do? We reduced it. This is exactly the point I am trying to make when she's intervened, because the government has come up with a plan, which is a talking shop, not doing anything because the announcement in response to Iran has simply been to announce what was announced in the Budget and yet have further conversations with the CMA and the heating oil firms to try and work out whether or not they should or shouldn't do something.

This is precisely the point I am making. The rhetoric from the government is we are going to go for growth and puts an anti-growth policies. It now says cost of living is the number one priority, but is now focusing on simply talking about it and making things worse. That is the fundamental. Of course, I'll take

**** Possible New Speaker ****

another intervention. Well, it's not just talking about it. We put £53 million into into supporting costs of heating oil. That's that's doing something about it. You took to the Conservative Party, took 200 days in opposition to do that when they were in government to do that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very. Grateful for her pointing this out, because I was actually the energy in the department during all energy in the department during all this time, and has seen exactly how this worked and what it looked like and how difficult it is to put these measures in place. And so let me remind her, what the Conservatives did do was put in a £200 unconditional payment for anyone off grid that they could claim. That's very different and a stark difference from this government, which has £53 million put across the entire nation, of which there were 1.5 million people off grid on heating oil.

That means if you divide that out, that's £35 per person and they've ring fenced it. So it's only for the hardest houses hit. So most people and most households actually won't get any payment at all. This is exactly the very point that I am trying to make here. The government talks a good game, but when it comes to delivery,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it is not doing what it says. That of course I'll take another. Yeah. He's making some impassioned

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He's making some impassioned points here around heating oil. Just a simple one for him. Does he believe that the war in Iran believe that the war in Iran increases or doesn't increase the cost of heating oil, and therefore we reject the escalation points

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we reject the escalation points that his own leader has called for in entering that war in the first place. I mean, of course, it increases

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I mean, of course, it increases the risk. This was the American's choice to go in to do that war, and we're all now having the impact of it. The question and the debate is, what are we doing and what measures are being taken. We're discussing fuel duty, which his government, as it currently stands, is going to increase in September. And I've asked for the government, while we're doing this, to talk about the framework and the trigger points, because we did hear from the Minister, which I was glad to hear, that it is under consideration.

What we need to know is when is that consideration? What are the trigger points? Because as I rightly highlighted, we've seen all this before in 2022. So we know what it looks like and we know how difficult it is to get to the canal boats, to the park homes, to those people off grid.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. The fifth point was exactly that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The fifth point was exactly that de-escalation. But the Prime Minister has no control of how to de-escalate. If he says he's not involved in the war, I'm all in favour of bringing de-escalation. But that isn't a domestic policy that's going to bring down the cost that's going to bring down the cost of living. If there's nothing tangible to come from it and why tangible to come from it and why this all matters the most. I live in a rural constituency. I represent a rural constituency that is about 85% agricultural.

We sit in the very heart of England at the centre of the logistics industry. That means every single day, men and women from across Barwell, L Shilton, Donisthorpe, get up, drive their vans, go out, drive their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

lorries and support the the economy. Of course. I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Sam from my constituency works in a local constituency works in a local haulage company. He tells me the average profit margin for a company like his is 2%, while costs for like his is 2%, while costs for typical running a lorry has increased by 22%. Does the hon. Member agree that this government Member agree that this government must support start supporting instead of damaging this injury we rely on to deliver essential goods,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rely on to deliver essential goods, starting by cancelling the planned fuel price? He's absolutely right and his association has rightly pointed out for my member who's no longer in this seat, has estimated as an extra about £2,000 with the fuel duty change. On top of that, we also know that the the change was going to hit the individual, household or car owner by about £140. So when the government talks about it's making differences. For example, the warm house discount or freezing energy prices, they're already evaporated by the very nature that the fuel duty escalation is going to hit on top of the prices that are rising because of Iran.

And when you're working in the logistics industry, you are so susceptible to these these fluctuations. And it's right that we all want to move to electricity. But at this point in time, that isn't going to happen immediately. Many of the arguments around here, I do not disagree with about our direction of where we need to get to. The question is, what can we do now in light of the reaction from Iran? So my constituents don't have a choice about whether or not they should walk or get a bus, because we are, by definition, rule.

They rely on their car. This will hit their cost of living by the very nature of the way it comes in. Contrast that with a 14 years, 15 years of conservative government, we're always hearing that's usually the stock answer when we hear from a Labour opposition. Gosh, 14 years. Yes, 14 years. We froze that fuel duty because we recognise the impact it has on our household. We recognise the impact it has on your white van, man who's outworking your delivery driver, your lady who's moving from Hinckley to take a package up to Appleby Magna.

These people really need that support and the change that we're making and did make and deliver has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

an impact, and I'll give way at that point. I'm grateful to my hon. Friend for. Giving way. Does he agree with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Giving way. Does he agree with me that small businesses, not only in Bridgwater but across the country, were hit last year by the country, were hit last year by the Chancellor's jobs tax, this year by the additional burden of the Unemployment Act and higher business rates, and the prospect of higher fuel duty in September will be disastrous, not just for families who use their car for personal transport, but also every small business.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, is it true? Star? The Knight of the realm recognises my very next point, because actually very next point, because actually all of these policies are taken with context. And context is so with context. And context is so important because each government may need to raise taxes at some point. But is it this toxic concoction of employment rights and more red tape of business rates going up and the support around business rates being taken away, fuel duty going up, NICs going up, minimum wage going up, all in isolation might be a good idea and may need to be done for support.

But taken all together, it runs against growth and it runs against the cost of living, which are the government's milestones, mantras, missions, whatever you want to call it. And that brings us and it's been touched on. But more importantly, I'd like to expand on the electric charging vehicles and the pay per mile that's being brought in in the future. This has brought huge consternation to many of my constituents. When I raised this straight after the Budget, I was blown away by the number of people from across the country who contacted me.

After seeing my question about how would this work? Because there are simple, fundamental questions that the government hasn't set about addressing. For example, what happens in the second hand market? Who is actually judging when the mileage is being done? Are we likely to have monitors in our car? It's meant to be done at an m o t. So what happens if you sell your car six months into it? What happens if you live in Northern Ireland and you commute across into the Republic of Ireland? Where does the tax go there? What happens if you drive to Europe? Many people like to holiday caravan, for example, from my constituency or caravan down to France.

Where do they pay their tax? How does that work? And that's how the stalling growth on the electric car market, because many people going, I made the choice. I wanted to do the right thing for the environment, for my family. And because it's a good decision to make, and now they're regretting those decisions. And we've seen the electric car market stall because of that. So I'd like to pose to the government, how does this impact come when we're talking about fuel duty, and where do those measures fit in the framework of an Iranian war that continues? And in looking to close this, where I started, I agree.

In this place we can have a difference of opinion of when is the right time to do something. I am pleased that the Minister spoke that everything is under consideration. That's really important for those listening outside, and the punch of duty of this place. On who's policy was right, who was wrong, what's happened before? At the end of the day, it's the families in Hinckley and Bosworth who will be looking at their budgets, looking at the uncertainty they see on the TV, trying to make their decisions of what they should do.

So I would simply ask the Minister, in closing to try and outline for us all what considerations they would make about making a trigger point to make a change. Will it be a certain price value for heating oil? Will it be a certain price value for petrol? Will it be a certain duration of this conflict? Because none of us know when this conflict will end. All these questions could be addressed with a framework that we've learnt from before, from our time on this side of the House in government.

In 2022, when we had to from scratch, come up with the support schemes that were put in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

place that learning. I will. I think actually he's he's right, Madam Deputy Speaker to draw attention to that £0.05 fuel duty cut the height of the the 2022 cut the height of the the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. But it was too slow and would he therefore remind the House of what was the remind the House of what was the level that it got to of diesel at the pump when the £0.05 cup came in?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the pump when the £0.05 cup came in? Was it £2? It was far too late, wasn't it? Forgive me. I'm happy to give way if he knows what the value was at that point. I don't know what it was because I was working in the Energy Department, trying to help support those very households who were struggling and suffering, particularly the likes of the caravan parks, the static homes, the canal boats who were all off grid, who suffer by the very nature of where they get their fuel.

And you're right, we had to take it in the round. I've heard the Chancellor say it a multiple times. How long will this go on for? It is under consideration. What I am asking for is not about when the decision is made and how to make that decision. It's more understanding at what point we make those decisions that for the Chancellor to decide, now is the right time to step in, because it may well be that it was too late, the lessons could be learnt.

How do we know? That's the question I'm posing to the civil servants in this government, because his party are now in charge to set that out, to decide when is too long, when is too late. I would argue the current payment out of the 53 million is not enough for my constituents, because many of them will not benefit because they won't fall under the Resilience Fund and what the government has done under the Resilience Fund that was the building of the Household fund is simply delegate this decision making down to the council's.

The last government, when we were in charge, chose not to do that because we wanted to support everyone who was struggling. It's this government's job to set out why it's not going to do that. And I would simply argue and close on this by keeping that fuel duty rise in line coming in September, it's going to make a terribly difficult time for any of us who are driving cars or running a businesses that use vehicles. Because let's not forget, in July the price cap will change on energy.

The government has rightly said this is frozen until then, but of course, the impact on the prices will not come through the system until July. So very quickly in July, we may well see prices and the price cap rise at the same time. This fuel duty comes in in September. And we're back to my honourable knight from the realms point of this toxic concoction, all happening at once, and my simple urge to the government is to be aware of that. Set out the trigger points and the framework.
15:08
Dave Doogan Portrait Dave Doogan MP (Angus and Perthshire Glens, Scottish National Party)
-
-
Dave, do. I raised this with the Chancellor. This entirely inevitable circumstance. I raised it with the Chancellor this spring statement, Chancellor this spring statement, and she did something she's given to do, which was sort of briefly glaze over and then talk about the strength and the broad shoulders of the Treasury because of the difficult decisions that she has taken, as though they affected her and not the working people up and down these islands who have had their bank accounts raided by an insatiable appetite for yet more and more tax from this government.

How could I not give way to the the Scottish Labour MP who's managed to come in here for the tail end of way?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Melanie Ward thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. That was a little bit unnecessary. I just wondered, bit unnecessary. I just wondered, he's talking about raising taxes, and I just wondered whether he acknowledged that the SNP, Scottish acknowledged that the SNP, Scottish Government actually has higher taxes in place than the government in England.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in England. Well, I'm very happy to explain that to her, if that's OK. When I get to that element of my speech, get to that element of my speech, which I will do. Madam Deputy Speaker in due course, the other thing that really irritates me about this government is the way they talk about the transition, the just transition, because on the one hand, they say, well, we'll be using fossil fuels for another 50 years and we'll be producing them in the United Kingdom as though they hold all the levers.

Let me explain something to the government front bench. If they continue to apply Labour's atrophying interventions in the North Sea oil and gas sector, the industry, which I do not know if this is news to the Ministers, is global, will go somewhere where they can make a living and they can make a profit, and they do not have some sort of nefarious government taxing them out of existence. So this specific issue to do with the motion today of the £0.05 fuel duty, and it's regressive, that much is pretty clear, but it's also iniquitous.

And it's particularly iniquitous to people who live in parts of these islands that are more remote, like my constituency. Now, I see that the Member for Gordon and Buckingham is back in the chamber, and it's not a competition, as she set out when she detailed that her constituency is 2076km square, because Angus and Perthshire Glens is 5525km² and it's 166% larger actually. But it's not a competition. I of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the. Hon. Member and my almost neighbour for giving way. And although my night might be the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

although my night might be the biggest, it's definitely the prettiest. OK Dave Doogan.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

OK Dave Doogan. This is where I practice respectful disagreement. Madam respectful disagreement. Madam Deputy Speaker But for rural areas like the hon. Ladies and like mine and many others across all four and many others across all four nations, this is really challenging. There is not limited access to public transport in many places such as ours. There is no access to public transport in any meaningful sense. Also, remote areas get a lot more winter. They tend to drive and work in more agricultural professions.

They try to tend to drive larger, heavier vehicles, which are more fuel hungry. So you're going to end up paying more. The deliveries have to come from further and so far, and that all gets added to the cost. And of course, it adds to the cost of councils delivering public services, public services delivered in constituencies like mine are very much more expensive to deliver than those in Holborn and St Pancras. And it's to that point that we need to see how harder this will impact people in rural areas.

I looked at the Fuel Finder app and the BP station at the bottom of Montrose. Before you cross the river is £1.49 point £0.09 for a litre of petrol. If I go to the BP station over there at Vauxhall Bridge Road, Madam Deputy Speaker, it's £0.05 a litre cheaper. So people in Scotland are already paying the premium that people in London and the South East do not pay on their fuel, and the £0.05 that the Labour Party want to apply to it is now going to be on top of that and on heating oil.

The UK rate of oil consumption for heating is 4.9% and Angus and Perthshire Glens it's 13% 6101 households heating themselves with oil, which has gone up sometimes 150%, so you have 300 to £400. Delivery is now getting on for £1,000 and also punitive requirements for the volume that you that you get delivered. And there's a further 2000 people on tanker gas which is not to be forgotten in this cost spike crisis, which, as I say, are predicted to the Chancellor at the spring statement.

Now to the hon. Lady before she gets back on her feet, to the hon. Lady who asked me about tax, she should be aware, although she apparently isn't, that actually most income tax payers in Scotland pay less tax, and over and above that, her constituents do not have to pay for their tuition fees when they go to university. All of her constituents, like mine, pay 30% less for their council tax than people do in England and the Scottish living wage that her constituents benefit from is £0.74 per hour higher than the UK's minimum wage.

And of course, her constituents get the £40 Scottish Child Payment as well. On top of all the other benefits that the SNP have delivered, and on that I will take her intervention.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I could come back to him with all the ways in which my him with all the ways in which my constituents are getting really poor value for money in Scotland, such as cuts to police numbers in such as cuts to police numbers in Fife, excessively long waiting lists and the NHS which are not falling as they are under Labour government in England. But what I government in England. But what I did want to say was talking about heating oil is that he'll be aware.

In fact, he referenced, I think, In fact, he referenced, I think, the support that the Prime Minister announced on Monday an additional £4.6 million for the Scottish Government to support people in rural areas, vulnerable households dealing with the increases in heating oil caused by the war in the Middle East. Could he tell us when will the Scottish Government make that funding available to his constituents, but also to my constituents? When will they do that?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Dave Doogan thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I don't have the detail of what the Scottish Government's plans are, and I'm pretty certain that nobody in pretty certain that nobody in England or anywhere else in the in the United Kingdom has received the the United Kingdom has received the actual monetary support from that funding. But let's be really clear. Let's be really clear. When the Let's be really clear. When the Chancellor talks about the broad shoulders of the Treasury, thanks to her fiscal wit, if you can to her fiscal wit, if you can believe that she.

She's come up with £52.4 million, which when you divide it across a number of people who will need that support, it comes out about £35. That's £35 of support. Madam Deputy Speaker from a Labour government who, for people who are seeing a 700 odd pound price shock to their heating oil and somebody somewhere in the Treasury needs to get themselves a calculator. But the the. And it's inflationary. Madam Deputy Speaker this is going to go to the price of goods and services, which will all of which will then subsequently have added on to it.

All of which is going to have an inflationary impact, because £0.05 on the price of fuel is actually £6, because it's added before the VAT is added to the fuel. So it's actually not that at all. I am pretty certain that you can read in the government's amendment to this motion, the vacuous nature that they've applied themselves to this subject with. I, like other honourable hon. Members, are pretty confident, perhaps a wee bit closer to the election time in May, in Scotland and in Wales, that the government will suddenly find the wit to scrap this hike in fuel duty.

And actually, I'm quite happy for them to do that. But as other people have pointed out, Madam Deputy Speaker, households are in crisis now and now is the time for a government to lead, and that will never happen with a Labour government.
15:16
Robbie Moore Portrait Robbie Moore MP (Keighley and Ilkley, Conservative)
-
-
Robbie Moore thank you, Madam. >> Robbie Moore thank you, Madam. >> Deputy Speaker, and it is good to speak in this debate on a to speak in this debate on a subject that is impacting all of our hard working businesses, our families, our hauliers, those involved in the logistics industry, those that are going to be impacted by the rise in fuel duty. Because what's clear is Labour are planning to put up fuel duty for the first time. Madam Deputy Speaker, in 15 years, despite the conflict in the Middle East, which is pushing up inflation and the cost of petrol at the pump, we see a Chancellor in her spring statement that said that this Labour government have the right economic plan and boosted and boasted that households would be better off doubling down on her plan to hike fuel duty and fund more welfare handouts and scrap the two child cap benefits, something, Madam Deputy Speaker, which is not benefiting those grafters, those individuals, those that are driving local economic growth across our constituencies, which is why increasing fuel duty for the first time in 15 years is such a negative approach, which is impacting all of those across our constituencies.

Now, last autumn, Madam Deputy Speaker, my constituent Leslie O'Brien got in touch with me with serious concerns about the ramifications of any potential fuel duty hikes on the road haulage sector, as well as well as being a trustee of the Road Haulage Association and founder of the Transport Forum, Freight People. Lesley is a joint managing director of Freight Link Europe, a haulage company based in West Yorkshire. In my constituency, it is a traditional family run business based on the core values of honesty, respect and a dedication to provide the best level of service to her customers.

However, businesses like Freight Link Europe and the hard working people that run them and are employed by them are currently facing unprecedented difficulties. Many haulage companies and those involved in the logistics have contacted me directly with their deep concerns. Through no fault of their own, the average profit margin for many of those businesses is now only has been significantly reduced to 2%, if not lower, and the cost of running a typical haulage business has increased by over 22% in recent years.

And I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will take an intervention from the hon. Lady. I thank you. Gentlemen, for giving. Me, and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Me, and. I just wanted to respond to the point he made a moment ago. He said something to the effect that the something to the effect that the the people who would benefit from our government lifting the two child benefit cap were not grafters. Does he not agree that the people Does he not agree that the people who benefit from lifting the two child benefit cap are actually children who were living in poverty, children who were living in poverty, and the majority of the households that those children live in are in fact in work.

They are grafters.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

OK. My firm view is that the government should be supporting all of those individuals to raise of those individuals to raise economic growth across the country. But the reality of it is by removing the two child cap, you are removing the two child cap, you are saying to those families that have fiscally worked out what their household spending power will be over a long period of time, that if you want to have more than two children, then the government will children, then the government will step in and pay for you, therefore negatively impacting those hard working businesses that have made those hard fiscal decisions throughout.

And the reality of it is, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you're increasing the level of welfare spending, you're not by taxing those like those businesses across my constituency, those involved in the haulage business, the logistic sector that are having now a hike in fuel price, you're negatively impacting those that are also driving economic growth and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

therefore for impacting all. I will give way. Hon. Gentleman. In a way, I think the point that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In a way, I think the point that my colleague was making is that contrary to what the hon. Member contrary to what the hon. Member said, parents of children who are disadvantaged by the two child benefit cap are in the majority working. They are grafters. They working. They are grafters. They are his constituents who are working often multiple jobs, just to make ends meet in a difficult cost of living crisis that we cost of living crisis that we inherited. Surely he's not calling the parents who will benefit from two child benefit cap lifting in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

his constituents works. I it's interesting that the. Hon. Gentleman comes along to this debate, a debate which is incredibly important. It's impacting all of our constituents, has not turned up in good enough has not turned up in good enough time, Madam Deputy Speaker, to make a speech on something to do with a fuel duty increase that is impacting all of his constituents, but wants to turn it back to a but wants to turn it back to a point that I've answered to the honourable, to the hon.

Member and the point that still stands. The reality of it is, if you are increasing taxes to those hardworking businesses, those hard working individuals across the board who want to drive economic growth and only then benefiting a very few, you're not providing the opportunities for many of those young people and those many hardworking families across all of our communities. And I will give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way to the hon. Member. Back in when we were in government, one of the reasons we government, one of the reasons we tried to solve this problem was actually changing the UC cut off limit from 63% down to 55%, which limit from 63% down to 55%, which meant you kept more money for the more work you did. This is exactly the way of trying to support people the way of trying to support people back into work so they have more of their own money, therefore incentivising work, not disincentivizing it.

There is an ideological difference here between it. We support work. The other option is just a handout. Does he agree?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, because the reality of it is by driving economic growth and is by driving economic growth and providing families and individuals with more money in their pockets, is to tax them less so that they have more of their own domestic have more of their own domestic spending power. Now, what we're seeing under this Labour government is them wanting to hit many is them wanting to hit many businesses, individuals with not one, not two, but three consecutive one, not two, but three consecutive fuel duty hikes in just a matter of months.

If these proposals go ahead, motorists haulage companies face being hit with the biggest tax burden in years. And Madam Deputy Speaker, the road haulage industry is critical to our nation's economic success. Goods are moved around daily and logistics are key to keeping our country moving. Everything we eat, drink, wear and consume depends on road haulage services like companies like Freight Link Europe that are providing that level of services service. It is road freight which moves 81% of all goods.

In fact, 98% of all agricultural and food products are moved around the country by road haulage, and the Road Haulage Association estimates that A5P fuel duty rise would result in a typical motor vehicle owning household, spending an extra £100 each year, and will increase the annual household spending by 91. £9 billion a whopping £7.3 billion over the course of the rest of this Parliament. Madam Deputy Speaker In my eyes, that is a significant additional tax burden that this government is putting on them.

And this is all at a time when the conflict in the Middle East is pushing up inflation and the cost of petrol at the pump. It is beyond belief that Labour wants to push ahead with this fuel duty

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hike, and. I will give way. My friend is making an excellent speech, but I just wanted to speech, but I just wanted to highlight to him the choices that people living in rural constituencies like my own are making. In Coldstream, the price of making. In Coldstream, the price of diesel has gone from around 141 a litre to 169 in the last few days, litre to 169 in the last few days, which is huge. But because of this prospective tax rise coming down the line from the Labour government, constituents are telling me they constituents are telling me they are looking at jobs, looking at alternatives because they have to drive to get to work.

A constituent has been offered a new job further, further away, so we'll have to drive further to get to that. Job is now thinking about turning that job down, because once the five k increase comes in in fuel, he will not be able to get to his job.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And my hon. Friend makes an excellent point and I'll come on to the dealing with the additional rural challenges. But he makes a rural challenges. But he makes a clear and concise point. The fact that if you're having to travel further for an opportunity to get work, you are going to be taxed work, you are going to be taxed more by this Labour government. And this is on top of the Labour government removing the Rural Service delivery grant to many of Service delivery grant to many of those local authorities that were operating with rural within rural communities that were providing additional levels of support.

We additional levels of support. We clearly have a government here that is not interested in backing and supporting our rural communities. And of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is on top of the employers National Insurance increase in top of business rates increasing, and now we have a fuel duty hike. It will impact care workers, our district nurses and our hospice sector, all of which, Madam Deputy Speaker, are being also impacted by the rise in employers National Insurance. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, a local level to me, we have an additional tax burden across the Bradford district.

We have the Clean Air Zone, which was rolled out several years ago now. Madam Deputy Speaker, if you have a non-compliant vehicle and you're wanting to travel into Bradford, an area which we all want to see economic growth thrive, and you're a taxi driver, you're going to be charged a daily charge of £7 to go into Bradford. Now, if you're a white van driver, you're going to be charged £9 to go into Bradford as a daily charge. And Madam Deputy Speaker, if you're operating a bus company or have a high heavy goods vehicle £50 a day to go into Bradford as a result of the choices that Labour run Bradford Council have made, now, the income that has come into Labour run Bradford Council from collecting this additional tax on our hard working businesses is £20 million, over the period which the Clean Air Zone has been in force across Bradford, something that I'm firmly opposed to now.

Madam Deputy Speaker, Bradford Council will tell you that they're going to be spending this money wisely and spending this money across the district, but from a Freedom of information request that I undertook to Bradford Council, I will contradict this narrative that they will put out, because in 2023, we found that over a six year period, just £4.1 million of all highway spending was spent within the Keighley and Ilkley constituency over a six year period. That's 4%. Now, to put this in context, in Bradford East, Bradford West and Bradford South, the spending was 19.2 million, 17.4 million and 13.1 million, respectively, illustrating that there is no fairness in how Bradford Council is willing to spend the money that they're collecting from the hard working constituents across the Keighley

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and Ilkley constituency. And on that point, I will give way. The Member for giving way. Which of the five conservative prime of the five conservative prime Ministers gave Bradford Council the right to introduce a clean air zone?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

right to introduce a clean air zone? The the Clean Air Zone was a roll out of a clean air zone was roll out of a clean air zone was given to local authorities to be able to make that decision. Now, there are some local authorities that have refused to make that that have refused to make that decision, like the mayor of Manchester, Andy Burnham, decided not to roll out a clean air zone, a Labour administration, a local level, actually making the right decision on this point.

But here, across the Bradford district, Labour run Bradford Council decided to impose an additional tax on hard working motorists. And of course, in my constituency, what that means is in places like East Morton, increased levels of traffic congestion, road usage, speeding on the outer areas outside of the Clean Air Zone, where motorists try to take a different road, a different direction to avoid any additional charge. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, Rural communities will also be hard hit, as been rightly pointed out by my hon.

Friend for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, many of which those businesses are our farming community, many of which have already been hit by additional cash flow implications. Now, one point that's not been raised in this debate so far is the increase in red diesel prices, which have spiked by 60% in the last month. Madam Deputy Speaker alone, as supplies remain tight. Now, from the research that I've done already, red diesel has increased by up to an average of 109 pence per litre in March, up from £0.67 a litre in February.

Farming businesses are reporting a variety of prices being quoted to them, ranging from 100 pence per litre to 130 £0.05 per litre in the last month alone, Madam Deputy Speaker, But this is a significant increase from 67% sorry, pence per litre in February, just last month that we have seen, and several farmers are quite rightly querying why red diesel prices appear to have increased much, much quicker and much more rapidly compared to road diesel and petrol prices. And therefore, I'd like to specifically ask the Minister what meetings he is having with DEFRA Ministers on this issue, specifically to do with red diesel, which is impacting cash flow right now of many of our hard working farmers.

And of course, this is in addition to De-linked payments, dramatically dropping the chop and change over the sustainable farming sector and the uncertainty that this government is putting on many of those working within our farming community. And that's on top of fertiliser prices going up. Madam Deputy Speaker now, the Prime Minister said earlier this week that he will always support working people, but what does that say to those hard working people across the country, across Keighley and Ilkley like Leslie O'Brien, who I mentioned earlier on in this speech, those businesses and employers who face bigger and bigger hurdles the longer this Labour government is in power, three consecutive rises in fuel duty is, quite frankly, Madam Deputy Speaker an insult to the hard working people across this country.

The Prime Minister and this government need to get a grip back our hard working businesses and show some. Empathy to those concerns that are consistently being raised on this side of the House. And, Madam Deputy Speaker, It's very disappointing, but perhaps not surprising that we've not heard one backbench contribution in an incredibly important debate from the Labour benches on this issue of fuel duty. Better.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In my own constituency in Moray, West and Strathspey, and without West and Strathspey, and without getting into a fight about who's got the biggest constituencies, it's in the top five in terms of it's in the top five in terms of geographic, geographic size. My constituents grapple on a daily constituents grapple on a daily basis with energy costs across the whole suite of energy measures that they have to use, whether that's road fuel, whether it's heating oil, whether it's tank gas or whether it's the electricity prices that they pay.

The issue for them is that the combination of all of
15:32
Graham Leadbitter Portrait Graham Leadbitter MP (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey, Scottish National Party)
-
-
these things is totally disproportionate. The highest prices for fuel, for fuel, road prices for fuel, for fuel, road fuel is paid in rural areas like that constituency, the highest that constituency, the highest price for heating oil is paid there because they have high distribution costs and the highest price for costs and the highest price for electricity because of high standing charges is paid both in my own constituency and in own constituency and in constituencies in North Wales and Merseyside, where the other high standing charge areas and the combination of all of that means that they're paying substantially more for their energy than than constituencies elsewhere in the country.

And that has been presided over by successive governments. Conservative and Labour governments have presided over a discriminatory and I do not use the word lightly discriminatory energy charging for electricity and to have that compounded by the highest fuel charges and the highest oil charges is in extremely painful for those households who, like everyone else, are suffering a cost of living crisis. But they also have the coldest temperatures in the UK and their constituencies that are producing the highest amount of energy per capita in their constituencies.

And the people who are using that energy hundreds of miles away are paying less to use it. It is utterly disgraceful and needs to change. This government has had nearly two years now to make the changes to standing charges and to prices for electricity, and they haven't done it. They haven't made a decision on it. It's taking far too long to make decisions. Pace is everything in this. People can people suffer on this every single day. It's not just the individuals that suffer with it.

Many members who have spoken in this debate have referred to the cost to business businesses in these areas, generally of high transport costs. They are frequently travelling large mileages to get around and deliver their goods, to get their goods to market and to get their supply chain to deliver to them. Public services, including our emergency services, are paying vast amounts for fuel. While, you know, I had a very enjoyable walk into work and and on a bright spring day here in London on Monday, constituents in Aviemore were contending with feels like temperatures of minus five.

And I can assure hon. Members that Highland Council and. And the trunk road. Trunk road, trunk Road authority had gritters out for a considerable part of the day to keep those roads safe, and those gritters travel hundreds of miles on their routes because that is what they are required to do. And that means that local authorities. It means that the NHS boards means that other public services or emergency services are paying out vast amounts of money for fuel, and that is really unpredictable for them.

And budgets that have already been set with capital projects you've got built in, you've got built in risk for future price increases, and they're quite considerable, so they're a bit protected. But when you're talking about day to day operational costs for public authorities, that is these increases in fuel prices and the increases in heating oil prices, because many of the primary schools and secondary schools across the Highlands and Moray and Aberdeenshire and other areas of Scotland and indeed other rural areas in the rest of the UK, pay for pay for heating oil for those schools.

And that will have a really detrimental impact on them. And the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan made many reasonable points about the impact of EPL and the the the fiscal regime that governs the North Sea production and the need for us to continue to produce oil and gas for as long as we need to, while still making a transition. I would gently point out to conservatives that while I agree with them on the EPL, the EPL needs to be changed immediately.

It is beyond time for it to be changed. But they have also drawn away from that transition to renewables because of the pulling away from climate change targets. And I know that North Sea companies agree with them on the EPL, but they were utterly dismayed about that, pulling away from from transition because oil and gas major majors are the same people that are investing in renewables, and we need to get that transition right to avoid those job losses that the hon.

Member mentioned. In addition to that, the A bus fare caps were mentioned by a number of members. I would gently point out that in my own constituency in the north of Scotland and across Highlands and Islands, a, a, a a pilot has been run of a £2 cap on bus fares, which means that you can travel, in some cases literally hundreds of miles for £2 fare. And that is progressive because people need to access services in Inverness, for example, in the Highlands and have to travel hundreds of miles to get to it.

So it's treating people with fairness, recognising that they are at the heart of our energy production and they are still paying more for their energy, so they get some services back for that. They're getting their peak, rail fares have been taken away and for the benefit, unfortunately, the hon. Member who raised the issue about the about heating oil, some the the heating oil support in Scotland has left the chamber, but I can tell the chamber that the Scottish Government has more than doubled the heating oil funding provided by the UK government.

It is still not enough because the UK government should be taking far more responsibility for that and putting far more money into that. But the Scottish Government has more than doubled that and it will be available for people to apply for support from that from the 1st of April, and it's going to be delivered through Advice Direct Scotland. So there is a plan in place and it's moving forward. Another point I wanted to pick up on red diesel. Red diesel used to be available for, for for local authorities, for, for gritting roads.

That would make a huge difference to these local authorities in the north of Scotland who have to do that for a considerably longer period than many other parts of the UK. And I would urge the Minister to consider reinstating that that for that, what is essentially a you know, an emergency service, roads would not be safe without them being gritted in the depths of winter, making red diesel available for those vehicles again would not be a bad idea at all.

Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would simply urge the government to take account of what happens in rural areas and how they commute, how they get to their work and how services are delivered, and consider that in the context of fuel duty, they have power to a to fix fuel duty. And particularly for people that are planning ahead, that are budgeting for a year ahead. And that particularly applies to public services. That certainty is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

really important. Yes, certainly. I'm grateful. I'm just picking up. On this point around fairness. Be aware of the studies from the Institute of Fiscal Studies, which has highlighted that Scottish taxpayers are £710 on average worse off compared to taxpayers in England as a result of the Scottish Government's higher rates of income Government's higher rates of income tax. Does you think that is fair?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You know, I've always believed that the tax that we pay is a contract with the state and if you get services back for that, then that's you've got to consider yourself whether that's a reasonable price to pay. I would observe that you've got to take tax on the round. You've got to take tax on the round as well. So council tax, broadly speaking in Scotland, is considerably cheaper than it is in the rest of the UK. I certainly know. As for the you know, the accommodation in London is considerably dearer for tax than it is for, for my own property at home, which is larger.

And that's, that's pretty much the case throughout the, throughout Scotland. There is also the cost of living is generally cheaper, for example, in Scotland than it is in central London. And the taxation that is being paid gives people back more services, better services. The the likes of the. The freeze on. Well, the. The removal of peak rail fares, the freeze on on bus fares, the cap on bus fares that's been put in and has been tested in the north of Scotland.

These are all things that really benefit people and. But beyond that, more than. More than half of taxpayers in Scotland do not pay more income tax than they do in south of the border. That's. That's a fact. And I would urge the UK government to consider many of these measures. They can consider measures around bus fares. They can consider measures around peak rail fares, but they also have the power over these key taxation levers, including fuel duty and the need to make decisions quickly to give people more certainty and a little bit less risk in where things are going.

There are things in this that are not controllable and, you know, a don't actually, I wish that weren't the case for the government to have to consider those because it is difficult. But there are levers that they have that can make it a bit easier for people, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you. So the frontbenchers, shadow Minister Greg Smith. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. How absurd it is that on an issue that affects each and every one of our constituents, whether they drive their own car or whether they drive their own car or take the bus or a train powered by diesel, that not one, not one diesel, that not one, not one government backbencher sought to catch the chair's eye in order to make a speech, either to defend the government's plan to increase fuel duty this September, or perhaps even to have the backbone to stand up and oppose it.

Not one backbencher, meanwhile, on the conservative benches, we heard the case set out clearly and with passion from my right hon. Friend, the Shadow Secretary of State, opening the debate to my hon. Friend for Gordon and Buchan, who rightly spoke about the volume of internal combustion engine vehicles in the United Kingdom, exploring how far this tax rise will go and how Labour simply do not understand rural life, as well as the folly and unfairness of pay per mile on rural communities.

My hon. Friend for North Dorset rightly identifying the absurdity of the government preferring to import oil rather than use our own resources in the North Sea, and these points are very accurate, one I recognise in my own constituency when it comes to the Fuel Finder of the scarcity of filling stations in rural communities in the. And I accept that we've had a bit of a trade off on constituency sizes this afternoon in my modest 336mi² in Mid Buckinghamshire, I can think of only eight filling stations.

Indeed, it is what you do with that size, but it is. It is a point that is well made that in rural communities people often have to travel great distances to fill up with fuel, where you end up burning more fuel than going to the potentially cheaper station further away. My hon. Friend for Beaconsfield speaking good Buckinghamshire common sense again making the points about rural communities. Likewise, the case made by my hon. Friends for North West Norfolk, Hinckley and Bosworth Keighley and Ilkley, and indeed the very good points made by hon.

Friend from Bromley and Biggin Hill when it comes to the simply ridiculous and hideous levels of taxation on motoring in our capital city under Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan. Madam Deputy Speaker, Let's ask a very simple question. When the Chancellor talks about asking those with the broadest shoulders to pay more, does she mean the care worker filling up their car to get around their house visits, particularly in rural communities? Does she mean does she mean the self-employed delivery driver keeping our high streets alive? Does she mean the small business owner trying to make ends meet? I very much hope she doesn't.

But what we see on the ground as the reality is that those are exactly the people that this policy of increasing fuel duty will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hit the hardest. Gentleman for giving way. Given

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gentleman for giving way. Given his concern for the various categories of workers and business categories of workers and business people that he has just set out, can he explain why when he was in can he explain why when he was in government, his party planned to oversee an increase in fuel duty oversee an increase in fuel duty and didn't Budget for one, and didn't Budget for the kind of freeze that he's now demanding.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Were they to have have one. The hon. Gentleman is late to the debate, and we've been around that a few times. Over the course of this afternoon, the record of conservatives in government was to freeze council tax as to freeze fuel duty and indeed, and indeed fuel duty and indeed, and indeed cut it when we saw the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Conservatives stand on a proud record of keeping fuel duty down, freezing it and cutting it.

It is his party in government that is going to increase it on hard working people this very year. Let's be absolutely clear. This is a tax rise, a regressive tax hitting the poorest, the hardest, a deliberate, calculated and frankly cynical tax rise phased in carefully in the hope that people won't notice. We have a rise in September, a back to school tax, another in December, a Christmas shopping tax. And then in March, a spring clean of people's wallets.

Three moments in the year, three

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hits to working people. Did someone give away? It's also a remiss of me not to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's also a remiss of me not to point out the fact that in July, the price cap will be reviewed. There's a decent chance, given the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

state of what's going on in Iran, that we may well see an increase in energy bills anyway. Does he agree? Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. My friend makes a usually clinically accurate point to the debate, and he is absolutely right debate, and he is absolutely right to do so. The truth is, the headline figure does not even tell us the full story. This is not just a tax rise. It's a tax on a tax. Fuel duty is applied first, then VAT is charged on top of it. So when the government increases fuel duty, it also increases the VAT paid on that tax.

A tax on a tax. That means what they present as A5P rise is not really £0.05. In practice it is closer to £0.06 at the pump. A hidden double tax built into the system. Taking more from every driver, every business and every household. And Madam Deputy Speaker, we saw this argument tested just this weekend. The Energy Secretary was asked directly about the soaring cost of fuel, and his instinct was simply to point to global events, to external pressures, to anything other than decisions being made here at home in Whitehall.

But he was confronted with a simple, undeniable fact a breakdown of the price of a litre of petrol showed that fuel duty alone accounts for around 38% of the cost, and once VAT is added on top, more than half of what drivers pay at the pump is tax more than half. So let us be clear this is not simply about international markets or events beyond our control. Of course, global factors play a role. Of course, wholesale prices fluctuate, but when over half the price at the pump is made up of taxes set by this government,
15:48
Greg Smith Portrait Greg Smith MP (Mid Buckinghamshire, Conservative)
-
-
Ministers cannot hide purely behind external circumstances. They cannot external circumstances. They cannot blame golden markets and ignore their own policy choices. And they their own policy choices. And they certainly cannot claim to be easing the cost of living while actively increasing the tax burden built increasing the tax burden built into every litre of fuel. Because the consequences ripple through the entire economy. And equally, when prices go up, including at the hands of the Chancellor, crime also rises and already we are seeing reports from our hauliers across the country of fuel thefts taking place.

That is serious. Fuel is not a luxury. It is a fundamental to how the country works. It is how goods get to our supermarkets, how tradespeople get to jobs and how carers reach the most vulnerable. So when the cost of fuel rises, the cost of everything else rises. Shops feel it, businesses feel it, families feel it. And it is, of course, inflationary that matters not just for household budgets but for the public finances too. Around a quarter of the United Kingdom's national debt, some 750 billion is index linked.

So higher inflation means higher debt interest costs. In other words, this policy risks making the government's own fiscal position worse, even as it makes life harder for weaker for working people. So the question is, what are they going to do? Why are they doing this? Why impose higher costs on drivers, businesses and families at a time like this? The answer lies in a failure at the heart of this government's approach. They have lost control of welfare spending. Instead of taking the difficult decisions required to ensure that welfare is sustainable and properly targeted, they have allowed costs to rise and rise.

And now, having failed to grip that challenge, they are asking working people to pick up the bill. We have already seen taxes increased on jobs, on family businesses, on our high streets and on our farmers. This is simply the next step. Drivers are being asked to pay the price for their failure. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, there is a different approach in government. We understood the pressure that fuel costs place on households and businesses. That is why we cut, I repeat, cut fuel duty, froze it year after year and stepped in again when global pressures caused prices to spike.

We recognise you do not balance the books by making it more expensive for people to go to work or to set up a business or to operate. Do not hide tax rises within the price at the pump, and no one can create a system where people are taxed twice, once through fuel duty and then again through VAT applied on top and call that fair. This policy fails the basic tests. It is an unfair tax. We on the conservative benches will oppose this unfair tax rise, and any member that cares about what any of our constituents are paying at the pump will surely vote with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the conservative motion tonight. Yes. Minister. Dan Tomlinson. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Thank you, thank you, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker And and I want to thank hon. Members for their contributions throughout this contributions throughout this debate. And I particularly thank the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire for his winding up Buckinghamshire for his winding up and to the Tory whips, for giving me the opportunity to remind his his to remind the House of his support for Liz Truss as PM. My parliamentary private secretary just passed me the ten reasons that he set out as to why he supported Liz Truss for PM.

I don't know whether that's something that he now regrets anyway, turning on, turning on to the matter at hand. And this is serious. Madam Deputy Speaker, we are debating this issue at a time of significant international uncertainty. As the House is aware, we are now in our third week of the conflict in Iran and across the Middle East. And as the Prime Minister has made clear, our priority will always be the national interest through protecting British nationals and through supporting our allies.

This government recognises that the conflict is not just a matter of foreign policy. It also has direct consequences for individuals and families here in the UK. Movements in global energy markets are likely to put upward pressure on inflation, and the longer this conflict continues, the greater the risk it poses to both economic stability, but also to the cost of living in the UK. That is why the government is clear that a rapid de-escalation remains the best way to protect people from further fuel price increases.

We are working with our international partners to support efforts to secure key energy routes and guarantee the security of vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz. We are also supporting a coordinated release of collective International Energy Agency oil reserves. The release of which has helped stabilise international oil

**** Possible New Speaker ****

markets. I will get to that. Escalation and look into the international side. But as I raised in my speech, he does point out in my speech, he does point out that there are domestic factors here at play. So what is the government doing to set out a government doing to set out a timeline and implications of targets, of points that to make these decisions so that the country can plan around what may or may not be going on, because we don't know how long this is going to be.

So what are those points that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what are those points that the government is looking at to make an inform its decisions? Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will come on to talk about fuel duty. I was just setting out the context that the opening of my wind ups, the government's approach is to focus squarely on the British national interest and the economic interests of British households. The opposition have clearly taken a different approach, choosing instead at times to egg on military action, focusing more on posturing and trying to get one up on the government than on looking after our own at home and abroad.

Yes, I would be.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, speaker. I'm grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Hasn't he hit the nail precisely on Hasn't he hit the nail precisely on the head? We are debating a we are the head? We are debating a we are debating a possible fuel duty increase seven months ahead of it increase seven months ahead of it happening. The reality is the opposition have been caught. Caught opposition have been caught. Caught championing an illegal war in the Middle East that the public of this country do not support, and they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are trying to divert it with this nonsense argument. Yeah, yeah, yeah. He is right that they are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He is right that they are totally on the wrong side of common sense public opinion in this country. On the most important of tests, they failed. He is also right to point out that the fuel duty increase is pencilled in for duty increase is pencilled in for September. That was what was set out in. That was what was set out. That was what was set out in in the That was what was set out in in the in the in the Budget by the Chancellor last year and members opposite.

I think it's worth reminding the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, that fuel duty right now is lower than it was in 12 of the 14 years of the conservative government in 2010 and 2011, in all the way up to 2022. Fuel duty was higher than it is now at Budget 2025. As I said, we extended the temporary £0.05 per litre cut in fuel duty until the end of August this year and cancelled the inflation linked increase that had been planned for 20 2627.

Taken together with decisions taken since Budget 2020 for the government's fuel duty freeze will save the average motorist more than £90 compared with the plans that we inherited when members opposite who made contributions in this debate stood up in the general election in July 2024, they stood on spending plans that would have had fuel duty increase by £0.05. Yes, yes, unless they are disowning the official forecast that were published before the Budget, that that that were published, that were published before the general election, and the manifesto that they stood on that, by the way, didn't mention plans for fuel duty.

Then I think, again, we're discovering that there were further black holes in the conservative spending plans when it came to the general election, their plans that were set out in the official forecast in the run up to the general election, said that fuel duty would increase by £0.05 last year, by RPI last year and then by RPI again this year. We have instead chosen to freeze fuel duty both last year and this year and and to maintain the £0.05 cut until September of this year.

Madam Deputy Speaker the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and other members made very important points about the impact of fuel price increases on those in rural communities. He will be aware, as I believe it applies to his constituency and to some of the others mentioned today of the Rural Fuel Duty Relief Scheme, which does provide a reduction to motorists in a in those parts of the country that are more rural. And as I said in a Westminster Hall debate of
15:57
Dan Tomlinson Portrait Dan Tomlinson MP (Chipping Barnet, Labour)
-
-
which some in this room attended, I'm always happy to receive representations on that scheme and representations on that scheme and whether it should be widened. The Member for Gordon and Buchan asked about the ivyd change that will be coming in in in the coming years and whether it will be extended? No, it will not. The plan is as set out at the Budget last year. This side of the House thinks that it is fair that all vehicles that contribute to wear and tear on our roads contribute towards the repair costs and towards the public finances, and will do so at a lower rate of £0.03 rather than £0.06, which is the average amount paid by those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

who pay fuel duty. I will give them. Just for clarification, my point was that that's a pay per mile scheme, and that the pay per mile basis would not be extended to petrol and diesel cars. Is the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

charge per mile on EVs a gateway for that extending to petrol and diesel vehicles? Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. The. The charge is on electric vehicles and electric cars because vehicles and electric cars because they don't pay fuel duty. Petrol cars do pay fuel duty, which in effect because it's on on a litre of petrol is a charge that is determined by how much someone drives. The Member for Brighton Pavilion made some good points around public transport, and I congratulate her for getting through the speech after the very large number of interventions that she had to respond to and to respond to.

Well, I would point out that this government is introducing the first rail fares freeze in 30 years, and we're investing 38 million to roll out 319 new zero-emission buses across England. Lots of good things. As ever, decisions on taxation will be taken at the appropriate time based on the best evidence available and with careful regard to the public finances, the government will continue to take the right decisions, protecting the public finances and supporting families with the cost of living. The previous government left us with the worst living standards.

Stagnation in memory. A reformed government would crash the economy just like Liz Truss did. With wild, unfunded promises. The Greens would push up energy bills by blocking clean power. And this government. Madam Deputy Speaker rejects the chaos offered by opposition parties. We have an economic plan that is the right one for Britain, a plan that means that we are more prepared for this shock than otherwise. With borrowing falling by 1% of GDP last year, with our power supply now less resilient on the gas roller coaster, with living standards rising, with inflation falling and the big and right decision to take £117 off of annual energy bills in April yet to come, it's the right plan and this government will stick to it for the good of the British people and and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

serve. Hey. The question is that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the original word stand part of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

original word stand part of the question, as many as are of that no. No.
16:00
None Portrait Division
-

The question is that the original word stand part of the question. As many as of that opinion say aye. I Of the contrary, no. no. Tellers for the ayes or Alicia Kearns and James Wild. The Tellers for the noes. Wild. The Tellers for the noes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm trying to I'm trying to get I'm trying to get back I'm trying to get back to I'm trying to get back to that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For For the For the order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For the order. For the order. The For the order. The ayes For the order. The ayes to For the order. The ayes to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For the order. The ayes to the right, 103 the Noes to the left 259.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For all.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right for 103. The nos to the left. 259. So the The nos to the left. 259. So the nos have it. The nos have it unlock. The question is that the proposed words be there added As many as are of that opinion say aye. I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I declare the question, as amended, to be agreed to. Order. Order! I will now announce the results of today's deferred divisions on the draft Employment Rights Act 2025.

Investigatory powers, Consequential Amendments Regulations 2026. The eyes were 368, the nos were 107. So the ayes have it on the draft. Higher education fee limits and fee limit conditions. England Amendment Regulations 2026. The eyes were 277, the nos were 98. So the ayes have it. We now come to the opposition day motion on student loans. I inform the House that the speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I call the opposition spokesperson to move the motion.

Shadow Secretary of State Laura Trott.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In June 2023, the then Shadow Education Secretary proclaimed, graduates, you will pay less under Labour. Well, Madam
16:15
None Portrait Opposition Day Debate: Student Loans
-

Deputy Speaker, it turns out that wasn't true. Under Labour,
16:15
Laura Trott Portrait Rt Hon Laura Trott MP (Sevenoaks, Conservative)
-
-
wasn't true. Under Labour, graduates are paying more. So far under this government, tuition fees have gone up twice. This is a long way, Madam Deputy Speaker, from the abolition of tuition fees offered up by a fresh faced candidate for the Labour leadership just a few years ago. I wonder what happened to him. Yeah. No wonder students feel misled by this government, but not content with hiking tuition fees when they said that they wouldn't, this government also froze the thresholds for repayments, making loans even more expensive for graduates.

As with everything this Chancellor touches, she makes it worse. Her choice to freeze the repayment thresholds has left young people paying more and sooner. And what did the Chancellor say when challenged about the threshold freeze in January, she said, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the student loan system is, and I quote, fair and reasonable. To be clear, this was the stance of the Labour government as recently as January this year that the student loan system and the threshold freeze was fair and reasonable.

Tell that to the graduate forced to pay an extra £24,000 because of the Chancellor's changes. The Chancellor is wrong.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is not fair and it is not reasonable. I give way to the hon. Gentleman. Congratulations, Mr. Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful for her giving way. Given that the plan to tuition fees was introduced by the Conservatives was introduced by the Conservatives in 2012 and that they froze the repayment thresholds in 2016 and the abolished maintenance grants, was it fair then?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the hon. Gentleman is missing the fact that they've made it worse. And even now the Chancellor has changed her tune. No surprise, given the track record of this government, she now says the system is broken, but young people are apparently not at the front of the queue. Didn't see that on the front of the Labour manifesto, Madam Deputy Speaker But we on this side of the House think young people should be at the front of the queue because, thanks to Labour, Britain's youth unemployment rate has topped the eurozone for the first time ever.

Graduates are coming out of university and they can't get jobs. Graduates who are in work are seeing their student debt mounting up. I will, of course, give way to my hon. Friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful. To my right hon. Friend for giving way. I've been contacted by many students in Epping Forest many students in Epping Forest deeply concerned about their future debt, and many graduates in Epping Forest really worried about Forest really worried about ballooning debt on these plan two loans. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that the Labour Government has an opportunity now Government has an opportunity now to step in and actually relieve the pressure on these young on young people, and actually, they should

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people, and actually, they should adopt the conservative plans to scrap real interest rates on these plan. Two loans. Laura Trott.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have a chance today to create a new deal for young people. create a new deal for young people. I hope some people on that side vote for it every metric. Oh, I will give way to the hon. Lady. I will give way to the hon. Lady. I thank the hon. Member for giving way and I must declare an interest as the first year group to have a as the first year group to have a plan two student loan under the party opposite the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, who introduced the broken system that we have today.

And I would just ask the hon. Member, Will she apologise to my generation for £9,000 tuition fees, the broken system she created and failing to introduce the Renters Rights Act that this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government has acted to do properly? I invite. The hon. Lady if she thinks the system is broken, to vote for our amendment this evening. Every metric for young people has got worse since this government has worse since this government has come in. It is crystal clear that for young people, as with the rest of the country, labour isn't working.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

working. My right hon. Friend with pleasure. I'm extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend. She will have right hon. Friend. She will have noted, as I have, that members opposite the hon. Lady, the hon. Gentleman, they want to talk about the past. Our constituents and graduates who are paying these outrageous sums want to talk about the future. And they listened at the general election, and they listened to Labour, promising that they would lower the cost for graduates.

And they are doing the exact opposite and trying to deflect by talking about the past rather than accepting responsibility for the government they're actually delivering, is a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

letdown of all those young people whose aspirations should be respected. Laura Trott my right hon. Friend is quite right. Not only did they mislead the public, they then made it worse and then they won't vote to fix it. That is Labour all over. to fix it. That is Labour all over. We need a plan to fix this, but it is not enough to fiddle with one part of the problem. We need part of the problem. We need comprehensive change and that is exactly what we on this side of the House have come up with a new deal House have come up with a new deal for young people.

This is a plan that could be implemented today that will, in a moment that will reverse the threshold. Threes make interest rates for plan two loans. Inflation only, stop dead end degrees and boost apprenticeships so that young people have a real choice when they leave school, not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a future weighed down by debt. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. The honourable. Lady, for giving way. She talks.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She talks. About a comprehensive plan. And giving people choices. But the truth is, this isn't a the truth is, this isn't a comprehensive plan for student loan reform. It's a plan written on the back of a packet, which basically back of a packet, which basically revolves around restricting university access, which is always the go to solution for the party opposite. And in truth. In truth, opposite. And in truth. In truth, it won't mean people like me who who will get to go to university with a first in my family to do so.

People who go to Brunel University in my constituency will see restrictions to course levels. That

**** Possible New Speaker ****

isn't widening opportunity and choice. It's restricting it, isn't it? Laura Trott? No, it's massively widening

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No, it's massively widening choice at the moment. The number of people, young people who want to go on an apprenticeship is massively on an apprenticeship is massively less than the amount of apprenticeships that are available. We need to change this. We need to change the system, and it's not change the system, and it's not good enough to have a motion today that says that you're going to make the system fairer and financially sustainable, while you're making it sustainable, while you're making it less fair and less financially sustainable.

It's not good enough. The system at the moment is punishing aspiration and it is demoralising for young people. They leave university having done everything that was asked of them, working hard. They get a promotion and the interest on the loan goes up. They're paying back far more than they ever borrowed. A typical plan to graduate I will in a minute, needs to earn £66,000 a year just to keep pace with the interest. Young people should not be punished for doing the right thing.

I'll give way to the hon. Lady. Thank the hon. Member for giving way. She talks about making the system fair. I wonder, could she comment on what her party did in government? Abolishing the maintenance grant, which means a low income student has a bigger debt and has to pay back more. And this Labour government has acted to bring back maintenance grants that her party took away. Laura Trott. The Chancellor said that the system was fair and reasonable. Right. What a joke.

They do not recognise the scale of the problem. We do. We've come up with a plan to fix it. What's their plan? Doesn't exist. Madam Deputy Speaker, with pleasure.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My writing. York Central vacancies for graduates have gone down precipitously this year compared precipitously this year compared with the same time last year. That should worry us all. Those who of us who are interested in the future, what can we do to rebalance the offer to young people so they're offer to young people so they're not sold a pup, as they have to be honest, by consecutive governments over many, many years about what a degree will give them in terms of their future career prospects and how can we ensure that our incredibly valuable Fe sector is supported, probably at the expense

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of some of our lesser universities? Laura Trott, my. Friend is absolutely right. There is nothing progressive about letting a young person go on a university degree that has negative university degree that has negative returns for them. It is not fair and it is not right and we think we should fix it. But the problem is should fix it. But the problem is not just loans, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a system which funnels young people into funnels young people into university courses which don't get them a job and which don't allow them to repay their loans.

The IFS says that 30% of university degrees have negative returns for those who go on them. Not just that they don't help, but they have negative returns. It's worse for them to go. This is not progressive. 75% of the value of creative arts courses loans are not paid back. Creative arts is an engine of the UK economy, but too many of these courses just don't deliver jobs in the industry that they purport to serve. It is a mis selling scandal where brochures promise a glittering career, but what they actually deliver is nothing but debt and a dead end.

This is not right, of course, those creative arts courses that do actually lead to jobs should continue. But those who are selling

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a lie do not have any place being taxpayer funded. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. And the consequences of this broken system are already becoming clear. According to the centre for Social Justice, more than 700,000 graduates are currently out of work graduates are currently out of work and claiming benefits. Madam Deputy Speaker, this should concern every member of this House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

member of this House. Would you give way? At that point, I will. Luke Evans giving way. Is she also concerned by the fact that the ONS last year said that 257,000 people left the UK, up from 77 that was expected and three quarters of those were under the age of 35. What that's showing is that young people are fleeing this country to look elsewhere for work. Does she share my concern that that's the case?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Opportunity should be created for young people here, not created for young people here, not in other countries. And that's what we want to create. And the government, instead of I will give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government, instead of I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. Graham Stringer it's a long time

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Graham Stringer it's a long time since I went to university. But there was a belief then that the there was a belief then that the least important thing we got out of universities were degrees and job prospects. There was a value in education itself. Listening to the hon. Lady, she seems to think that the only reason to go to university is mercenary.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No no no no no. Well, firstly, I mean, it does seem like the hon. Gentleman was only at university yesterday. But I think in terms of it is important that if you are asking young people that if you are asking young people to take on a mountain of debt, that they are going to get a job and prospects afterwards, I don't think prospects afterwards, I don't think that is an unreasonable proposition, and it was one that I will argue

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for. I will give both my. On that point, I was of the Tony. Blair generation. Where we were told that unless we went to university, we were a failure, that everyone should be able to go to university. But that fundamentally was wrong. And what it meant was actually to a two tier system where those who didn't go to university were actually asking. I remember young people at my sixth form going, oh, am I not as bright? AM I not going to get the same sort of prospects? Whereas actually, if they've been encouraged and supported, for example, my brother into carpentry while they're studying philosophy at Birmingham, he started his career much earlier point.

So by rebalancing, actually, we're giving the right recognition to the sort of skills we need, the training earlier, rather than

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pushing people into unnecessary debt traps. So my hon. Friend is absolutely spot on, and it's a fact that is not well known that degree apprenticeship degrees are actually more oversubscribed than Oxford and Cambridge, right? These are things that young people want to go on, and that is why we're trying to expand them. So instead of celebrating the expansion of low value degrees, the government should ask whether it is right to should ask whether it is right to continue pushing young people down a path that leaves them with debt,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

but no clear prospects. I thank. I'm grateful to hon. Members for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to hon. Members for giving me such support. The right hon. Lady talks about creative arts subjects and makes the point that perhaps these are not providing perhaps these are not providing those young people with the prospects for jobs. Would she not concede that we do need people with concede that we do need people with those creative arts skills and experience in our society, in our economy, it's a sector that contributes 124 billion to our economy. And actually what we need is what this government is doing, which is investing in the creative arts sector.

But we actually need people who are skilled and trained in that sector so that they can do those jobs. She's offering a litany of woe about this Laura Trott.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I don't know if he was actually listening to the section of my speech where I covered this, but actually, the point is, is that actually, the point is, is that these degrees don't lead to jobs in the creative arts industry. That is the whole point. It's a mis selling scandal. They are promising this scandal. They are promising this glittering career in the creative arts and not actually delivering it, and I think that is a problem. I'm and I think that is a problem.

I'm sad the hon. Gentleman doesn't. And what our students receiving in return for these enormous fees, I return for these enormous fees, I won't actually, the last time the hon. Gentleman tried to intervene on me, actually it was. He accused me of jumping on a bandwagon about rape gangs. So you'll forgive me? I'm not taking another intervention from him too often. It is minimal face to face teaching, limited supervision, and a university experience that falls far short of what was promised. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is not a fair system and it is not a sustainable one either.

What we do know, and I've

**** Possible New Speaker ****

talked about it before, oh, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. And I think when she raises that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I think when she raises that unfair system, does she agree with me also that charging interest rates during maternity and paternity leave is actually also paternity leave is actually also unfair and disadvantages women, especially in the workplace, who have worked so hard to get into progressive careers through university education if they're actually penalised at that point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

actually penalised at that point. Laura Trott I'm really glad that the hon. Gentleman raised this point, and I totally agree with him. It's something that needs to be looked into and fixed. What we do know, and I've mentioned this in this debate, is that ten times, as many young people want an apprenticeship at 18 than there are places available. The demand is there, but the places are not. So to me, it makes complete sense to move from funding dead end courses at university to giving young people an opportunity to do an apprenticeship, which will get them into a job and they emerge from it with no debt.

We want fundamental change to a system so that. 18 you have a choice between a high quality university place and apprenticeship or going into work that is a conservative choice. And what is Labour's response to this proposal? They announced this weekend that they will compensate for some of the mess they've created for youth unemployment by hiking up employers, national insurance. And they are robbing Peter to pay Paul. Exactly the sort of economic thinking we have come to expect.

They're punishing employers with a jobs tax. Which one of the Cabinet finally this week admitted has caused a huge spike in unemployment, and they are giving back £3,000, but only for those who have been on UC for six months fiddling with the system, which needs fundamental reform and clearing up the mess of the Chancellor's Budget, is almost a full time job for this government. The Conservatives are the only party putting forward a serious plan to help young people, whether by abolishing stamp duty for the first time buyers or through our New Deal and the government's.

I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will give way to the hon. Gentleman. Laurence Turner. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And the motion in her name states that balances. Should never. Rise faster than RPI inflation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Rise faster than RPI inflation. She was a senior Treasury Minister. Does she share my regret at the decision to suspend. Routine methodological improvements to the RPI, which led to the gap between the RPI and the lower CPI rate,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the RPI and the lower CPI rate, more than doubling. Laurence Turner?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I mean, the as if it raises a very interesting point, and one that I look forward to in bringing that I look forward to in bringing up with the Chancellor of questions and the government's amendment today is the usual. I would. With pleasure.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pleasure. David Reed thank you. I thank her for giving way on that point. And just to say to the benches And just to say to the benches opposite, we all want to get this sorted out. When I spoke to the Chancellor during the spring statement, she said that the way statement, she said that the way that she was going to control student loan interest rates was by controlling inflation. And we all know what's happened in the Middle East at the moment. So does my right hon.

Friend agree with me that that is a wishful thinking policy, and we actually need to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

think about this properly in order to change the system. Laura Trott exactly. And to be honest, the Chancellor just gave it honest, the Chancellor just gave it all away when she said that young people are at the back of the queue. Right? It tells us all you need to Right? It tells us all you need to know about this government and the government's amendment. Today is the usual mish mash of nothingness. I suspect many on the opposite side I suspect many on the opposite side of the House are disappointed.

The amendment welcomes the government's commitment to make the system, and, I quote, fairer and financially I quote, fairer and financially sustainable. Although, Madam Deputy Speaker, the only thing the government has actually done so far, which is the threshold freeze, has made the system less fair and less sustainable for young people. But don't worry, there's more. Those on the opposition benches are going to welcome a target today. Not any action mind, but a target. And this is even one which the government is currently missing.

The share and volume of under 25 starting apprenticeships in the last academic year has fallen. What a mess. We need a different approach. We on this side of the House believe the system needs fundamental change, that students should not be mis sold degrees that promise the earth and deliver nothing but debt. That the freeze to thresholds was wrong. That chill that students on plan two loans should only pay interest at inflation, and that young people deserve a new deal.

That is what we are asking the government to vote for today, that young people should not be put at the back of the queue, but at the front of it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. The question is, as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Paper, I call the Minister to move the amendment. Georgia Gould Madam. Deputy Speaker, I beg to move

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker, I beg to move the amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I welcome the Minister, I welcome the opposition's focus today on opportunities for young people, student loans and apprenticeships. student loans and apprenticeships. I'm pleased that the House has the opportunity to scrutinise this broken system devised by the party opposite tripling tuition fees, introducing plan two loans, presiding over a decade that saw a 40% drop in young people starting apprenticeships. David Reed.
16:34
Georgia Gould Portrait Georgia Gould MP (Queen's Park and Maida Vale, Labour)
-
-
I thank the Minister for giving way. We've heard this argument repeatedly that it was this side of the House and coalition government the House and coalition government that brought in these changes. I am someone with a plan to loan. I was the generation that Blair told to go to university, and at no point did anyone in that Blair government talk about how the jobs market would take on so many graduates, and most importantly, who would pay for those people to go to university. So she agreed that the 50% of school leavers that went to university should be paid by the 50% that didn't.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Georgia Gould. Madam Deputy Speaker, I think it's really relevant that the public know who relevant that the public know who created this system and not only created it ten times over the last created it ten times over the last 12 years, froze those loans. And I know it's inconvenient for the party opposite to hear these truths party opposite to hear these truths and be reminded of them, but we live through them. I must to my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

live through them. I must to my hon. Friend. Well, I'm grateful. To I must be suffering some sort of political amnesia, because I was absolutely convinced that it was a Labour government that introduced tuition fees in the first place.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But maybe, just maybe, she could correct me. Are Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Are Minister. The question was about plan two. So it was. I was talking about plan So it was. I was talking about plan two. The debate today that has been called by the party opposite is called by the party opposite is about plan two loans, a system that was created in 2012 by the party opposite.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opposite. Thank you. I've read. Both the motion. And the amendment. Students today are now on a new loan plan, five loans and the party opposite is completely forgotten. Current students. But the government amendment talks about the system in the round. Can my hon. Friend reassure me that the government is going to look at the system in the round, and not just at plan two, so all students and graduates have a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fairer system. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank you to my hon. Friend for his advocacy on this issue. I know he represents a number of students, and it's something that he has and it's something that he has continually raised. We've heard the concerns about student finance. And, you know, we it's something that we you know, we it's something that we will be looking at and really happy to take that conversation forward.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to take that conversation forward. Minister what my constituents are interested in is, is. Not the past, particularly the distant past. They are actually interested in the future. They've heard from this side what we would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

do. We've yet to hear from the government of the day what they will do. Will she enlighten us? Control inflation? Yes, sir.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, sir. Madam Deputy Speaker, I think the the past is is really relevant the the past is is really relevant because I was a council leader during the last government and I during the last government and I saw the the the cuts to local youth services to early years support, support to all of our public services. We live through that. When young people really were at the back of the queue and we are rebuilding that. The investment in child poverty, the investment in youth services, the investments in schools, the historic investment in special educational needs and disabilities, those things really matter.

The choices that we're making and it's relevant why we are in this discussion. But in terms of what we are actually doing, we are this year increasing the threshold. So to I will to I just finish this point to 29,000 £385,000, which will help people this year and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support people after it was frozen for four years by the previous government. Helena Dollimore. I thank my hon. Friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and the opposite side talks about amnesia. It seems to me. Might she agree that it is their side that has a lot of collective amnesia about the system they introduced? They created? My introduced? They created? My generation certainly don't have amnesia about the debt repayments they made when Liz Truss crashed they made when Liz Truss crashed the economy and sent interest rates soaring because of what they presided over. We don't have collective amnesia about them abolishing maintenance grants for the lowest income students, and it's this government that is acting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for my generation. With the renters rights bill overseeing. Oh yeah. Can I just.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Remind members that interventions need to be shorter

**** Possible New Speaker ****

than that? Minister one. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would be delighted to take the hon. Member's incredibly short intervention.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

intervention. Her hon. Friend asked a perfectly reasonable question about looking at the thing in the round. Her answer was she'll take the conversation forward. I think we need more than that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. Madam Deputy Speaker, we have acknowledged the issues and the unfairness in the system. The Prime Minister has the Chancellor has the Secretary of State for education has. And it is something that we has. And it is something that we have said will look at and I'll make progress. Under the last government, the number of young people not in education, employment people not in education, employment or training rose by 250,000. Today, nearly a million young people are not in education, employment and training.

That is the legacy of a party opposite. And the government is turning this around. We are renewing the post 16 education landscape and celebrating routes into vocational education, not by restricting university, but by opening up new high quality vocational routes. We're introducing new levels, new foundation, apprenticeships and supporting students to get excellent university education across the country. The opposition talks a lot about higher education, and suggests that too many young people go to university. It's interesting, Madam Deputy Speaker, that they can never tell us who should no longer go, or which courses they should not study.

Did the the the member opposite tell me who should not go to university? Because I can tell the party opposite. When you close the drawbridge, it is pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds who will end up not at university. That is the consequence. We. We are opening up access to apprenticeships, vocational routes, not by closing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

down university routes, but by course. Doctor Luke Evans.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Doctor Luke Evans. This side of the House made the argument that 30% of the courses leave people with a negative bank leave people with a negative bank balance. That is the problem that this side is trying to solve. We're not denigrating anyone for wanting not denigrating anyone for wanting to choose. Making sure it's the quality of the course means they have a positive outcome on their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have a positive outcome on their life, not a negative outcome. Does she agree with that principle? Yeah, exactly. Melissa.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, we are absolutely committed to driving up the quality of all university courses, and that's something that we're acting on. But the the members opposite have have have attacked the arts and creative attacked the arts and creative courses as the areas where they would like to see a reduction in would like to see a reduction in courses. This we have just seen the talent and the Brits at the Oscars. talent and the Brits at the Oscars. British talent.

This is one of our highest growth industries. This is. We saw it in our schools as. We saw a reduction in the the education in the arts. And we're seeing it now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as we attack those courses within universities. Minister. For giving way. The young people

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For giving way. The young people in my constituency are looking for a bit of hope. And how do they a bit of hope. And how do they interpret the Minister's answer to her hon. Friend and the fact that the Chancellor has said that young the Chancellor has said that young people are at the back of the queue? It doesn't sound from that very recent mood music, as if there's much to hope for from this government.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government. Minister Madam Deputy Speaker, I have spent the last few months travelling around the country talking to to young people about the investment that Labour is putting in to support young people with special educational needs, to support schools, to support youth clubs. That that is what the Labour Party is doing in power and that and there is huge hope that comes from that. And, you know, those are the areas we needed to prioritise investment in. But I'll make progress.

The chance to study in higher education for those who want to and have the ability to change his lives. We're determined to support students who want to go to university to fulfil their aspirations. We must not lose sight of the value that student loans provide in enabling this, levelling the playing field at the point of access, they remove the upfront financial barriers to study and enable students to repay when they're earning. And it's the student Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Give way please. The Minister. Is making an excellent and powerful speech to the motion, but powerful speech to the motion, but one aspect of the broken student loan system is the maternity penalty. Because when on maternity penalty. Because when on maternity leave, the interest on a student loan continues to accrue despite income dropping below the repayment threshold, which means that graduates who take maternity leave graduates who take maternity leave who have student loans, face a longer repayment period and a greater total loan amount.

So could I ask that the Minister takes this concern back and that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government has a look at this perceived inequality? Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker and thank you to my hon. Friend for for making that point. As as my for making that point. As as my hon. Friend knows, increasing security for women on maternity leave is a really important agenda leave is a really important agenda for this government. That's why we're taking forward the Employment Rights Bill, and I will absolutely Rights Bill, and I will absolutely take that that point back. I think what's important to to note within within the the system is that if if income goes below a threshold, if someone's out of work, generally they won't have to pay.

And it is very different from a commercial loan. But I will take that, that, that point back. It's, it's the student loan system that delivers tuition fee funding, 10.7 billion in 20 24 to 25 to our world class higher education sector, a sector that remains, by an objective metric, one of our nation's greatest exports and a global beacon of intellectual excellence. It's important that we remember what is at stake here. From pioneering laboratories developing quantum computing and agritech to those at the forefront of advanced manufacturing and genomics, our universities are the primary engines of the research that will define the 21st century, and the impact of our universities goes beyond their pivotal contribution to the economy and the careers of individual learners.

By exposing students to diverse perspectives and expanding their social horizons, these institutions help our young people build the networks resilience and life skills that define a person long after they've

**** Possible New Speaker ****

graduated. And of course, give way to my hon. Friend. Rosie Wrighting friend for giving way. I have a.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have a. Creative Arts degree. And not only did it give me the opportunity to meet people, but importantly, to meet people, but importantly, growing up outside of London, it enabled me to access the fashion industry. Does she share my concern industry. Does she share my concern at removing these degrees? Would create London centric creative industries?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Thank you to my hon. Friend for that powerful point and to the huge benefit that your Creative Arts degree had in getting you to this place. So in getting her to this place. Apologies, Madam Deputy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker. The minister's comment on whether she thinks the creative industries are the exclusive industries are the exclusive province of universities, and if that's what she thinks, can I invite her to visit Trowbridge College in my constituency, an excellent further education college, and see what is being done around multimedia to give kids the skills they need as part of the growth in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they need as part of the growth in the economy, which plainly the government is sorely lacking. Minister Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course, I recognise the critical role Fe colleges play in supporting children into the creative industries. That's why this government is backing Fe colleges after the previous government failed to. But we do not believe. We do not believe that closing down routes to university is the best way to support our creative industries. We can have both. We

**** Possible New Speaker ****

can have opportunities for. For both. Laurence Turner giving way. Is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Laurence Turner giving way. Is it not also the case? Under the previous government, kids from working class backgrounds were increasingly shut out of the traditional apprenticeship routes traditional apprenticeship routes because of the artificial entrance requirements, which employers said were blocking them from hiring the were blocking them from hiring the best, which employers said should be scrapped, and the DfE under its previous manage blocked.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Madam Deputy Speaker We saw a 40% reduction in young people's apprenticeships over a decade. That was the legacy of the party opposite. And while the foundational principles of our higher education funding and student finance system might be solid, they are straining. After more than a decade of neglect and mismanagement, on top of the structural flaws baked into the system by the benches opposite. First, a legacy of seven years of frozen tuition fees has contributed in no small part to a significant and growing number of English higher education providers facing financial challenges.

Analysis published by the office for students last autumn indicates that without mitigating action, some 124 providers 45% of those included in the office's financial sustainability report, could face a deficit in 20 2526. I'll be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

delighted to give way. I thank the Minister for giving way. She's making a really important point. The economics of higher education are actually quite complicated. There's a great deal of cross-subsidy between the humanities and the arts, effectively supporting sciences and effectively supporting sciences and medicine courses and engineering, etc. Does she agree with me that we should be worried that actually the opposition party's proposals, in fact, put jobs at risk and put the viability of universities at risk?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

viability of universities at risk? Minister Madam Deputy Speaker I think my hon. Friend makes a really important point and contribution to this debate. The government has taken the tough, immediate action that is required, including making the difficult decision to increase tuition tuition fees by forecast inflation, balancing the need to give sector stability with fairness to students and taxpayers. We are also asking more of the sector. We expect higher education providers to demonstrate that in return for the increased investment that we are asking students to make, they deliver the very best outcome both for those students and for the country.

To achieve this, this government will link future fees increases to university quality. As I was saying earlier, this will protect taxpayers investment in higher education and incentivise high quality provision for students without taking away those opportunities beyond higher education and across the landscape. This government is resetting the contract for young people, our New deal for young people who do not go

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to university, I will. I'm grateful to her and she is typically both generous with her typically both generous with her time and very courteous in the number of interventions she's accepted. Can I just gently take her back to the text of the Prime Minister's amendment on student loans, lines three and four? And I quote, it says this House welcomes quote, it says this House welcomes the government's commitment to make the system fairer and financially the system fairer and financially sustainable.

To avoid this sounding like jam tomorrow and to reassure young people, I have a lot of respect for the Minister. Can she? And I'll be generous. Just give 1 or 2 concrete announcements today of specific measures she is bringing forward that will achieve that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are lifting the the threshold which is going to make a difference which is going to make a difference this year for students. And we've already announced that, and we have said that we'll continue to look at said that we'll continue to look at this as we're looking at at a wide range of issues, and accepted that the system that was created by the the system that was created by the party opposite is not a fair system beyond our New Deal for young beyond our New Deal for young people who do not go to university will support more young people into work and training for a 2.5 billion investment in the Youth Guarantee and Growth and skills levy over the next three years and if this is incredibly concrete, will support almost a million young people and deliver almost 500,000

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opportunities to earn and learn. Giving way. Can I welcome this week's announcement over the New week's announcement over the New Deal for for young people beyond university? One of the challenges in like I represent in Peterborough in like I represent in Peterborough is that not enough young people got either apprenticeships or university. And can I say one of university. And can I say one of the challenges we face in the debate. Does she not agree is that we spend so much time in this place, in the media, debating university routes as the path to success.

We don't spend half as much time as we need to discussing apprenticeships, and the Youth Guarantee starts to put that right.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. We do need to open up access to apprenticeships. It's up access to apprenticeships. It's why the government is making this investment and why we've set that ambitious target for young people ambitious target for young people to go to both university and to take on apprenticeships. So to access apprenticeships.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

access apprenticeships. Robin Swann point as well, with the Minister also agree there is another way in regards to the Open University, which allows people to University, which allows people to earn and learn at the same time as well. So it's not just a simple a university or apprenticeships. There is a middle way and I would encourage the government to support. University.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Madam Deputy Speaker, we are really committed to opening up those routes to lifelong learning, and that's something that we're setting out plans on. So I really

**** Possible New Speaker ****

welcome that intervention. Does she regret, in hindsight,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does she regret, in hindsight, Tony Blair's announcement in the late 1990s that more than 50% of school leavers should go to university? Would it not have been better to have said that all young people leaving school should either go to university or into high quality apprenticeships or training?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister Madam Deputy. Speaker The the the members opposite were accusing me of talking about the the past, but I was a I think I was nine years old when that was going on, but I you when that was going on, but I you know, I don't regret the real focus on opening up access to, to university because that opens it up university because that opens it up to disadvantaged pupils that might never have had that opportunity. But today we are recognising that But today we are recognising that we need to see both of those routes.

So there hasn't been enough investment or focus on vocational pathways. We absolutely agree with that and we're putting that right. It's our it's our ambition to have a more sustainable, more specialist, more specialised and more efficient sector, which better aligns with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the needs of the economy. Minister has been very, very generous with her time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

generous with her time. So can I thank you on behalf of this side, in terms of the higher education, does she believe that education, does she believe that there is an oversupply of courses because she's spoken about trying to evolve and reform the model? And I think the concern we have on our I think the concern we have on our side is there seems to be pressure and on a lot of children to go to university, even though they're not university, even though they're not going to get a graduate bonus associated with that.

And actually, I think a lot of us have questioned

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the financial viability on and what's her views on that. Minister Madam Deputy Speaker we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister Madam Deputy Speaker we want young people to have a choice, a choice to go to university, a choice to study an apprenticeship, a choice to earn and learn as we've set out. And we want those those range of routes to be available and young people to have high quality young people to have high quality careers, education so they know what they can, what the opportunities are in their local opportunities are in their local communities. So we want to see higher education providers going further to give our students the best courses and employment outcomes, and ensuring the sector remains globally competitive.

The government is committed to ensuring that higher education is open to all who have the ability and desire to pursue it. From the 20 2829 academic year will be reintroducing targeted means tested maintenance grants of up to £1,000 a year, increasing the cash in student's pockets without increasing their debt. To support students from the most disadvantaged backgrounds, we are already delivering on a commitment to future proof maintenance loans by increasing them in line with forecast inflation every academic year, to help ensure that support keeps pace with financial pressures.

From academic year 2026 to 27, care leavers will become automatically eligible to receive the maximum rate of maintenance loans, providing vital extra support for one of the most vulnerable groups

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in society. I'll give way to my hon. I thank the hon. Member. For giving way and whilst I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For giving way and whilst I welcome support for the most vulnerable heading towards university, the hon. Lady acknowledged the fact that actually, by enabling those more vulnerable by enabling those more vulnerable groups to take the maximum amount of support, they are therefore enabling them to have the maximum enabling them to have the maximum amount of debt at the end of their university career as well. And that actually that's been one of the problems all the way through is problems all the way through is that it's often been the people either in the middle who don't quite get the support that they need, or those at the far end of the system who need that support are actually the ones with the most debt, because they're not going to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have parental support to help them leverage against the loan careers. Minister Madam Deputy Speaker

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister Madam Deputy Speaker Thank you to to the hon. Member for for that intervention. I think it's really important when we talk about these loans, because there will be people watching here today feeling, feeling worried that these are not feeling worried that these are not like a kind of normal loan, that if young people are not earning, if they're earning below the threshold, they're earning below the threshold, they don't have to pay anything that they are long that long term. If they don't, if they never earn enough, they don't have to pay, you know, by by the end of a career, they don't have to pay the whole whole amount off.

And they don't have to pass that on to future generations so that it's important. I think that we make that very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clear to those watching today. I'll give. Ben Spencer, I thank you so much

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ben Spencer, I thank you so much for giving way. She's been really generous with her time. I think this is a point of principle in this debate. I'd just like to get this debate. I'd just like to get her thoughts on does she believe that there is any degree in this country offered by university, any country offered by university, any one degree for which it is not fair to invest taxpayers money on that? The quality isn't good enough, that The quality isn't good enough, that it's not fair for that to the individual.

Would you concede that there probably are some courses across the country that it's not fair for the taxpayer, for the taxpayer to subsidise, which he agreed at that point?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister Madam Deputy Speaker I've been really clear that we want to increase the quality of courses, to increase the quality of courses, and that is one of the conditions that we put on to increasing those that we put on to increasing those those those fees in a fair way. But but we want to do that by ensuring those those those courses are a those those those courses are a high enough quality, not scrapping the opportunity for young people to go to those courses.

I'm going to make progress. Looking further ahead, the Prime Minister's ambition is to see two thirds of young people in higher level learning by age 25, with a lifelong learning entitlement launching in January 2027, a policy the previous administration failed after year, year after year to deliver. We're transforming higher education from a one shot opportunity into a flexible and responsive system with learners at its centre. The lifelong learning entitlement will allow learners to fund individual modules and reskill throughout their careers at colleges and universities alike.

As my hon. Friend was was mentioning earlier, we now have a responsibility to ensure that the benefits of higher education are maintained for future generations and to clean up a student loan system where interest rates have been allowed to spiral and students are confused about what the right path is for them. We absolutely recognise that there are failings in this system. This was not a system we built. It was a system the party opposite created. We know that student loan repayments are a concern for graduates, and that is why we increase the plan to repayment threshold last year and why we are increasing it again to £29,385 next month.

Borrowers who earn below this amount annually will not be required to make any repayments at all. This threshold is higher than the median graduate salary three years after graduation. Graduate graduates generally do go on to benefit from higher earnings, and it remains reasonable that those who gain the largest financial benefits from their degrees contribute more towards the cost of their studies than people who have not gone to university or graduates earning lower salaries. Lower earners will still benefit from the unique protections that student loans offer.

As I was saying earlier, any unpaid loan balance, including interest accrued, will still be cancelled at the end of the loan term and no detriment to the individual. Outstanding debt is never passed on to a borrower's family, and having an outstanding student loan is not a barrier to accessing a mortgage. Student loan balances do not appear on borrower credit records, though regular student loan repayments will be considered alongside other other living costs. As part of the affordability check for mortgage applications, I want to say how seriously the government takes the cost of living challenges young people face.

Too often this generation have found their challenges have been ignored. We are working hard to tackle these issues extending government funded childcare, reducing energy bills, freezing rail fares, rolling out free breakfast clubs, building new homes and introducing the Renters Rights Act. Before my hon. Friends on the opposite benches once again line up to criticise the decisions we've made, I'd like to just take a moment to remind them of their track record on this matter. Plan to use student loans were designed and introduced in 2012 by the conservative Liberal Democrat coalition, with the repayment threshold of 21,000 per year and interest rates of up to 3% above inflation, the very interest rates that they're now calling to be reduced.

Having said they would increase the plan to repayment thresholds to reflect earnings, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats then froze it for four years. The Conservatives then throws it in 2016 and 27, and then again from 2021 to 2024. In total, there was a decade's worth of freezes by the parties opposite. It is their mismanagement that necessitates a further freeze to the threshold now, and I do not remember any of this outreach from members opposite when they created and built this system.

Their solution, as we've heard today, is to cut courses and cut opportunities. We will not make reckless, unfunded changes to student loans, student finance and higher education. Funding is a complex, interconnected system. We are considering a range of options to make the system fairer, but we must be fiscally responsible and consider carefully how change will be funded. Politics is about choices and we are balancing. Tessa Munt thank the Minister very much for giving way. I wonder if she would consider doing something about the cost of accommodation in university, university towns and cities where I come from in Somerset and North Somerset, there is no university.

People don't really have the option at the moment to go anywhere except to a city, and that's incredibly expensive. I wonder if there's some consideration that she might give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to reducing those costs on very ordinary working families. Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. I thank the hon. Member for for for that comment, and that is why we are supporting maintenance we are supporting maintenance grants to support children with the grants to support children with the cost of living. I make progress to to say our approach to further reform of the system will be reform of the system will be deliberate evidence and fiscally responsible. We're not here to tear down the house, but to repair the roof that was left to leak.

Thank you.
17:02
17:03
Ian Sollom Portrait Ian Sollom MP (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
disagree on the specific change proposed, the interest structure does need reform. The Liberal Democrats have said that clearly. Democrats have said that clearly. The motion also calls for more apprenticeships for 18 to 21 year olds investment. We welcome. In olds investment. We welcome. In principle, we would actually go further, doubling degree apprenticeships in priority sectors and also introducing skills cooperatives to help small businesses, specifically pool resources to take on apprentices they couldn't otherwise afford. But the question before us is whether the motion as a whole represents a serious plan, and I'm afraid it doesn't.

Specifically, the motion calls for controlling the number of places on university courses where the benefits are significantly outweighed by the cost to graduates and taxpayers. Let's be clear about what controlling the number of places means. It means cutting, and the courses they have in mind are arts, humanities and creative subjects. But the argument rests on a definition that sounds objective and it isn't. Which courses have benefits significantly outweigh our significantly outweighed by their costs, the proxy appears to effectively be graduate salaries, and graduate salary is a poor measure of what society actually gains from a degree.

Nursing, teaching, social work, creative arts all underperform on salary data while delivering enormous public value. So what logic are the Conservatives applying? Even on salary terms, cutting arts places would damage Stem, not protect it? As one member on the opposition on the government benches, made arts courses are relatively cheap to deliver and Cross-subsidise expensive laboratory provision, the IFS explicitly found that reducing arts funding may perversely reduce

**** Possible New Speaker ****

funding for Stem. I will give way. Alex McIntyre. I thank the hon. Member for giving way. He's making a very giving way. He's making a very important point here because when the conservative benches talk about cutting public funding for these types of courses, like the creative arts, that won't stop the wealthiest students from accessing those courses, and does he agree with me that all that will happen will mean that people from more deprived parts of our country won't be able to access those, and there will be one rule for them and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will be one rule for them and another rule for everyone else. Ian Sollom they're getting ripped off. I thank the Member for his intervention and indeed, the history of access to university

**** Possible New Speaker ****

does demonstrate that point well. Now there is a I will give one. I'm grateful to the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I'm trying to follow the kind of mental perambulations of the left, because the argument seems to be that people from seems to be that people from working class backgrounds can go on courses which they're lead them to courses which they're lead them to have negative outcomes, poor earnings and that that very course that they're on that does them so little good with so much promise but so little delivered. They actually have the opportunity to cross-subsidise other people doing other courses.

And both he and the gentleman opposite seem to think this is a good thing. Can't they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

see the reality, which is that it isn't Ian Sollom? Well, I do actually thank the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I do actually thank the Member for his intervention, because it is just one part of the argument that I'm making. You know, we'll get to. More come.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

More come. To it. But but but but but actually, the point, the point that actually, the point, the point that he makes that's important. There is a very important point around that, that that could equally be an that that could equally be an argument for making the student loan system fairer in its repayment terms to reflect that. Oh, sorry, sorry. But so there is a deeper problem too. The graduate earnings premium has declined in Britain, but not because we have too many graduates.

It is because we have too few skilled jobs and that is a demand side failure. And also a conservative legacy appears in our OECD countries have expanded graduate graduate numbers while maintaining graduate premium because they built the industries and invested in the regions that generate high skilled employment. Cutting student numbers accepts economic underperformance as permanent. It is, as I have said before, a counsel of despair dressed up as policy. And then there are the creative industries over 100 billion a year to the British economy.

One of our most successful global exports, built on a pipeline of arts graduates. The answer is not to stop training the people on whom that whole pipeline depends. And ultimately the. And ultimately, the value of an education cannot be read entirely just from a graduate salary. The capacity for critical thinking, for empathy, for cultural participation. These are public goods hidden in plain sight that show up nowhere in. Write off rates. A party that asks only what does it pay has already decided something important about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Spencer. I thank him for giving away. And again, it's just on the broader point of principle in terms of the point of principle in terms of the value of certain subjects. I intervened in the Minister and she she failed to answer ask the same she failed to answer ask the same question to him. Does he think that there are some subjects offered by some universities for which the value is quite poor, and it's value is quite poor, and it's unfair for the taxpayer to be subsidising that? Does he think in principle that that is possible,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that those subjects do exist? Ian Sollom quality control?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the point is to actually allow the the the market and regulation of that market to, to,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

regulation of that market to, to, to decide on. Constituents at Pam Cox is the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Constituents at Pam Cox is the regulation for that one. I will make I will make.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Sit down. In order to be helpful. The hon. Member might reflect that the Member might reflect that the microphone is in front of him, and it makes it much harder for both Hansard and indeed, the viewing public to pick up on the words he says if he is facing towards the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

back of the chamber. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. So let me turn to the the threshold and interest rate, where we do substantially agree with the substantially agree with the motions diagnosis, if not its proposed remedy on interest, proposed remedy on interest, specifically in the system. As it stands, the rate only matters financially if you repay in full. financially if you repay in full. Most graduates don't, and that is by design to share the costs between the graduate and the state. But it means that the largest benefit of the Conservatives proposal flows to the highest earners those who repay completely.

It is regressive in its distribution, as IFS analysis has shown, and that is why more thought is required on interest structure. On the threshold, the picture is more straightforward. Before the election, the education secretary promised graduates would pay less under Labour, as the opposition spokesperson said. But in their first Budget, the government did leave the threshold rising. Then in their second Budget, they froze the threshold for three years. From 2027, Ministers have cited a 5.9 billion figure as the yield of this change.

But let's be clear about what that figure is. It is the discounted present value of extra payments across nearly 30 years, the bulk sitting in the 2030s, 2040s and 2050s. The annual cash impact during this parliament is relatively small, and the change barely moves the needle on the Chancellor's own fiscal rules. Graduates bear a real and immediate burden in their payslip for the remainder of their loan. For a cash flow improvement that is modest in this Parliament and does nothing at all.

For the Chancellor's balanced Budget rule, why, of all the choices in November's Budget, was this one of them? Now I note the government's own amendment today welcomes a commitment to make the system fairer and commitments should be welcomed. But graduates are waiting for action. So let me set out what the Liberal Democrats would do. First, unfreeze the planned tooth threshold immediately and tie it to earnings as was originally promised. Second, restore meaningful maintenance grants. Students from the poorest families can borrow £1,284 less in real terms than they could in 2020.

2021. The £1,000 grant reaches about 10% of students, and that's restricted to specific subjects, and I think we can do better on maintenance policy. Grants need to be available regardless of subject, and the parental income thresholds that have been frozen since 2008 must be urgently updated. Third, establish a Royal Commission on Graduate Finance, including plan two, plan three and plan five with plan three and plan five. Those terms are in several respects even harsher, and have those all in scope and have independent oversight of key parameters.

That isn't to delay, but to look seriously at fairer interest structures, total repayment caps and progressive repayment rates, and, critically, to build that cross-party settlement that is only real protection against the next government squeezing graduates again. The system has been treated as a fiscal convenience rather than a social contract by the last government, and now this one. And graduates deserve better. Thank you.
17:13
Rosie Wrighting Portrait Rosie Wrighting MP (Kettering, Labour)
-
-
Rosie Wrighting thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. 18 months ago, Deputy Speaker. 18 months ago, people in Kettering chose to elect an MP who was 26 years old. I believe they did that because they believe they did that because they wanted a Labour government. But I also think it's because they wanted because young people in my constituency and their parents and their grandparents wanted me to speak of my own experience, of how tough it's been for my generation. One of the tasks you navigate is an MP is how best to use your privileged position in this building to influence change.

And as one of the only young people in the room, and almost always the only young woman I tried to share. Depending on what you define as young. Yeah, I think you're safe with that definition. OK. One of the only women in their 20s in this room. I try to put share perspective from a younger person that watching politics growing up, I felt might have been missed from the debates. Yeah, I'm going to do that today in this debate through my own experience.

But in doing so, I hope to highlight the generational inequalities for an entire generation that have deep felt frustration, a frustration that made me join a political party campaign for change in government. And it drives me in this place every day. I want to declare the fact that I have a plan to loan, a plan to loan close to £90,000, and before getting elected, I was working for years, full time and only watching my student loan growth in Kettering.

I grew up in a single parent household. My mum, who is a youth worker, raised me by herself and at school, like so many others, I struggled at times for knowing what I wanted to do and what I wanted my career path to look like. But what I knew, what I knew more than anything, is that I wanted to work hard enough to give myself a better life, and that should be the route to a better life. Was so clearly communicated to me at school that it was through university.

And when I reflect back, I really wish someone had spoken to me about apprenticeships and other options, and in the desire that many young people have to build themselves a better life, I and people around me did the thing that we were told to do. We worked hard, went to uni, got a degree, and there's a lot said about what Gen Z expect from life, but ordinary hope and ordinary aspiration, despite what social media tells you, is not to live in Dubai, buy avocados and a nice matcha every day.

But it's able. It's being able to live in a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

home. You're not worried you'll be kicked out of your. Yes. Grateful to the hon. Lady who's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful to the hon. Lady who's giving a powerful speech on behalf of her generation. Is she disappointed that, having promised to reduce the costs for graduates repaying student loans, that the repaying student loans, that the government is making it worse? Is she disappointed that when challenged over this broken system, challenged over this broken system, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said she and people like her are at the back of the queue?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Rosie Wrighting I think that there's many levers this government can pull to make life better for can pull to make life better for graduates. I understand, given the economic situation in some of those economic situation in some of those levers are easier, and I'm glad that things like the Renters Rights Bill are coming forward and making a difference to my generation. a difference to my generation. Every single day. I have voiced that. I feel that this is not a fair system, and I would like my government to look at it, and I think that's been her.

Yes, the ability to live in a home. You are not worried you'll be kicked out of, or to even one day not have to live with strangers or your parents to be able to make the choice to have a child, if that's right for you. And the decision to go on holiday doesn't mean maxing out your credit card. And I don't think that's too much to ask for. This is hope and aspiration, and I want to live in a country where it's reasonable for ordinary young people to want these things and more importantly, to think that they are achievable.

And out of all the damage the Conservatives did for me, one of the worst things that they did was to damage to hope. Yes, I started university in 2016. My tuition fees were £9,000 a year, but my maintenance loan was £12,000 a year. So I'm paying back more. Not because my education cost me more, but because I came from a low income family and needed that support to live.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would you give way on that point? Yes. Danny Beales. I thank my hon. Friend for giving me and for her powerful speech in this place. And this place is much better for her presence, speaking up for people in presence, speaking up for people in her situation. It sounds like we had a similar background growing up, but I was perhaps fortunate enough to be on a plan. One system and under a Labour government, benefited not only from education maintenance allowance to stay on at maintenance allowance to stay on at sixth form, but also grants as well as loans.

Did it sounds like she wasn't able to benefit from that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

because the party opposite does. Does she agree that the. Restoring of maintenance grants

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Restoring of maintenance grants and the uplifting of maintenance loans to match the cost of living will really benefit people from the backgrounds that we had?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

backgrounds that we had? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And I, I do think that this, it hasn't been talked about enough in hasn't been talked about enough in this debate or more widely in the debate about student loans, just how much is added for students that how much is added for students that had to take a large maintenance loan because they were from a low income family. And I thank him for for raising that. So when maintenance grants were scrapped by the Conservatives, that cost didn't disappear.

Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and she's giving a really excellent speech. But I do think there's a whole cohort of plan one there's a whole cohort of plan one students who also experience the exact same situation that the hon. exact same situation that the hon. Lady is explaining. In 1997, Tony Blair said that he would not introduce tuition fees. In 1998 he introduce tuition fees. In 1998 he did, and the Labour Party then also scrapped maintenance grants. I was 16 in 1997, was suddenly faced with 16 in 1997, was suddenly faced with going to university, needing fees and a loan and no family support to be able to afford it.

So I do think it's important that we recognise that it was a Labour government that did that in 1997. Having said no, and actually we can give just as many examples from the Labour government's decision as you can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

from the Conservatives. Rosie Wrighting I was born in 97, so forgive me, I won't, I won't you so forgive me, I won't, I won't you recollect my memories from that time, but what I what I will say is I don't think graduates are arguing I don't think graduates are arguing that we shouldn't pay. I think that it's an understanding that graduates should pay for their graduates should pay for their degrees. But it's a scale and the fairness within the system that I fairness within the system that I want to highlight today, the cost of maintenance grants didn't have maintenance grants didn't disappear, simply shifted, shifted onto students, turned into debt, and the burden was put on those from the lowest income families.

The very policy that enabled working class kids to go to university gave us the highest debt as soon as we left. That is not fairness. That is not opportunity. That is generational inequality designed into the system, a system that disproportionately impacts people who don't have a savings account waiting for them when they turn 18, who don't have the money for a house deposit, who can't ask for help for childcare. And that is why I welcome this government taking steps to strengthen maintenance support, including the return of maintenance grants.

And if the Conservative Party truly cared about those students, I would have expected them to welcome that at a Dispatch Box today. It is not.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think, the hon. Lady for giving way. And I too welcome the reintroduction of maintenance grants, which, let's be clear, were grants, which, let's be clear, were scrapped by George Osborne when he was left to his own devices in 2015. was left to his own devices in 2015. So I welcome the reintroduction of maintenance grants. But does she accept that £1,000 a year for accept that £1,000 a year for certain selected subjects means it will not go anywhere, won't touch will not go anywhere, won't touch the sides, and is suggesting that some poor students deserve support on some subjects and not on others.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does she think that's the right way forward? Rosie Wrighting. I appreciate it's a start. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I appreciate it's a start. I welcome us introducing them and that £1,000. But yes, I think there's more to do. But I also there's more to do. But I also welcome the fact that this this is we're in a tough economic environment, and this is what the environment, and this is what the government has chosen to prioritise. It's not by accident that my generation have it so hard and make no mistakes. These decisions were taken by the Conservative Party when they were in government.

They asked my generation to do more with less, to bear a heavier burden, and then left us behind. The Tories calling this debate today, pretending they have the answers to fix the system they broke is insulting to young people across this country. They are calling on the government. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would you not find it rather worse if we weren't reflecting our time in power and the fact that we time in power and the fact that we were thrown out and that we were trying to come forward with constructive proposals to make things better, because the important thing is to listen to important thing is to listen to people like the hon. Lady and our constituents reflect and come forward with it. That's what we're doing because we're trying to look forward, not play some history game about the past.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Rosie Wrighting my last intervention asked me about 1997, so I think there is some looking back going on. But what I would say is, yes, I would I would welcome the party opposite, reflecting on their time in power. But unfortunately that isn't what I've seen today and that isn't the tone of the conversation I see coming out of the Conservative Party. They are calling on the government to change plan to repayment systems when they've designed plan to student loans to end repayment thresholds when they froze them, and to create more apprenticeships when they left.

1 in 8 young people not earning or learning. So when we hear the Conservative Party now proposing cutting interest rates on student loans, we have to ask where was this concern when they were in government? Where was this concern for the thousands of young people, my peers, my friends, people around me facing high student loan payments today? Because the reality is, even what the frontbench is saying they would do today disproportionately benefits the highest earners, those most likely to pay their loans off in full.

It does little for the majority of graduates, and it does almost nothing for those from low income backgrounds who are less likely to ever clear their debts. This is the same Conservative Party. Madam Deputy Speaker, I feel strongly that we have a chance now to say something to young people about their future, because after years of broken promises, what we see now is frustration and something more dangerous than frustration, a loss of belief. Belief that if you work hard, you will get on.

And when that belief goes, opportunity goes with it. That is the real legacy of the last 14 years. Not just high debt, but diminished hope. And I genuinely believe that it is only Labour that offers the chance to restore fairness between generations, not just headline grabbing tweaks. And we are starting to do that by strengthening support for renters, delivering the Youth Guarantee, expanding childcare and taking steps to ensure that maintenance support works for students, not against them. But I also think that it is only us that can do something bigger, only us that can restore belief to an entire generation.

Belief that if you work hard, whether that is at school, at work, at university, or through an apprenticeship, you can build a better life, a real life, a secure home, the ability to start a family, the confidence that your efforts will be rewarded with opportunity. Because that is why my mum believed when she was encouraging me to pursue education, she was giving me a better life and that is what young people deserve today. Not just that they are able to hope for a better future, but it is within their reach.
17:26
Simon Hoare Portrait Simon Hoare MP (North Dorset, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you. minute time limit. >> Simon Hoare Madam Deputy Speaker. >> When I woke this morning and sprang out of bed thinking about my sprang out of bed thinking about my upcoming 57th birthday, I was feeling quite young and sprightly. But having listened to the hon. Lady's speech for Kettering, I'm now feeling particularly ancient and quite amazed that I've managed to get to my feet to give this speech. She gave a compelling speech and an interesting speech, and I think she gave those of us who are of an earlier vintage when it came to university, experience, much to think about, and I think the House should be grateful to her, for her, to her for what she had to say.

The prognosis of the government is slightly odd. It's broken. It's not working. It's a terrible system. But we'll have a little think about it. I'm not quite sure what we're going to do when we're going to do it, and you're at the back of the queue, but we're not going to tell you how long the queue is. It's like one on one of those sort of call centre things. Your call is important to us. Please wait. And you're waiting and waiting and waiting. You're in the queue, but you don't know how long.

I would say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I think these this sort of policy issue requires long term, settled solutions, and it cries out to me as something which would really benefit from cross-party working, which would actually give some solidity and some sense in long term policy making. I welcome the motion tabled by my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition, because I think it starts to address an issue which has been pressing in our inboxes and of concern to our constituents.

Should we be going back? I don't know the idea of a graduate tax. It is clear to me, it is clear to me that all governments and all parties should view money spent on education in the university sector and elsewhere, not as an expenditure, but as an investment from which the state and society should have an expectation of a return. And in relation to the point about controlling the number of places available, I think it's it's absolutely crucial that was sensitive on this.

We do not want to reduce the evaluation of education to a utilitarian exercise. But clearly you have to look one has to look at value for money. Education is more than just the end of the process. It's an enriching a personal, developing, friend making process, providing one with all of the keys to life stores as we face them. When I went up to university way back in 1987, I don't suppose the hon. Lady's mother for Kettering had even thought about her.

In 1987, when I was going up to university, it was 1 in 8. That was not a sustainable figure of people to go to university if we wanted to see a growing economy. I had gone to an ordinary state school in South Wales. I was the first of my family to go to university is 50% of our young a sustainable figure when clearly the jobs market is changing and I welcome whatever anybody wishes to do to support vocational, technical and apprenticeships.

There are other ways, and I would say this I suppose I must declare an interest. I have my oldest daughter is applying to university at the moment, but it is very often the sharp elbowed middle classes. My fellow sharp elbowed middle class parents who push their children towards university and fail to recognise the importance and value and use of apprenticeships and other forms of getting on in life. There needs to be a societal step change in all of that, and I think we do have to think seriously about that and particularly supporting our Fe colleges.

Many of my young constituents attend Yeovil College, just over the border in Somerset. It's a first class college. Great ties to local businesses such as Leonardo's and others and provides a real start, a good start in life for many young people in North Dorset. I particularly just wanted to echo a point that the hon. Lady made just of the benefit of stability, that a settled future can have, putting down roots, starting a family, etc. and we should be encouraging our young to think like that, but also to understand the very wide range of educational opportunities that exist for them.

So I think we can't ignore this any longer. We have too many of our university institutions who are just about hanging on in there financially. Many are teetering on the brink. We have a model which we can't sustain, the utility of which is proving even harder to demonstrate to our constituents doing nothing. Putting at the back of the queue, I would say to the Minister, is not a sustainable solution to this, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of course I'll give way. Yes. I thank the hon. Gentleman to give way. He keeps referring to the back of the queue, but my my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer didn't say back of the queue. She actually said after her queue. She actually said after her maize lecture we want to make improvements, but is it front of the queue? No it's not. That's not the queue? No it's not. That's not that's not can I can I just say no, it's honourable.

Right. Honourable it's honourable. Right. Honourable and hon. Members can chanter from a sedentary position, but repeatedly hon. Members opposite have said back of the queue that is not what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said. And will he accept that point?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Simon Hoare what I will accept is that the hon. Gentleman is swiftly gaining a reputation in this place, as the only member of this place, as the only member of that team who would actually defend a policy of the slaughter of the firstborn. He will defend anything I seem to remember. I seem to remember the hon. Gentleman. The Member for Rugby was one of the Member for Rugby was one of the only Labour members who stood up and defended Lord Mandelson's appointment to be ambassador to Washington.

So it may be a no, I Washington. So it may be a no, I will not give way, because I think I mean, one can only be a useful idiot so often in afternoon. So what I would say, what I what I would say to the Minister, whether it's at the front of the queue, the back of the queue, the middle of the queue, this is an issue that cannot be put aside any longer. It needs. I'm just about to give up. I won't get an extra minute.

The hon. Gentleman who I like very much. In ordinary circumstances I would, but I won't. But we need some urgency from this and I would finally urge some cross-party working on this to make sure that all of our constituents, whether urban, rural, first generation, university, second, third or fourth, get the very best deal and start in life

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that they can as they begin their working careers. Matt Rodda thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it's a pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman like to follow the hon. Gentleman like him. I also have two children who have recently graduated, and I also worked in higher education for a worked in higher education for a time. Madam Deputy Speaker, I'd like to speak in support of the amendment in the name of the Prime amendment in the name of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, and I want to discuss three aspects of this important issue.

First and foremost, the legacy left by the last government. And we've heard a little bit about that earlier. Secondly, the measures that are being taken by the current government to address this, and also what more might be done to help. So turning, first of all, to the legacy of the last government, I think we should be quite simple and straightforward about this, that the last government left a terrible mess in higher education. And today the party opposite is trying to quite simply rewrite history when it comes to student loans.

It was the last government supported by the Liberal Democrats who designed the plan to student loans, and last government also froze the thresholds for ten years, and they're now the ones complaining about the very system they themselves devised. And they should actually, in my opinion, be apologising for the mess they left behind. Sadly, we face the ridiculous situation where they're actually campaigning to resolve the very problem that they created, which is all a little bit rich. In contrast, the current government is trying to clear up that mess and also to build a better future for young people.

Madam Deputy Speaker, could I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for their work to invest in children and young people, whether this is investing in best start with four new centres in reading and many more across the country investing in our schools. And I should say it was a pleasure to welcome Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to a breakfast club recently, or investing in school buildings and teachers pay, which is also a rather important area of policy. Should I remind the members opposite, given the mess they left in teacher recruitment and retention when they left office and the government's also in.

It's also worth considering the government is updating the school curriculum and it's consulting about modernising SEND provision. These are all important steps forward and examples of real investment in children and young people. Now, as part of this, I know that the Minister and her colleagues are trying to address some of the issues around student finance, and I would like to welcome, in particular, the reintroduction of maintenance loans. I think there have been some very thoughtful comments about the power of these and the importance to many people of lower means, and encourage them to get on with studying at university.

I'd also like to tackle the wider work that mention the wider work the government is taking to tackle the cost of living, and I think it's important to see the the support for maintenance loans. In this context, the freeze in rail fares is going to help students and young people, as will the move to energy prices. And we've also heard about the work to support renters. Indeed, also the work to build more houses will help young people buy their own homes. So in many ways, the government is helping our young people.

There remains though, as it's been said, more to be done, and I would like to ask the Minister to continue to look into the effects of the plan to scheme and in particular, given my area in the south east of England, I would like to highlight the challenges faced by young people living in higher cost areas. I do know that the Minister cares deeply about this, and it's been a great pleasure to have her in reading, talking to families recently about special educational needs. She does care and she is looking into this issue, so I do hope that we'll hear a little bit more about this.

To conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, we have had a terrible inheritance. Action has been taken and I look

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forward to hearing more. Thank you. Peter Fortune thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. An much, Madam Deputy Speaker. An issue of concern is, of course, youth unemployment, which is particularly pressing, having skyrocketed, skyrocketed to record levels under Labour's watch with 16 to 24 year old unemployment rates to 24 year old unemployment rates at nearly 16%. Failing the youth of this country is tantamount to this country is tantamount to abandoning our future. It's because of the political choices made by this government that young people are struggling to secure employment, and we have the lowest graduate recruitment levels on record and 700,000 graduates on benefits.

To make matters worse, far too many of those who can find employment are then stuck in an endless cycle of student debt, whilst taxpayers have to pick up the tab for those who are never fully able to repay the balance and write off their loans. I've been contacted by many graduates in Bromley and Biggin Hill who are deeply concerned about the freeze on student loan repayment thresholds. They see this decision as unfair and one that heaps additional financial pressure
17:37
Peter Fortune Portrait Peter Fortune MP (Bromley and Biggin Hill, Conservative)
-
-
on graduates who are already struggling with the rising cost of living. In a sense, it changes the living. In a sense, it changes the rules for graduates after the fact. For many, what is meant to be an investment in education and the investment in education and the future workforce now creates a sense of permanent debt, rather than a manageable contribution than a manageable contribution based on ability to pay. This cannot go on, or we risk undermining the trust in the undermining the trust in the student finance system altogether.

On this side of the House, we have a plan a clear new deal for young people, a step by step plan to fix what the government is making worse, a plan that I fully support, and that would be of huge benefit to young people in Bromley and Biggin Hill. Under our plan to abolish real interest rates on plan two student loans, we will ensure student loan balances will never rise faster than RPI inflation. For example, a doctor at Princess Royal University Hospital in Bromley in 2029 with £8,000 £80,000 of student debt, will save £58,000 in lifetime repayments and clear their loans sooner.

A graduate in Bromley with £40,000 of student debt and on a salary of 50,000, would save £26,000 in lifetime repayments and would clear their loan five years faster than under the current system. It's only the Conservatives who will end the unfair interest rate rises, fund 100,000 more apprenticeships and encourage young people into work with a £5,000 first job bonus, we have a plan to restore aspiration for young people. The government is failing.
17:39
Adam Thompson Portrait Adam Thompson MP (Erewash, Labour)
-
-
Adam Thompson. >> Can I begin by drawing the House's attention to my register of interest, particularly my role as the chair of the all party Parliamentary Universities Group Parliamentary Universities Group and my membership of the University and Colleges Union. With that said, I must note my shock and awe. Madam Deputy Speaker at the Conservative Deputy Speaker at the Conservative Party's decision to hold today's opposition day debate on the current state of student loans, a system that they created in government, a system that they subsequently broke, and a system that has left a generation of students and graduates utterly and comprehensively beaten.

I remember well when they, with the support of the Liberal Democrats, tripled student fees in 2012. I was a student at the time, president of a sports club at my university. We saw a huge downturn in involvement with extracurricular activities that year because of the additional pressure put on new students by the fee increase. Indeed, I remember very well a friend who worked in the events team at our Students Union, referring to October 2012 as the death of fun at the time.

I accept that the sector needed intervention, and I believe that the architect of the policy, the now Lord Willetts, took difficult decisions that he felt were needed to make the university sector sustainable. I do not believe, however, that he had factored into his plan. The Tories, the Tories subsequent freeze in the fee increases and fee repayment thresholds, as well as their later abolition of maintenance grants. While the initial increase was a blow to students, the following decade of failed Tory policy has left our university sector in tatters.

It's left our institutions facing years of staff dissatisfaction and industrial action, and it's created a whole generation saddled with unbelievable student debt they created. And then they compounded a system that looks like a graduate tax. It smells like a graduate tax. And yet it provides the uniquely deep personal pressure that sits astride hundreds of thousands of pounds of apparent debt, crushing millions of students who've been to university in the past 14 years. The Tories enacted almost irreparable damage on the university sector, and they did immeasurable harm to a whole generation's experience of universities.

The death of fun indeed. I am amazed, then, at the decision today to put forward this opposition opposition motion, choosing to tinker around the edges of the policy cesspit that they created over many years. They exhibit the most unbelievable brass neck. Not a jot of apology for the damage they did, not a modicum of understanding of the work the government is now doing to dig us out of the mess that they left us in. Madam Deputy Speaker, this government is now taking the tough but fair decisions that are needed to protect taxpayers and students now and for the future.

Under the system, lower earning graduates will always be protected with any outstanding loans and interest continuing to be written off after 30 years. I believe it's right that those who can repay their loans do so, and that graduates earning some of the highest salaries contribute more towards their student loan repayment. But this government must also repair the damage that was left to us by the Tories. That's why I so strongly support the government's plan to restore maintenance grants and increase maintenance loans in line with inflation, as I believe should always have been the case.

These measures ultimately support low income students to access, participate and excel in higher education. When I was teaching degree level apprenticeships in electromechanical engineering, I saw what widening participation measures achieved in practice, allowing access to education to people who didn't otherwise have it. And I saw the profound good that those measures achieved. Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to next note that universities UK still supports the Income Contingent Loan Repayment System, which has facilitated a huge advance in access to university over the past two decades.

You UK note that more students from disadvantaged backgrounds have been able to enter university, with a proportion of pupils receiving free school meals who go on to university doubling from 2005 oh 6 to 2324. Successive reviews of the higher education finance system have concluded that it is the fairest way of funding higher education, and it was Labour policy last time we were in government that achieved those significant improvements. While I acknowledge the government has a difficult time ahead in solving the Tories mess, I am deeply supportive of the Prime Minister's huge new target for universities and apprenticeships that by the age of 25, two thirds of young people should be studying for a degree or taking up a gold standard apprenticeship.

Labour is taking real action to ensure that young people are either earning or learning 200,000 jobs and apprenticeship opportunities over the next three years. I strongly support the government's 2.5 billion investment that forms the Youth Guarantee as well. We must use it to expand employment support, offer grants to employers who hire young people and provide a Jobs Guarantee to create subsidised work

**** Possible New Speaker ****

placements for long term unemployed. 18 to 24 year olds. Here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Doctor Luke Evans. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. And I've said this in this House before, but said this in this House before, but I'll say it again. This is a Prime Minister who promised change and then changed his promise. And you only have to look on this subject
17:44
Luke Evans Portrait Dr Luke Evans MP (Hinckley and Bosworth, Conservative)
-
-
only have to look on this subject to his ten point plan in 2020. And I quote, my promise to you is that I will maintain our radical values and work tirelessly to get labour into power, so that we can advance the interests of people. Our party we created to serve based on the we created to serve based on the moral case for socialism. Here is where I stand. And point two specifically, support the abolition of tuition fees and invest in lifelong learning. Come on loyalists.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now. He was right in his promise that they over on the other side won a landslide election. Yes, but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

won a landslide election. Yes, but strangely enough, that promise is gone. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. It wasn't in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Exactly. It wasn't in the manifesto. And he made a promise. He made a promise when he stood to there.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Nothing to it. Worse still, what did he do in his first Budget? He increased student fees from 9250 to 9535. And then last year he's frozen the thresholds. Now that's really important because he promised one thing and changed his promise. Now, we've heard when it comes to student loans in this House, a lot of tittle tattle on both sides. But all parties, including the Liberal Democrats, wherever they happen to be, have responsibility because it was in 1998, Tony Blair who brought tuition fees forward.

He then increased them in 2004, then in the coalition years. Yes, there was an increase then, of which the Liberal Democrats stood on election manifesto not to do. And here we are now, having just been over what Labour said they were going to do and now have done. But why does it really, really matter? Because, yes, there was a an issue hidden in the student loan plan too, but it's come to fruition because of what we've seen across the global side.

And I don't think anyone was raising those concerns back then, because government has to deal with things that come up. And that's what we're looking for today, and that's what students outside of this place will be listening for two years in. What is the solution? Because at the end of the day, it is the middle earners who are being squeezed. And it is unfair because no matter how hard they work, their debt is going up. And I think principally, regardless of your political position, we all agree that's unfair.

So the question is how do we solve it? And when it comes to the Chancellor, she was asked this. Yes, we want to fix it. Yes, we want to make improvement. But it's not front of the queue. No it's not. Politics is about priorities. I'm not denying there's a problem. I'm not blind to that. But what I do say is there has to be some patience. Well, tell that to the member of Kettering or the people from Hinckley and Bosworth who are now, no matter what they do, no matter how hard they are, they're having their debt go up.

And she went on, if you say to me, you shouldn't worry. Thank you, hon. Member, for giving way. A constituent constituent of mine who aspires to be a GP like the hon. Member, left university with £44,000 in debt, and she's actually paying more in interest than on the repayments on the loan. Does the hon. Member agree with me that this system actually deters graduates from following the very careers that we so desperately need to follow in this country? He's absolutely right, and so I expect she will be shocked to hear that it's not really a priority for this government because it is unfair.

And that's why we, on this side of the House at least try to put up a solution. I was expecting the government to turn around and say why it doesn't work and maybe offer something different. That's what the public want to hear. That's what his constituent wants to hear. And certainly that's what mine do, because the Chancellor went on to say, if you say to me, you shouldn't have done child poverty and you should have reformed the student loan system. I strongly disagree with that.

Well, actually, that's very honest. I give her credit for that because now look at the wider context and what that means for younger people. As we've heard already today, unemployment in the UK is at its highest level since 2021 and since 2015 for those aged 16 to 24 and youth UK youth unemployment for the first time ever is above the European average. Let that sink in and as I made a point to the frontbench colleague, we know that last year from the UK, 257,000 people left the UK when it was expected to be 77,000, and three quarters of them were under the age of 35.

They won't turn up in the next numbers. They're not recorded in that way. So not only have we got youth unemployment going up, we've actually got herds of young people moving elsewhere. And this is a tragedy for our economy, and it's a tragedy for those young people, because they're having to look elsewhere to find that work, to find that lifestyle, to find their place in the world. And that, to me, is really sad. And the government solution, well, it's already increased taxes on businesses, put more red tape in, seen youth unemployment go up and say, well, do you know what we're going to do? We're going to give you £3,000 to rehire the person

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that was lost their job. Yeah. They've created a whole and they're now trying to fill it themselves, but only filling it themselves, but only filling it half way. Now, there is a solution in this document that we've put in this document that we've put forward. Agreed. It's not fulsome. It doesn't redo the entirety of the It doesn't redo the entirety of the student loan system, which I would agree with other colleagues, that this definitely needs an approach to be looked at.

But at least this to be looked at. But at least this side is trying offering solutions. The other side I hear meetings, I hear talking, I see no solutions and that's a shame.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Alex McIntyre thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should declare an interest. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I should declare an interest. I am one of those students. Well, former students with a plan to loan. I was in the first year that they were introduced, and I know I should remind my colleagues, I had a very tough job growing up. If anyone's shocked that I am indeed anyone's shocked that I am indeed young enough to be a plan two student, and quite frankly, I'm sat here quite shocked at the brass here quite shocked at the brass neck of the party opposite because I remember being at school, having conversations with working class kids like me who are thinking about going to university, the first in my family to go to university, who are being put off because their party put fees up from 3000 to 9000.

There was no consideration then for what young people were going through. There was no plan for young people. There certainly wasn't a plan for young people like me. Growing up in the communities that I grew up in with parents who, quite frankly, never had the opportunities that all of them got for free. I'm happy to give away.
17:51
Alex McIntyre Portrait Alex McIntyre MP (Gloucester, Labour)
-
-
As a doctor, I was lucky enough to have funding to go towards my education, and I'm always surprised to hear people saying we should put to hear people saying we should put more funding into students. On the back of the porters. The back of the porters. The receptionist, who never went to university, it's their taxes that are supporting those students. That 50% helped to get me where I am. What does he say to those in his community? Because they're the ones who are being left behind by paying the taxes for other people to go to,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to have their time at university. Intervention, they'll be very pleased. I'm coming on to exactly that point later on in my speech. There are challenges with this system. Of course there are. There are challenges with it. Back when it was introduced in 2012, we it was introduced in 2012, we pointed out the fact that there are huge generational inequalities. There are people in this chamber There are people in this chamber who didn't pay tuition fees at all, who had lower house prices when they were graduates.

They can afford to buy a house, and those afford to buy a house, and those challenges still continue. As part of the reason why I got into politics was to deal with those intergenerational inequalities. We all talk about broken promises. Where is the promise about levelling up? Because in my mind, levelling up was about creating more opportunities for young people in places like mine in Gloucester. And in fact, they were never delivered under the party opposite. I want what's best for young people and the university sector in my constituency.

I'm really delighted to take this opportunity to welcome the brand new university campus that the University of Gloucestershire has opened in Gloucester city centre, taking over the Debenhams building in Gloucester and creating a new campus for students with the public library inside so that young people in Gloucester can see what that opportunity looks like. And going forward, we need to make sure that we're creating opportunities for all young people because despite the move to more people going to university in Gloucestershire, only a third of people will go to university.

And in the most deprived parts of my constituency, that number is less than 1 in 5. So that's why I'm really proud of this. Government is reintroducing the maintenance grants, and it's why I'm backing the new target of two thirds going to university or gold standard apprenticeships, because university might not be the best route for everybody. But generations of young people in my community were left behind by the party opposite, who had no plan for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in government for young people in my constituency. I'm very happy to give way. Impassioned speech and we hear

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Impassioned speech and we hear where he's coming from. But there are 800 jobs were created every day are 800 jobs were created every day over the 14 years. Unemployment was brought down to near record lows. And since his party's come to power with the mission, which he's describing, what's happened? Unemployment is up by 25% and youth Unemployment is up by 25% and youth unemployment has now eclipsed even that of Europe. It's not delivering. So I hope in the next part of his speech, he's going to talk about what the government needs to do now in order to make things better for young people, because every indicator at the moment is going the wrong way, including the cost of student loans.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm always happy to be educated by privately educated Oxbridge graduates who didn't pay a penny graduates who didn't pay a penny for their student fees. You'll actually find that employment levels have gone up. The number of people in employment have gone up people in employment have gone up under this government. Well, that's the stats. If he wants to check on these, more than welcome to and I these, more than welcome to and I welcome the Youth Guarantee that the government has talked about this week introducing more apprenticeships, more opportunities apprenticeships, more opportunities for young people, tackling those people who've been furthest from employment in my constituency.

And the Member for Kettering made a fantastic speech about some of the other things we're doing for young people. It's not just about education, it's about renters rights, and it's about expanding free childcare. And when we talk about I have to give away.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. So I'm not a private, educated individual, nor did I go educated individual, nor did I go to Oxbridge, but I am where I am today because I went to a state grammar school. Would he agree with grammar school. Would he agree with me? He's made an impassioned speech about breaking down barriers and social opportunity. Would you agree with me that grammar schools are a key part of that?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, Gloucester has a number of grammar schools and they're doing very well for the students there. I went to a grammar school. However, I went to a states, I went to a state school. My parents worked really hard to get me there. And if you want to, you know, talk about that going forward, I'm very happy to talk about my background and where I came from and how I got to this place. It's quite frankly, quite different from a lot of the people on your benches.

And I am very proud to stand here as the son of a train conductor, talking about opportunities for young people in my constituency that have been left behind for generations, written off and quite frankly, talked down to by the opposition benches, who talk about making sure that the arts are only for the wealthiest who can afford to go to university and not spread out, as if education isn't actually a benefit to everyone in society, and it should only be the purview of those who can afford to pay for it.

It is disgraceful. It's taking us back generations. And quite frankly, I'm sick to death of hearing about it. The. I would like to say, though, to the Minister we. Politics are language of priorities. I've said there are challenges with this system. There are undoubtedly challenges with this system, but there are so many methods that the party opposite left behind after 14 failed years in government that, quite frankly, we can't fix them all. In the first five years of a Labour government, we're going to need at least a decade.

We said that in the manifesto. We said a decade of national renewal, and we are committed to it because, quite frankly, that all the messes that they left behind, we can't afford it because you left the economy in a mess as well. So they left the economy. Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I had nothing to do with it. And what I would say to my hon. Friend on the front bench is that if there was money available as a parent, as someone who is on these plans here and speaking to lots of my residents, is expansion of free childcare.

If there was an opportunity, if we're talking about priorities and how we can support young people at the moment, 30 30 hours of funded childcare is very welcome. But for people who are working full time, people who are working throughout the year, not just in term time, that doesn't cover the cost of childcare. It's stopping young people from starting their families and getting on. And I think that would be a really good opportunity if there was money available. This is about priorities and about how we can support young people going forward.

I welcome the what the government is doing. If I had a gentle nudge in a direction, I would encourage the government to look again at what we can do to expand the offering of free childcare. But in closing, I'm not going to take lectures from the party opposite on young people. They had no plan for young people during their 14 years. They did not care about young people like me when they were in government. Quite frankly, you wrote me off and I had to fight my way to get to here today.

For my grammar school. Yeah, I did go to a grammar school and I'm proud of that, and I did quite well for myself. My parents had sacrificed a lot for me to get here, so I'm not going to take lectures from the party opposite on that. But what I will say is that this government is fixing the mess that they left behind. Of course, there are challenges in the system, and I welcome the government's measures continue.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

R Doctor Neil Shastri-Hurst. Thank. You very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. Education is one of the Speaker. Education is one of the few forces of life that allows a person not only to imagine a different future, but also to reach different future, but also to reach it. It is more than a qualification. It's more than a certificate. It's It's more than a certificate. It's more than even a career. It's the moment where circumstance loosens its grip and possibility takes hold.

A good education doesn't simply serve the individual, it strengthens families and it uplifts communities. It is the most powerful engine of social mobility
17:59
Neil Shastri-Hurst Portrait Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst MP (Solihull West and Shirley, Conservative)
-
-
we possess, and it's the surest path by which talent can rise, path by which talent can rise, irrespective of where it begins. But if we are to be true to that belief, then we must confront a most uncomfortable question what does it say about us as a nation? If the very ladder we offer is weighed down by a burden that grows faster than the lives it is meant to lift today, far too many graduates look not at opportunity, but at a balance that rises year after year, not simply with the cost of living, but beyond it.

A system where interest is not just keeping pace with inflation, but it's outstripping it where the cost of learning risks becoming a source of anxiety that follows people into their working lives, their families and their futures. And this is not just an economic issue, it is a moral one. Education should open doors. It should not cast longer shadows. The reforms that these benches support are a simple settlement. Yet they are profound in their principle. They ensure that the student loan interest rises only with inflation and not above it.

Moving from RPI plus 3% to RPI alone, and preventing the trap of pushing low to middle earners to pay more than the threshold, I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank you for giving way. I wonder if he's read the IFS report actually invalidating his party's proposal, and that states that his party's proposal do zilch, nada, party's proposal do zilch, nada, zero when it comes to monthly repayments. And the IFS shows that it's the lower and middle earners

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it's the lower and middle earners that don't benefit at all. It's a plan for higher earners, isn't it? Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. I'm very grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention. If he doesn't want to tackle the problem of the the inadequacy and the inequality between a high earner on 150,000 who will pay off their debt of around £46,000 over an 11 year period, compared to a lower income earner on or middle income earner on, say, £50,000, who will pay off their debt over a much longer period of time and it will be around £80,000 then, I'm afraid the public who are watching this debate will have serious questions about the the the resolve of the government to tackle this issue.

And of course, the change. Now I'm going to make a little progress. I'm going to make a little progress, if I may. The changes that this these benches are proposing, they don't remove responsibility for the student, nor does it change the process by which graduates will repay. But it does restore fundamentally a sense of fairness. This isn't about numbers on a balance sheet. It's about a young person deciding whether it is worth, frankly, taking the risk of going to university. It's about a graduate wondering why their debt grows despite doing everything right.

And it's fundamentally about trust. Trust that if you work hard, you play by the rules and you invest in your future, the system will be fair in return. And so we return to that, that timeless understanding that education is in the interest of us all, not just because of what it gives to an individual, but because what it what it gives to society as a whole. And I think of the words of Benjamin Franklin, who said an investment in knowledge pays the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

best interest of all. Kevin Bonavia thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The opposition.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The opposition. Debate today brings to mind the old proverb the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is today. And during this debate this afternoon, we've heard from members of the opposite from members of the opposite benches who are part of the government that planted that tree, and then they proceeded to
18:03
Kevin Bonavia Portrait Kevin Bonavia MP (Stevenage, Labour)
-
-
and then they proceeded to absolutely nothing about it until it grew wildly out of control, until apparently today. And I will come to their motion. And whether those opposition members be conservatives, Liberal Democrat members, whose leader was a Minister in the coalition government or indeed reform, who was now starting to look part of a 2019 Tory tribute act. It's down to them because they planted it. And that irony is not lost on me and our graduates and Stevenage and across this country understand that context all too well, because today, graduates face interest rates that began begin accumulating from their first day of study.

They see loan balances rising even as they make repayments year after year. And they tell us time and again that for them, the situation feels hopeless. They shape real decisions about work, housing and family life. They affect the very people who are powering our economy, raising the next generation and driving the growth that this government is creating. And now, Madam Deputy Speaker, some of those same members opposite have the audacity to look at this misshapen, neglected tree and ask why it offers so little shade to the graduates standing beneath it.

This Labour government has been taking on the task of fixing 14 years of mistakes and failures, with the commitment and energy that is required, and as full facts manifesto Tracker Tracker has confirmed, two thirds of our pledges are either already delivered or are on track. Far more than can be said for the last government, and one of the key missions in the manifesto that I stood on was removing barriers to opportunity for our young people. Millions of our young people did everything we asked of them.

They studied, they trained, and they invested in their futures. They kept their part of the bargain. And they deserve a Labour government that supports them, rather than one that quietly undermine their ambitions, as had happened for so

**** Possible New Speaker ****

many years. Yes. I'm grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I'm one Gentleman for giving way. I'm one of the very few people who probably benefited from not going to university. I did Open University university. I did Open University later, so I didn't luckily have student loan Madam Deputy Speaker and probably a little on the old and probably a little on the old side as well. But there's something really fundamentally that is unfair really fundamentally that is unfair about this.

Does he not accept that the very young people that he talks about so passionately are being penalised by his his party? And when he talks about track record, can he explain why youth unemployment is going up under this Labour government?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Lady for intervention. Right honourable, yes, right honourable. I do remember the right honourable. I do remember the time as Chief Whip at the time. So yeah. And like her, like her, like yeah. And like her, like her, like her, I did not I did not have the burdens that people who came to university after me had to face. university after me had to face. I'm very conscious of my responsibility to those generations and generations to come on that now on young people.

I'm glad you raised that, because this government recognises the extra pressures that are facing young people, and that is why the measures we are taking to help those feeling the cost of living, whether it's on transport, whether it's on childcare and so many other things, we are helping our younger people and we are looking to the future of supporting our students as well. We are bringing back those maintenance grants that I benefited from all those years ago. So this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

one more time. Grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He said the government's helping young people. He mentioned young people. He mentioned transport the bus fares have gone up by 50% from £2 to £3. If you travel every day to work and back, travel every day to work and back, that's £500 a year out of taxed income. That's not helping the. And income. That's not helping the. And the fuel duty is going to go up in September. That's not helping. And heating oil is going through the heating oil is going through the roof, and there's going to be nothing for anyone who goes to work that's not helping either.

Can he just start to look at the reality of what's happening? And it's not good for young people, and unemployment among young people is going up, not going.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Disagree with the hon. Gentleman

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Disagree with the hon. Gentleman there. So he he took me to task on transport. Now, I come from a constituency where we desperately constituency where we desperately need more bus services, and that's why we have the Bus Users Act now, why we have the Bus Users Act now, which he, I believe would probably have voted against. So we are making a difference for young people, indeed, all people who need people, indeed, all people who need to use those services. But look, the greatest responsibility we owe to the generations that will come after us is providing them with those opportunities and lifting them up and not holding them back.

And we do need to have those tough. We look at those tough issues and find the answers to them. What we have today from the opposition is a motion which they say they can. They can fix their own broken plan two loan system by and I quote funding by controlling the number of places on university courses where the benefits are significantly outweighed by the cost of graduates and taxpayers. How on earth are they going to define what that is? The shadow Minister talked about plucked from the air.

Oh, there is some of these these creative arts courses we're not sure about. How is she going to evaluate that? Are we going to have a commission, the party of the free market going to control the market? How are they going to do that? And then, no, I'm afraid I won't because I do want to explore this a bit further, Madam Deputy Speaker, because they really haven't thought this one through. They haven't thought this one through at all. They can have a commission. They're deciding, oh, hang on a minute, this degree we can work out that's going to give us the value there.

And then of course, how's that going to track with the economy when we do need perhaps more creative degrees out there? How is this all going to work? Really more bureaucracy, more costs, and who are going to pay the price? Our young people who can't choose their own futures, that's what's going to happen with this really misguided motion. I mean, this plan isn't even half baked. It's it's as oven ready as Boris Johnson's pathetic Brexit deal, which this government is trying to fix. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, we cannot prevent the moment the tree was planted by the parties opposite, but we can tend to it.

I will not, but we can attend it now. I have full faith

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that this Labour government will do just that. Hey!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order! I have to notify the. House in accordance with the Royal House in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the King has signified his Royal Assent to the following acts supply and Appropriation, Anticipation and Adjustments Act, 2026, finance Adjustments Act, 2026, finance Finance Act 2026. House of Lords Hereditary Peers Act 2026. Universal Credit Removal of two Child Limit Act 2026. Industry and Exports Financial Assistance Act 2026. I now call Joe Robertson.
18:10
Joe Robertson Portrait Joe Robertson MP (Isle of Wight East, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. >> Young people, youth employment unemployment is up. Since Labour took office. It's now higher than took office. It's now higher than the eurozone. There are more people not in employment, education or training. Since Labour took office, it's now nearly 1 million. And Madam Deputy Speaker, I should also say there is a midlife crisis in our economy too. Now, over 2 million people aged between 50 and 64 are on out of work benefits.

The deal for young people is bad, and it has been made worse by this Chancellor. Too many young people are coming out of university with excessive debt and with a borrowing on terms. They do not know what those terms will be in the future. If a private provider was providing loans in this way, when someone signed up to it, they did not know what the interest rates would be, what the repayment deal would be, what the income threshold would be, that private provider would not be able to enforce it.

It would be unlawful. But when it comes to this government and the Chancellor freezing the threshold, for some reason, those on the benches opposite think that's OK. And we have heard from members opposite who said they joined the Labour Party to fight for a better deal. We've heard from the Member for Kettering, who said she is here to fight for her generation, generation Z, but is she bitterly disappointed at the limp response from her government now? It has power.

Now it can do something about intergenerational justice as she sees it. But instead, members come into this House on the benches opposite to defend their government, increasing debt for students and for bringing down freezing the threshold, the earnings at which those young people have to start repaying. I give way. Thank you for giving way. And I was a I'm a planter myself. I had a targeted maintenance grant. I just asked him a simple question. Does he think it's a fair system to have targeted maintenance grants in it? Yes or no? Let me ask him a question.

Because he is in government, he has power. He can change things. Does he think the system is fair? No, he doesn't because he's already told this House. It's not. Is he not bitterly disappointed that his own government has not got a plan to change it? If he doesn't like the system that existed before July 2024, why is his government not changing it now? This side of the House have brought forward a plan, which we're debating today, which means that those on plan two student loans will not end up paying more and more above RPI, so the government will not be making money out of them having a loan.

That is a meaningful change. The government opposite can go further because it's it's in power. I hope that our party, by the time of the next election, will be able to offer more. But indeed, we have already announced that we would abolish stamp duty helping young people. We have already announced that we would scrap bad courses that offer no real additional employment prospects for people who do those courses other than leave them, leaving them saddled with debt.

Look, it seems that most people opposite have a history degree, given the amount of time they've spent speaking about the last decade. But if we talk about the system that is existing now, when I went to university, I accepted the principle that young people who went to university did not contribute enough to the education that they received. And so, starting under the Blair government, graduates undergraduates were asked to contribute more. Clearly, there is a benefit to society for having an educated and graduate workforce to fill jobs like teaching and like doctors.

But there is a great benefit to those two who fill those jobs because of the higher earnings. That is a principle I supported. It's a principle most people supported and I still support it. But we have plainly reached a tipping point for too many students. The personal debt is so high they have no real prospect of ever paying it back. Some have a degree that gives them no real opportunity to ever earn more than if they hadn't had a good apprenticeship, a good apprenticeship that the last government gave them the opportunity for, I give way.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for giving way on that point. My. My own son is doing a degree in own son is doing a degree in musical theatre performance. He is due to graduate in a few weeks time. due to graduate in a few weeks time. That might be something which the hon. Member thinks has no value. He is probably going to spend an amount of time working tables and trying to make a living whilst he progresses in his career.

He would not be able to be of use to people as a future teacher, as a future councillor, as a future communications officer, but perhaps a future politician without that degree. I is the hon. Member suggesting that his degree has no value.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Lady. I'm sure her son's degree is an excellent degree and he will come out and degree and he will come out and hopefully gain an excellent job. But that's not the case for every But that's not the case for every student. There are too many students in this country saddled students in this country saddled with tens of thousands of pounds of debt. They do not know their repayment terms because they change. And some of them have degrees that will give them no additional prospect of a job to allow them to repay that debt.

That is a at least a principle, I'm sure. I would hope that most of us can agree. So it's perfectly legitimate to then ask the question, should we be stopping some of these institutions and courses when they do nothing for the young people on them? This is not a deregulated market. In order to be able to offer a degree, a, a, a institution has to be licensed. There is there is no ground breaking idea behind saying that certain courses are not of degree quality, and the public should not be subsidising those courses.

Governments already make decisions around that. It's this party that is proposing, but for some reason the Labour government doesn't want to do it, that young people who are sold a future that simply doesn't exist shouldn't be saddled with debt, and the taxpayer also shouldn't subsidise them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. And with an immediate four minute time limit. Danny Beales thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity today to discuss the student loan system. I took out a student loan system. I took out a student loan plan. Under the plan one system. I'm not, fortunately, young enough to have benefited from young enough to have benefited from a plan two or now plan five loan. But despite having graduated with But despite having graduated with about £40,000 of student debt, I did consider myself fortunate.

Fortunate that I went to university under a Labour government who'd widened participation in higher education, who'd created a fees and grants and loan system that enabled me to go to university and pay for living costs, which my family, my single parent, would not have been able to do without. The grants that were unfortunately then cut by the party opposite, and I was happy to contribute something towards my university education on the basis that most people in my school would not go to university.

But the system has gone from one of contribution and fairness to a regressive system, and I do believe it's time to review the plan too.
18:19
Danny Beales Portrait Danny Beales MP (Uxbridge and South Ruislip, Labour)
-
-
And now plan five loan systems. It in terms of the system as it's operating, I've heard from many of my constituents at Brunel University recently, a teacher who was telling me about the challenges was telling me about the challenges of repaying her loan and considering going part time as a result of high interest rates. There are clearly a number of There are clearly a number of options that could be taken, whether reviewing the RPI basis to a CPI basis, capping lifetime a CPI basis, capping lifetime interest costs, looking at uprating the thresholds once again and also looking at the Good Growth Foundation's suggestions as well.

But it's important. Rather than go for any one of these changes, we properly analyse the options and the distributional impacts work with which the party opposite has clearly not done in their half baked proposals before us today. And it is quite baffling that the Conservative Party have moved this motion, having been the architects of this regressive student loan system, having maintained the system for a decade, froze the repayment thresholds, continually trebled the fees with the Lib Dems when in coalition government and cut maintenance grants for the poorest, they now pretend to be the party of students.

But the mask has slipped. In the last section of their motion, they plan to pay for their minor change by reducing the number of people going to university. And when the Conservatives say fewer young people should go to uni, they almost never mean they shouldn't. They almost never mean their children shouldn't. They don't mean that the university in their constituency should close. They're talking about other people and constituents at universities like Brunel. In my constituency, they look down on arts courses or ology

**** Possible New Speaker ****

courses they feel have less benefit. And to be frank, it is elitism. My friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My friend. I will gladly give way. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He's making a very excellent point about making a very excellent point about the fact that when they say, when the opposition benches say that they're going to cut funding for certain courses, what they really certain courses, what they really mean is those courses would be available for the wealthier students who can afford to pay it without government subsidy. And without government subsidy. And does he agree with me? That will lead to a decrease in students from working class backgrounds being

**** Possible New Speaker ****

able to access arts degrees. I completely. Members can be very generous with their time. Can I just remind with their time. Can I just remind members that I will be starting front bench speeches around 22, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we still have four more members left. Danny Beales I completely agree. Everyone who would, who would and Everyone who would, who would and could benefit from university education should be able to go. And you don't widen opportunities by you don't widen opportunities by cutting them. John Burn-murdoch analysis in the EFT showed that other developed countries have increased participation in higher education and not seen the impact on graduate wages that we have seen. It is not inevitable as part of wider higher education participation.

It is because of stagnation in the economy and of productivity caused by the last conservative government that we have seen that not higher education participation. There are a range of cost of living pressures on younger people. Yes, student loan costs, but also rising housing costs, the stagnation of wages more generally, childcare costs, renting costs. There are many that need urgent action. And I hear from young people in my constituency the impact of starting a family, of getting on the housing ladder, that generational compact that if you work hard, you get on.

You'll do better than your parents generation. The things that we had come to take for granted were broken under the last 14 years of conservative government. So action is needed, and I am pleased this government is reforming and scrapping the broken leasehold system, capping ground rents, taking action on service charges, introducing the Renters Rights Act that the party opposite opposed, taking action on childcare with 30 hours free childcare and bringing down inflation and interest rates. And I do welcome that.

The Chancellor and the Minister for Higher Education have acknowledged that action is needed on student loans and are actively reviewing the student loans system. And I do hope that the Treasury Select Committee's full inquiry, which is now underway, will be fully and promptly responded to by the government. But let's not let's be clear about this situation. The proposals before us today would not solve the student loan system. They're a gimmick. They're a gimmick that would close participation and close doors of opportunity.

And that is exactly the opposite of what people and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

young people in this country need. Yeah. Stewart. Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. It's a pleasure.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a pleasure. To participate in this debate because Madam Deputy Speaker graduates were promised a fair deal. graduates were promised a fair deal. We've heard in the debate all the promises that were made from when the leader, the Prime Minister, the leader, the Prime Minister, stood to be Leader of the Opposition onwards to announcements that were made. People were told work hard, go to university, have a shot at a better life, and they were told that their effort would pay.

And on those principles, I colleagues opposite entirely agree with those of us on this side. The Education Secretary knows those things should be in place because in 2023, she wrote that graduates will pay less under a Labour government. Well, reflecting on those just 2023 and she, the actual education secretary, said graduates will pay less under a Labour government now in office. She says we are where we are and the Chancellor knows it too. In January, she said the student loan system
18:24
Graham Stuart Portrait Rt Hon Graham Stuart MP (Beverley and Holderness, Conservative)
-
-
was fair and reasonable. Just in January this year and yesterday suddenly she admitted it was broken, but importantly, not a priority. And the Leader of the Opposition And the Leader of the Opposition knows it. Last month, she said the current system created an unfair debt trap for graduates. But what's debt trap for graduates. But what's the difference? Madam Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has a plan, a plan to cut interest rates no one would cut interest rates no one would accept on a normal loan because the moment a graduate throws their cap in the air.

Unfortunately, the party opposite sees a target to tax. We on this side see a dream to back dreams like Sami's because Sami from Keyingham in my constituency, is one of the first in her family to go to university. She borrowed £40,000. Works in the medical field and makes a payments every month, but she now owes £46,000 because of interest rates that no one would accept on a normal loan, and graduates like Sami need to earn £66,000 before they even start to reduce their loans.

And by refusing to cap interest at the rate of inflation, as we're proposing today, in order to help people like Sami, the Chancellor, who admits the system is broken, is making people like Sami pay more and pay for longer. For too many, the degree that was meant to help them get on is now holding them back. And that is why in a tough situation, we are making tough proposals about finding courses which aren't adding value. They exist and you have the Liberal Democrats and Labour suggesting there isn't a single course at a single institution in this country that shouldn't be put under question.

That's not the right attitude. So under our plans, interest rates on plan to student loans will be capped at inflation, and that will save graduates tens of thousands of pounds. A doctor from Hendon graduating in 2029 with £80,000 of student debt, will save £58,000 in lifetime repayments. An engineer from Rus with £40,000 of student debt earning £50,000, would clear their loan five years faster. So when these young people enter the workforce or start a business of their own, they'll have the space to build a future of their own.

Saving for a home, starting a family, creating something of value, fairness, a future freedom for these people like Sami, are the risk takers, the innovators, the builders of what is to come. And they're being let down by this government. That's the choice. Before this House tonight, vote for our plan to make effort, pay again, or do nothing. Because it turns out graduates are at the back of the queue. Colleagues opposite know the right thing to do. The education's actually deep down knows it and the Chancellor knows it.

What they need

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now, Madam Deputy Speaker, is the courage to do something about it. Gloucester Peter Prinsley.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gloucester Peter Prinsley. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker So student finance is complicated. With thanks to the Member for Glasgow South, who's been in and Glasgow South, who's been in and out of his seat all afternoon. I was able to produce a biscuit was able to produce a biscuit explainer today, which is available on all good social media channels. Now, reforming the student finance system is not straightforward. It's a complex challenge. Challenge. It's made much more difficult by the need to stabilise the economy, which is something I obviously strongly support.

But we must be clear the task is harder because of
18:28
Peter Prinsley Portrait Peter Prinsley MP (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, Labour)
-
-
the economic mess left behind by our predecessors. Years of short termism, underinvestment that have constrained what can now be done. Yet even within these constraints, Yet even within these constraints, the direction proposed by those opposite is a bit flawed. The suggestion to scrap degrees, suggestion to scrap degrees, particularly in the arts and cultural sectors, is culturally dismissive, plainly disrespectful and insulting. It reflects a narrow view of the value of that ignores the real contribution of the creative industries to our economy and to our national life.

Now turning to the system itself, student finance is not neutral. It perpetuates an inequality. Those from less well-off backgrounds must take on large maintenance loans simply to afford the cost of living, graduating with significantly higher debts than their peers. This undermines social mobility. Instead of higher education acting as a ladder of opportunity, the system has reinforced disadvantage. Those who start with less leave with more to repay. Now, in reality, we all know that what we see is a form of a graduate tax, long term income contingent and unavoidable for many.

But with the clarity of fairness, such as without the clarity of fairness such a system should have. So we do need to do reform, but not the plan opposite. We must make a better plan. The Labour Party is and will remain the party of working people, grounded on the principles of fairness. That means confronting systems that entrench inequality and replacing them with ones that expand opportunity. Now, if we are serious about fairness, then we must act and act. We will, for we will use the levers of the state to ensure fairness.

Here. I finished.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Scott Arthur Ben Spencer. Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker, and for my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker, and for my contribution this afternoon, I'm going to talk about Hope and I'm going to talk about fairness, which going to talk about fairness, which many members across both sides of the House have referred to in their speeches. And it's important that everyone, but particularly the next everyone, but particularly the next generation, has hope for the future. And at the moment, there are many challenges younger people are facing. They're facing challenges
18:30
Ben Spencer Portrait Dr Ben Spencer MP (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
-
-
facing. They're facing challenges when it comes to youth employment with graduate jobs market, which is unfortunately declining. We have a very uncertain world at the moment, and the people who are going to inherit this world from us have are concerned in terms of conflict in the Middle East, in terms of the position of our defence, what direction our country in our society is going in. And it's younger people who have borne the brunt of the decisions that were made during Covid.

And it's also younger people who are going to have to deal and find the solutions for changing demographics in our society, particularly the ageing population. So it's important more than ever that our next generation, the younger generation, has hope for the future. And with conservatives have a plan to bring this back. And key to this is fairness. And this this motion today, I think, goes to the heart of fairness, because I think it's fair to say the repayment system with the thresholds and the 3% above RPI has essentially for a certain group of people who are paying back plan two loans, it's turned into some form of Ponzi scheme.

And we here on this side of the House have a plan to start resolving them. Now, remember, as mentioned earlier, you know, these loans, you would not be able to get on a commercial basis. These are fundamentally unfair loans at the moment. And we have a plan to go about fixing it. But then when we're talking about education more generally, we talk about the fact that all different types of education have intrinsic value. There is no sort of hierarchy of university versus further education versus apprenticeships versus people who go straight into work.

It's the right education for that individual person. Just because you've gone to university or you've done an apprenticeship, whatever route you've gone down doesn't make you a better or worse person. The key is that it's the right plan for you, and it's only fair that we make sure that we reverse some of the historic biases that have been put particularly apprenticeships. And this is why I'm so pleased that Preston training is centre of the motion that we will be voting on later today.

But then fairness also means fairness to the taxpayer and fairness to the people who are taking these courses themselves. I intervened on both the Minister and the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats to say, could they at least concede? Concedes that there are some courses or particular course and institution across the country which really isn't worth it. It's not value for money. It's not going to help the students. You

**** Possible New Speaker ****

know, just just absolutely have to give way. Because I didn't cover myself in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Because I didn't cover myself in glory in responding to your, your, your point. And just to take another bite of the cherry, the point I was trying to make was that simply basing that on, on salary simply basing that on, on salary value is not the only way to assess value and that the, the regulator is the right way to, to do it through the office and take that as just one element of many. And that's for for them to drive.

Why would he make the salary value the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

primary driver of all courses. I think behind me is going to give a more extensive answer to the give a more extensive answer to the question in a moment. But but I think there's lots of ways in terms of measuring degrees. An example that I often give when I talk about this is, is a degree in David Beckham studies. And I think this this existed. I'm a big fan of this existed. I'm a big fan of David Beckham, by the way. You know, I'm not sure how many how many degrees in David Beckham studies we degrees in David Beckham studies we need and how the economy would benefit that, or how it benefits the individual and whether, critically, taxpayers should be subsidising that, because it's all of our constituents who are contributing to this system.

And I think it's only fair that taxpayers also get value for money. The people who are taking the courses get value for money, and there's there's broader contribution. So I think I think it's absolutely right that we do look at as part of this motion, fairness in the system, particularly a focus to make sure degrees, which is a which is a closed market, it's a regulated market. Give the value which they are purported to give that we don't have, you know, fake degrees. We don't have degrees that, you know, have have a disproportionate offering in terms of what people think they're going to get and what their outcomes are going forward.

And I also think it's probably quite important for people to, to know when they're starting on a degree course, giving comparative given history where they would expect to be in 5 or 10 years time and their status in society so they can make informed choices given the substantial cost, but both in terms of time, but also in terms of money that people are investing into. So in this basis, I'm going to wholeheartedly support this motion and look forward to doing it.

I hope members across the benches opposite do so as well, because this motion brings back a bit more hope and a bit more fairness into the system.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Damian Hinds it's an honour to be the final backbench speaker in this debate. I don't feel like I'm at the back of the queue, perhaps at the back of the queue, perhaps just not at the front, and it's good to see some Liberal Democrats good to see some Liberal Democrats with us today. We know that student finance is a particularly important subject for debate in the Liberal subject for debate in the Liberal Democrat Party. But in fairness, of course, the Vince Cable plant, sometimes also known as plan two,
18:35
Damian Hinds Portrait Rt Hon Damian Hinds MP (East Hampshire, Conservative)
-
-
is not only about the Liberal Democrats. We were in government at that time as well. In coalition, we shared responsibility. And of course, the whole thing was largely based on the Brown report, which had been commissioned by the previous government under the other Brown, and somehow managed not to mention it during the course of the 2010 general election. And to be fair, the existence of a real interest rate in both the Brown Plan and the cable plan was intended to make the system more progressive.

But it has become clear over time that that system needs to change. It has also become clear that with all the pressures on young people and graduates with graduate unemployment at the present time, now is not the time

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to be squeezing them further on the repayment threshold. But I want to talk. Primarily in the short time

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Primarily in the short time available about apprenticeships and and degrees, and in particular and degrees, and in particular about the necessity to concentrate on quality apprenticeships. And I draw the house. I have a giveaway.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

draw the house. I have a giveaway. Will you tell us more about the quality? I will, I will, I'm going to start by telling you about the start by telling you about the quality of some previous apprenticeships, and I draw the house's attention. Remind them of the 2012 now report on adult apprenticeships and I only have time for a couple of very short, very short excerpts that the number of apprenticeships up to 2012 had over the previous three years had increased dramatically.

The vast majority of people in them were over 25. 1 in 5 apprenticeships lasted less than six months. Only one third of apprenticeships were at an advanced level, compared to something like 60% in France. And in a separate study, Madam Deputy Speaker, the amazing discovery that at that time 1 in 5 apprentices and by the way, it would rise even further. At that time, 1 in 5 apprentices did not even know they were on an apprenticeship. So poor and thin and flaky were those apprenticeship courses.

So, yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, we reformed the system first in 2012 with the minimum one year and then the substantial package of reform in 2017 to make sure there would be 20% of time off the job. The apprenticeship levy moving from frameworks, which was a sort of tick box standard in many cases, to proper standards that would be designated and designed by employers and would have a proper endpoint assessment to guarantee that that person had had learned those occupational standards. And yes, of course, the numbers then are people on apprenticeship now the opposite or the government's amendment? Amendment A says they want to reverse the decline in apprenticeships under the previous government.

The reality, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that the number of apprenticeships first grew like crazy under the previous government. As a result of the 2009 Apprenticeship Act. And then it came back down following our reforms to make apprenticeships higher quality and more exacting. But still, by the end of our time in government in 2010, the 340,000 sorry, the 280,000 then was still lower than we had achieved with the 340,000 in our time in government. And now it looks like the government is set on restarting that roller coaster by reducing the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

standards in our apprenticeships with the I will happily give way. Giving way. I think I'm not going to claim.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think I'm not going to claim. That the apprentice. System his government inherited was perfect, but at their best, he's absolutely right. It's about he's absolutely right. It's about to get hard reaching, hard to reach young people into employment, into skilled jobs they wouldn't be able to reach otherwise. Countless young people in my constituency, countless employers, and the amazing apprenticeship charity Amazing Apprenticeships constantly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amazing Apprenticeships constantly cited standard barriers as a barrier, not an enabler of this. I'm grateful to you and to the hon. Gentleman, but we need quality apprenticeships and that is why I regret the fact that the Independent Institute for apprenticeships is being dissolved to be replaced by Skills England, which is not independent, does not have guaranteed business involvement in setting standards and now has even been moved from the DfE to the DWP. I regret that the government is watering down end point assessment, and I regret the fact most of all that the minimum length for an apprenticeship.

By the way, a 12 month apprenticeship is already short by international standards, and I regret that it has been reduced even further to eight months. Try telling a German captain of industry that you can do an apprenticeship in eight months. Nothing wrong with eight month training courses. Just don't call them apprenticeships, call them something else. So we maintain the standard, the brand and the integrity of what an apprenticeship is. And the government says we're doing all these things. We're reducing standards to make it easier to access the cash, make it easier to pass the course.

And we believe that we may be able to grow the numbers. And I apologise actually to members opposite, because I think it insults their intelligence when they get given a piece of paper and asked to read out this thing that say, we believe with our plan, the number of apprenticeships will grow. Well, of course they're going to grow. They couldn't fail, but grow. The point that is not a like for like increase in the number of apprenticeships. Madam Deputy Speaker I know I'm out of time.

I had a load more to say. Perhaps another day. Thank you for calling me Minister.
18:41
Neil O'Brien Portrait Neil O'Brien MP (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In January, the Chancellor was In January, the Chancellor was saying that the student loan system was, quote, fair and reasonable as of yesterday. She now admits that of yesterday. She now admits that it's broken. So in one sense, we have won this debate even before it started. The government says that they are looking at these issues and of course, they will not be looking at them. If it wasn't for us on the opposition benches raising these things.

But I don't find the promise to look at these issues very reassuring, given the track record of this government. In the run up to the last election, the Education Secretary promised graduates you will pay less under Labour. Unbelievably, it's still up on her website. Instead, they have increased fees so that graduates are paying more, not less. And on top of that, the Chancellor has then cut the repayment threshold in real terms so that graduates are paying a further 250 extra a year.

Madam Deputy Speaker actions speak louder than words to get elected as Labour leader, the Prime Minister promised to abolish tuition fees. Instead, he has increased them. He used to say, we need to end the scandal of spiralling student debt. Now he is letting it spiral. So when the Minister says we will look at it, we are not reassured by that. I thought the best speech of the afternoon actually was the one from the hon. Gentleman for Gloucester, who said in plain terms that he would not prioritise fixing this problem.

He would spend the money on something else. And I actually think that kind of blunt honesty is better than the line from the Chancellor who says, graduates, your call is very important to us. Please continue to hold. Eventually, perhaps we'll do something about it. Now. This system was set up with the best of intentions, but I have been arguing against it for as long as I've been in this House. The above inflation interest rates have been long recognised as a problem, and that is why, in the 2022 reforms, we abolished real term interest rates for all future students.

But now we need to go back and end these unfair charges for past students too. There are lots of different ways you can explain how unfair the current system is. Those on plan two are paying back far more than they ever borrowed. The typical plan two graduate needs to earn 66,000 a year just to keep track with the interest. The total volume of money owed by plan two students is actually increasing every year, even though no new loans are being taken out and they are paying back billions every year between the lower and the upper interest rate thresholds, every additional £100 that a graduate earns, they repay an extra nine, but their debt increases by £7.20 in interest.

And if, in fact I plan to graduate, who's got 69,000 or more of debt like a doctor or someone like that actually sees their debt increase faster as the earnings and repayments increase, because the interest rate effect outweighs the repayment effect. It's a totally

**** Possible New Speaker ****

perverse system I'm happy to give away. Thank you very much for giving way. He talks about the effect of way. He talks about the effect of interest over time, given that the loans eventually are written off loans eventually are written off under the current system. Can he tell me the threshold at which a salary would have to be for the salary would have to be for the changes in interest to make any realistic difference over the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

course of a graduate's entire life? 4/5 of to plan two graduates would benefit from this and pay less over their lifetime, so 80% of those who plan to graduates would benefit from our from our reforms. And the hon. Gentleman can go and look up all this stuff on the IFS website if he wants to, to check it out here. There are so many personal stories. One moment, there are so many personal stories here. One doctor the other day was recounting how she graduated with 75,000 of debt, has worked hard for years and paid off every year.

But now she owes 90,000. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will stand up and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tell me why he thinks that is fair. Given where he references the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Given where he references the IFS report, and he will know that they've costed his proposals and the basis on that. According to our the basis on that. According to our plan, two cohorts, there would be a capital cost of 30 to £40 billion, capital cost of 30 to £40 billion, which I believe could be a gaping hole. So it's a seriously uncosted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

policy, isn't it? Gentlemen, read to the end of the IFS report. He will see that they cost it as being in look at it single digit billions. And we have explained. And I'll come to this in a in a moment exactly how we will pay for this. So there's no gaping hole here whatsoever. So no wonder that so many despair Madam Deputy Speaker more broken promises from this government and ever rising debt, with no promise of action on this at any particular time.

But how we would pay for this? And this goes to the question the hon. Gentleman just asked how we would pay for this is equally important. Since the last government created the data set, we have had much better data on which degrees do and do not provide economic value for students and taxpayers. Now, economic value is not the only value of higher education or any kind of education. But rather than simply pushing more and more students, more and more young people towards courses, which we can see from the government's own data, do not benefit them, do not help them, leave them feeling like they have been mis sold, betrayed, feeling like they've got a lot of debt and nothing much to show for it.

We have to have a rethink. The current approach is not working now. Since the election, youth unemployment has risen to levels significantly above the eurozone for the first time in a generation. Now, that is mainly the result of the government's decision to target lower paid people for tax increases and to increase regulation. But it is not helped by the government's unbalanced approach to skills based on endless expansion of university courses, whether they are any good or not. Now, analysis, just for a moment, analysis by the Institute of Fiscal Studies found that total returns on going to university will be negative for around 30% of both men and women, and that's based on the cohort from the noughties.

The problem is probably even bigger because the graduate premium has declined further, and as a result, graduates many graduates now earn so little that they never fully repay their student loans, leaving the taxpayer to cover about £8 billion in losses every year. And that is why we would restore the number controls that existed for 70 years, and use that to reduce the number of people who are on courses where they are not good value for the taxpayer, they're not good value or helping the young people either.

To listen to hon. Members on the opposite benches today, you would think there was not a single bad course in this country. Every single course is totally brilliant. There is no prospect of ever reducing spending on any single course. This is a fantasy world. We do not say this about any other type of public service, that every single instance is completely brilliant and there is no scope for improvement. And that's what we would do. And we would use just one moment. We would use the savings for that, not just to abolish real interest rates on plan two loans, but also to double the number of apprenticeships for 18 to 21 year olds, so that quality apprenticeships are a real choice at age 18.

Why would we do that? The recent data shows that five years after finishing their course in 2018, the average level four apprentice was earning £32,000. And in contrast, the average graduate was earning just 26,500. The lower quartile of graduates were earning 19,000 or less. So in many cases, a high quality apprenticeship can be a better option than going to a low value university course, and that is why we will make that change.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Happy to give way. Gentleman for giving way. Members on this side have been asking repeatedly if they can. If members opposite can name a course members opposite can name a course or an institution that they would cut, the member opposite had to cut, the member opposite had to make up a course. And David Beckham studies that, as far as I understand, never existed. To be able to actually make the point. Do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

able to actually make the point. Do you have a real course in mind? Just made up as well. Look, look, I we've already

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Look, look, I we've already talked about, for example, the hon. Gentleman, if he wants a full list, can go on my Substack and see a whole bunch of different institutions where there are low, there are low returns, but he can do better than that. He can go, he can go and look on the DFES website, he can go and look on the DFES website, and he can see that many, many courses have learnings. It's not my purpose here today to to single out individual things we talked quite a lot about.

We have talked quite a lot about creative arts. Today, the Institute for Fiscal Studies say that for the taxpayer, only 4.5% of them represent a positive return to taxpayers. So some people will look at a statistic like that and say it's only worth it for taxpayers. It's only worth it for taxpayers 4% of the time and say, that's not a problem. Let's carry on shovelling money into something that is only working 4% of the time. Other people would say, we have to make choices, and we could use that money, which the government continues to shovel into low value courses to fund more high quality apprenticeships and cut repayments for betrayed plan to voters.

Let me be clear, Madam Deputy Speaker. The current system is unfair. The government admits it is unfair. Like so many other things, they say they will look at it. This is a Prime Minister, a Prime Minister who you can always rely on to do the right thing. You can always rely on him to do the right thing. Once we have dragged him by the nose to do the right thing. As the deputy former deputy Prime Minister says, time is running out for this Labour government and it is time for them to stop moaning, grow a pair and fix this problem that they've moaned about.
18:50
Andrew Western Portrait Andrew Western MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Stretford and Urmston, Labour)
-
-
Minister thank you, Madam. by stating the obvious. The issues with plan two loans are the legacy of the previous government plan to. Borrowers in England are undergraduate students who began undergraduate students who began their courses between 2012 and 2023. These loans were designed, implemented and operated by the previous Coalition and Conservative governments. When we were elected, we immediately recognised the pressure here. We uplifted the plan two repayment threshold in 2025 to 28,470, and will increase it again to 29,385 next month, ensuring that it is higher than average graduate salaries three years after finishing one's course.

Before we came into government for most of the time that plan two loans have existed. The repayment threshold has been frozen for ten years. During the Tory government. Now, this is a system we would never have designed. Madam Deputy Speaker, we have heard plenty today about its flaws, the concern it causes and the pressure on graduates today. But we have had, as we often do on these opposition days, a spirited debate. Madam Deputy Speaker And can I begin in commenting on some of the contributions that we've heard by thanking my hon.

Friends from Reading Central. Erewash. Stevenage. Uxbridge and South Ruislip, Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket and in particular my hon. Friend from Gloucester for an especially powerful contribution and singling out my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering, who continues to be a champion in this place, not only for young people in her constituency, but up and down this country. When I came to this place, Madam Deputy Speaker, my maiden speech was about generational inequality. I think from the description she set out, I have timed out in terms of my ability to call myself a young person these days, so I am delighted that we have my hon.

Friend here holding that torch and continuing to fight and to make the case for young people. But turning to the right hon. Member, the Shadow Secretary of State, some serious chutzpah from the Tories today, opening with the fact that this Labour government has increased fees, fees increase for sustainability purposes, Madam Deputy Speaker, but certainly not trebled as the party opposite did. She spoke of the threshold freeze being unfair. April's increase is our second in two years. As many as they managed in 12 years post introducing this plan to scheme, she labelled this motion a new deal for young people.

But why on earth is a new deal required, Madam Deputy Speaker? Because they trebled those fees, because they scrapped those maintenance grants, because they oversaw a 40% cut to youth apprenticeships and drove NEETs up by a quarter of a million in the last three years in government. And by contrast, under this government, young people are getting a new deal. Madam Deputy Speaker, with a new target of two thirds of young people in an apprenticeship or at university. Our Youth Guarantee and our Jobs Guarantee, because we understand that young people need support to thrive, especially after 14 years of the party opposite.

And we then heard, Madam Deputy Speaker, about the range of options that they want to secure for young people, that it is a conservative choice to be able to earn and learn through apprenticeships or to go to university. But that wasn't the choice that young people had. Madam Deputy Speaker. They hammered apprenticeships for young people, and this is one of the reasons why we face the challenges in the system that we do today. We then heard from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson in what I thought was a very considered contribution.

I always think it's incredibly brave for a liberal Democrat to speak in any debate about fees, loans. ET cetera, et cetera. But I did think I won't because I'm short on time. I'm sorry, but I do think that whilst the Liberal Democrat should be wary, he made an important point in his defence of degree courses with which I agree. The hon. Member for North Dorset, and indeed the hon. Gentleman from Hinckley and Bosworth, both attacked the government for acknowledging the problems of the system and saying we recognise work is needed.

There is much to do but we will look at it. But what? When we say there is much to do, there are messes left all over the place. Exactly what are we talking about? Madam Deputy Speaker? We're talking about a legacy of starved further education funding. They oversaw a 40% drop in youth apprenticeships. They drove up child poverty ravaged Surestart, scrapped building schools for the future, broke the system. And that's just their legacy for children and young people. Madam Deputy Speaker, before you even get to the fact that they left the NHS on its knees there damage the mess they left has a long tail and we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

must never forget that that damage cannot be fixed overnight. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. Given he's.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Given he's. Just littered, listed a great big set of problems that are facing big set of problems that are facing students. What does he say to the students when the Chancellor has said they're not at the front of the queue? Yeah, what I'm saying.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the queue? Yeah, what I'm saying. Is that students, like everybody else, benefit from an improved NHS, else, benefit from an improved NHS, and they benefit from a range of interventions that this government is making. But we cannot change everything overnight. The hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill commented that young people not in employment had rocketed under this government, which is an interesting take. Madam Deputy Speaker, given that the number of NEETs is 14,000 lower now than it was at this point last year, but increased 250,000 in their final few years in office.

We then heard from the hon. Member from Solihull West and Shirley, and I would just simply reiterate the comments made in the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer about the rubbishing of this proposal that has already been made by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight East mentioned youth unemployment figures, and I absolutely agree that these are a concern. We are not complacent on this issue. So he will welcome the youth, guarantee the jobs, guarantee, the increase to apprenticeship funding, the shift to more apprenticeships for young people and the revised target of two thirds of young people, either in an apprenticeship or at university, updating our approach to encourage technical earning whilst learning.

He will also be pleased to know that, unlike him, I think I do have a history degree, so I have no problem looking at their record in the past ten years, I absolutely appreciate that they do not want to be held to account for the mess that they left, but sadly they devastated this system and it falls to us to resolve the problems that they left. Madam Deputy Speaker, We then heard from the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, who said that all forms of education have intrinsic value, which leaves me somewhat confused, given they have made a compelling argument today for scrapping a number of degree courses.

And they also ran down the number of apprenticeships available to young people. I do want to just briefly come to the contribution from the right hon. Member for East Hampshire, because he is always considered in this area, and indeed, I consider him an expert on this subject. I cannot pretend to be familiar with the Brown and Cable plans, but where I do think that it is important to pick up a point that he made is around the vast majority of apprenticeships being taken by people over 25.

I believe that that is a problem in the system. That is why we are creating foundation apprenticeships and that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is why we. I am not suggesting I. We'll talk. About it Minister. I do want to hear what the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do want to hear what the Minister has to say. Minister speaker, I did not attribute a time period for that to the hon. Gentleman's comments. What I'm simply stating is that it is a fixed intention of this government to seek to address that, and to ensure that more young people under the age of 25 can access apprenticeships. So yet again, Madam Deputy Speaker, as we always see on these opposition day debates, a party opposite that continues to run away from their record.

That brings forward overnight solutions, in this case, already discredited. They are not fit to govern and they would never solve this problem for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

young people. The question is that the original words stand part of the question. As many as are of that opinion say I. I of the contrary,
19:00
None Portrait Division
-

On On the On the Order Paper. As many as are of that opinion say I of the contrary, no. know. Tellers for the ayes Andrew know. Tellers for the ayes Andrew Snowden James Wild Tellers for the noes Lilian Greenwood Stephen

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The ayes The ayes to The ayes to the The ayes to the right The ayes to the right 88 The ayes to the right 88 the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right 88 the noes to the left. 266.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left. 266. The ayes to the right were. 88 the nurse to the left were 266. So the nurse to the left were 266. So the nurse have it. The nurse have it unlocked. The. Question is that the proposed words be there, added as many as are of that opinion, say I. I of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. I declare the question, as amended, to be agreed to. I'll now give a few moments for people to leave and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Number three Number three on Number three on Defence Number three on Defence Minister Tamworth. I beg. To move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that Paper, as many as are of that opinion, say I. I of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. Motion number four on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ayes have it. Motion number four on Ecclesiastical law Minister to move. I beg. To move. The question is, as on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To move. The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion say I. I of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. Motion number five on constitutional Law Minister to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The question is as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion say I. I of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. Motion number six on electricity Minister to move. I beg to move. The question is as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion say I. I of the contrary, opinion say I. I of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. Petition doctor Danny

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Chambers. Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. Today I. Present the. Petition on behalf of over 500

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Petition on behalf of over 500 of my constituents who call on the government to urgently review the government to urgently review the removal of school transport for children attending Henry Beaufort School in Winchester. Under the School in Winchester. Under the current changes, children as young as 11 are expected to walk up to three miles, which is over an hour three miles, which is over an hour on dangerous roads to get to school. Madam Deputy Speaker, I have walked this route with parents and it is unacceptable.

The petitioners, therefore, request that the House of Commons urges the government to work with Hampshire County Council to ensure the school bus service from Kings Worthy to Henry Beaufort School is continued and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

petition is remain, etc. School bus service from Kings Worthy to Henry Beaufort School.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Worthy to Henry Beaufort School. Petition Helena Dollimore. Deputy Speaker I'm presenting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker I'm presenting this petition on behalf of the 9915 people who have supported my campaign, calling on the water campaign, calling on the water companies to end the use of plastic beads in wastewater treatment. A few months ago, I had no idea that plastic beads were used in wastewater treatment, and then 300 million of them washed up on our coastline at Camber Sands and along the Sussex coast, causing an environmental catastrophe. Since then, I've been working with the Sussex Wildlife Trust because the use of wastewater treatment plastic beads is an outdated technology and better modern methods exist.

So why are the water companies still using them, especially in coastal areas where they can do so much damage? The petitioners, therefore, request that the House of Commons ask the government to work with the water companies and the Environment Agency to Edward Leigh use of plastic biobeads in wastewater

**** Possible New Speaker ****

treatment. Position. Use of biobeads in West water treatment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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. Alicia Kearns. Yeah. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting this debate. Speaker, for granting this debate. Water has no respect for property. It has no regard for family's memories, a business's survival, and it rises where it will. And for too many in our communities, across Rutland Harbour and the South
19:18
Alicia Kearns Portrait Adjournment: Flooding support for rural communities Alicia Kearns MP (Rutland and Stamford, Conservative)
-
-
Kesteven villages, it rises again and again and again. In Whissendine, the White Line pub flooded four the White Line pub flooded four times in 2024 alone. People water skied. It was so deep in the village, although I cannot of course condone that. The pub's damage was so severe and so repeated that the insurers, the repeated that the insurers, the very people paid to be there when it matters most, walked away. Yolanda and Chris Stephenson, who Yolanda and Chris Stephenson, who had spent years running the pub, were left to face the consequences alone.

A home, a livelihood and a community hub all under threat. Sometimes the barriers to getting things done leave me quite bereft. In Whissendine, the simple installation of a depth gauge would make a big difference to stop cars driving through when things are flooded. And yet, for the life of me, I kind of got anyone to fund it or agree to it. In Langham, the same homes are flooded every single year since 2020 for properties that barely saw a drop of water in the years before, and now face a deluge, often coming through their doors as lorries drive belligerently through flooded streets when they should know better.

But no one stops them because the council repeatedly fails to put up signs shutting the road. Indeed, residents should be empowered, I believe, to put up signs themselves in coordination with local flood response leads. So residents are now spending thousands of pounds on flood defences, not because they want to, but because they have to. In Darlington, a storm left the sewage system and residents without working toilets or showers. Thankfully, by supporting Philip Sagar and the parish council, we have secured and completed works on the culvert under the railway, which was incredibly difficult to negotiate and more is planned.

Then we have Thurnby Brook flooded in 2024 and 2025 following the storms, and the impact is still felt today. Then there's the beautiful Braceborough, which suffered horribly. Then there's Greatford, where I was left at 9:00 at night, ringing the circus, the real Circus Pinder Circus in Rutland, who were in Hungary at the time, begging them to help me find Portaloos for the village. When storm struck, the village did not flood. It was engulfed. Some people had to be rescued by boats.

People spent nights in rescue centres and when the waters finally receded, a third of all homes have been severely damaged and many could not return home for well over a year now. These residents can easily be statistics, but we all know that each is a family with their own story, and these are the same communities that are about to have a 1300 acre solar plant imposed on floodplains right next to their homes. Now, flooding is not unique to my patch, and I'm not trying to claim a monopoly of hardship, but I am here to advocate for solutions.

Now, I will gently say to members, as much as I love to have an audience for my adjournment debate, we must recognise that I do need to get through everything, but I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

quickly give way and of course I will give way to the gentleman. I'm grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Constituents of for giving way. Constituents of mine in Moorland and Fordgate live under constant threat of flooding, and this winter they've been very grateful to the frontline workers grateful to the frontline workers for the Internal Drainage Board, the Council and the Environment Agency for helping them out. So would she join with me in paying

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would she join with me in paying tribute to those frontline workers? I will. Happily pay tribute. In fact, it gives me a great opportunity to mention Ben Thornley, who is our local Environment Agency officer. It does not matter when I call him whether it is an emergency or whether it's proactively trying to make our communities safer. He always takes the call and he has been out to see our communities whenever I ask. So there are people within the system who work incredibly hard, and it's a great opportunity to say thank you to them.

Now, every year, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hold funding summits across the three counties that I serve, and every year the story is the same. I will give way to my friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First of all, can I commend you for Rutland and Stamford? And she's a very assiduous MP and constituency worker, and we all constituency worker, and we all recognise that the efforts of the hon. Lady in this chamber. Does the hon. Lady not agree that the hon. Lady not agree that the smaller numbers of people living in the rural areas can skew. Sometimes the cost benefit analysis and the Department must take each request, not on how many people live in an area and are affected, but the area and are affected, but the bigger schemes to help the householders.

But also, can I say this very gently to enable farmland to carry out agricultural purposes which are essential for food security for all of us, great United Kingdom of Great Britain and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Northern Ireland. I thank my friend for his intervention. He is at risk of stealing my sandwiches, so I will stealing my sandwiches, so I will briefly get there. But he is right, particularly when it comes to farmers and I think too often they are overlooked and they do need are overlooked and they do need that support. So the issues that I hear at my flooding summits are that local authorities are too often silent when asked for help, that riparian owners are not taking their duties seriously as they their duties seriously as they should.

Dredging goes undone, drains go uncleared. And when people from Rutland ask the government for support, we're told we don't qualify. The reason for that is a simple number 50 to access the flooding recovery framework, 50 houses must flood below that line. You get no support above that line. Here comes the cavalry. But for Leicestershire and Lincolnshire, who I also serve 50 flooded houses, is sadly an achievable and often exceeded threshold. But because Rutland is the smallest county, we have just 41,000 residents we almost never hit.

Thankfully, 50 flooded homes Retford and Lincolnshire that I serve remember the 30 houses that were badly damaged. If it had been the only village in Lincolnshire to flood, it would have had no support, despite people having to be evacuated by boat and being besieged. There is something deeply wrong with the framework so rigid that those in need of help do not or might not receive support. Now I raise this objection. The last Parliament and my government then listened, and the conservative government made sure the first time ever in 2024, Rutland could access the flood recovery grant.

So I'm asking the government to make those changes permanent ahead of the next big floods this year, because surely support should be on a percentage of the population affected or just those most affected. And accessing this funding would make an enormous difference. I would also ask the Minister to touch on making sure she does that, provide that support for farmers, because in my community, for example, in the village of Tixover, farmers have had to spend up to £80,000 this year buying food for their sheep who would otherwise just graze off the grass because they cannot get access to their land because it is so flooded.

I want to touch also now on insurance. We talk about flood risk in terms of physical damage, infrastructure and recovery time. But there is a financial dimension to all of this that is devastating households, and that is the insurance market for families and flood risk areas. Insurance premiums were available at all are eye watering. And so families have to cover the risks themselves. They hope this year the storm will pass, that the river will hold, the drain will cope, and it never quite does.

And a family living in fear is not just flooding. It's not just living in fear of water, but the bill that comes in the post on Flood Re. This was a vital reinsurance scheme established by the last government, but homes built since 2009 are not covered and the remit will end in 2030, leaving people stuck. So I'd be grateful if the Minister give us an update on the government's thinking on this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I will give way. I congratulate I'm very grateful for giving way. Congratulations on securing this debate. And on that point of insurance, I've just come from chairing a meeting with Aviva, great North Norfolk insurer, biggest insurer in the country biggest insurer in the country houses. And they made the point to me that we are this is the tip of a me that we are this is the tip of a major iceberg of uninsured ability and mortgage ability and an unassailability, and that the Treasury really should be looking at this as a major problem on the balance sheet of this country.

A Horizon Post Office scandal, if you like, of its scale and size in terms of serious economic damage to our economy. Would you agree that that elevates this issue to something of national importance?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I thank my hon. Friend, I wasn't aware of just how drastic insurers see that situation, but it doesn't surprise me what I see in doesn't surprise me what I see in my communities. And I thank him because I know he has worked consistently on flooding as an issue. So I absolutely take him at issue. So I absolutely take him at his word that we need to be looking at this more seriously. Looking now on dredging, and the Environment Agency consistently argues that we Agency consistently argues that we should not be dredging their man made assets.

But this position is not supported by landowners and not supported by landowners and farmers who are the custodians of our land and understand it. It can restore natural water flow, supports better drainage and removes debris, and it should be an option, and so should removing vegetation from EA assets. I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

happily give way. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm grateful to the hon. Lady and she's making an excellent speech she's making an excellent speech tonight. Does she agree with me that in many cases this is about removing vegetation, but it might also be removing debris like old also be removing debris like old shopping trolleys or other things that could block a much loved waterway and cause flooding and waterway and cause flooding and cause an accumulation of debris. And that this is part of the problem, and also that there's an issue of responsibility on landowners and great variation

**** Possible New Speaker ****

landowners and great variation between the way that they manage their land next to rivers. Is absolutely right. And riparian ownership, I have to say, is a repeated issue in my community. But also it's devastating to hear that he has things like shopping trolleys in his waterways, and we are very fortunate. We have so many local groups who go out and drag

**** Possible New Speaker ****

anything like that out of the waterways, although it is very rare. But we do need to see action to get those issues resolved. My.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My. I will very happily. Can I also commend the hon. Lady for raising this hugely important for raising this hugely important topic? And she's right to highlight the importance of local voices. Local voices know best where the Local voices know best where the flood risks are their most at risk, and they have real skin in the game, but often they feel that bodies but often they feel that bodies such as Natural England, or indeed some parts of the Environment Agency are not responding.

Another, particularly in the east of England, in Norfolk and Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire, are the drainage ports, the internal drainage boards. And does she agree with me that we need to see more from the current government in terms of how they're going to work proactively with the drainage boards, particularly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

around some of the capital funding requirements that they face. I thank the hon. Gentleman. I'm in quite an unenviable position in quite an unenviable position where only some of my constituency is covered by an internal drainage board, but that capital is absolutely fundamental, and I'm absolutely fundamental, and I'm sure the Minister has heard and will be able to reflect that in her speech, because I was going to ask speech, because I was going to ask it later, but I now no longer need to.

So I'm very grateful to him. I also want to touch briefly on flood also want to touch briefly on flood alleviation schemes. We do need strategies to store water better because we are moving from drought to flood to drought, and actually, water resilience and water security should be treated as important as food security. Turning now to planning and development. The government plans to significantly, and I have to say, my own personal view disproportionately increase the number of homes built in rural areas. All the cities around me have seen significant reductions in how many houses they have to build, and in each of mine, over 100% increase in what is expected.

Despite us consistently over delivering on the targets previously set. This has to be done responsibly, and I fear that so much of the building is going to be on floodplains or on the outskirts of small villages, whose drainage is only just kept up with modern day life and modern times. And they will find their infrastructure pressures.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Give way on that point. I will happily. I'm very grateful to her for giving way. She's making an excellent speech and has taken a excellent speech and has taken a huge number of interventions, so thank you to her. When it comes to development, flood management strategies aren't taking into strategies aren't taking into account the runoff that additional development will cause. So, for example, the upper management example, the upper management catchment, the Upper Catchment Management scheme is looking at opportunities to store water, but it isn't looking at risks from additional development.

And we know that the drainage arrangements that are put in are put into place are often not maintained. So things like attenuation ponds aren't maintained into the into the future. Would you agree with me that we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

need a better plan for making sure that when development happens, that the runoff doesn't affect the existing residents? Runoff has unfortunately been a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Runoff has unfortunately been a real problem. I only have three towns. They're not substantial, but Oakham in particular has seen a Oakham in particular has seen a real issue with runoff, and that is all from new properties. So it does need to be dealt with. And I think it actually turns to the need for incentives and sticks. And new fiduciary financial liabilities would make clear to developers that would make clear to developers that if you build new homes and then the short term between the next 5 to 15 years, there is a significant increase in flooding that was not previously occurring.

They should be liable to have to take action to build additional flood preventing Aids, or go back to the flood defences or drains that they originally built. And that takes me to the planning process itself. I do think it'd be sensible if water companies became statutory consultees in the planning process. Turning now to local councils, a couple of years ago, we conservatives had to force the first ever special meeting of Rutland County Council in its history because the council was not responding on flooding and was insisting that those who had to move out of their homes would have to pay council tax on both their original property and the one they were renting.

The council's long overdue section 19 flooding report has finally been published, but it had very little about what it was going to do to protect us in the future, but instead just focus on telling us all what the problems were, which a we already knew, but b give it to them. 18 months, pretty much since the first flood to report. We'd already had a second flood since then. And we all know our communities and we knew what the issues were. So I do think a statutory limit on how long section 19 reports can take is necessary, but also they should have to move beyond just setting out the problem to the solutions that are needed.

So I'd ask the government to do that, but also to mandate that those who had to move out of their homes due to flooding should be protected from the cost of covering council tax and two properties, because I'm frankly tired of having that fight with my local councils. Every time we have significant flooding, I want to touch on some of the flooding heroes in our communities. So Phil Britten and the entire parish council and flood warden team, they were built and recovered in the most extraordinary way, but they've gone on to be determined to help other communities protect themselves better.

And it's so beautiful to see them wanting to share their expertise and plans to others. Richard Besson, chair of Langham Parish Council, has advocated and pushed relentlessly on behalf of his village. And Phillip Sager, who I mentioned earlier, the chair of parish council, who has been a persistent and principled voice for residents who've been facing unavoidable misery. I also obviously touched on Yolanda and Chris Stevenson, who not only fought for their own pub in Whissendine, but the entire community when others would have frankly given up and hidden in a hole.

These are just some of the people who've held our community together, and they are remarkable, and I'm so proud to represent them. And there are more that I wish I could name who have stepped up. But it shouldn't be left to those who care passionately to improve our flood defences or respond in emergency. It shouldn't be councillors like Lauren Heckles or Karen Payne, who find themselves out in the dark deeply trying to get to the bottom. I mean, in Whitwell we literally have people putting on scuba gear, diving down to the bottom of water.

That's how deep it was to try and get things out of the drains to get the water moving. And it also shouldn't be left to farmers who are often our first responders and flood wardens who stand in the breach because the authorities simply haven't responded. So let me be clear about what I'm asking. I was disappointed that our communities have been excluded from the flood funds that were announced overnight, and I'd be grateful the government could revisit this decision, because I cannot believe that we are not some of the worst affected communities in the country, not least from the conversations I have with the Environment Agency.

The government should do more to support local flood resilience groups because, as we discussed earlier, our communities know what's best for them. We know where the flooding has happened for how long and when. There are new patterns on insurance, the flood re scheme must be updated and please can section 19 reports have far more of a focus on action and a time limit? We need to end the double council tax for victims of flooding and challenge the existing orthodoxy on dredging that is letting our communities down.

As I said on developers, we need financial liabilities. Ensure developers who build new homes, tackle flooding pre-emptively or are held to account when they have not done it sufficiently. And we need water companies to become statutory consultees in the planning process. And finally, as I've touched on, I want the government to review the flooding recovery framework, specifically the 50 House threshold, because as it stands, it systematically excludes my communities who are incredibly vulnerable. So in conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, the heavy rains will come again, and I fear they will come far too soon.

And our communities cannot face this challenge alone. Although I've touched on some of the villages that have suffered flooding. We have it in Whitwell, in Whissendine, in Kirby, in Creeton. We have Kirby's beautiful church, Edna and Braceborough, Ashwell Stretton, Glooston, Liddington. Staunton. Wyvill. Langham. Rugby. Darlington. Retford. Barleythorpe Brook. These are all in the last two years and there are far more who've suffered. Rural communities deserve protection and recovery should not depend on population density and protections for those who can afford the premium.

And I suspect, Madam Deputy Speaker, that these are principles that command support across the chamber, regardless of political alliance. But principles are matched by policy are just words. And I believe that we in our villages deserve much more than words. And this really is one of our foremost concerns and priorities. So I'm grateful to the Minister for listening to the points that I've raised. She'll be very welcome to come to my next flooding summit. I'll bring three counties together if necessary. It may be a shock to their systems, but we would do it if she was willing to come and have those discussions and are very much

**** Possible New Speaker ****

looking forward to hearing her response. Thank you. Yeah, yeah yeah, yeah. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it's a pleasure to respond to and it's a pleasure to respond to the debate. And I'd like to thank the hon. Lady for Rutland and Stamford for calling this and providing an opportunity for me to outline the steps this government is taking to reduce flood risk and strengthen resilience in rural strengthen resilience in rural communities. And we began this year, 2026, with record levels of rainfall in some parts of the rainfall in some parts of the country.

And following Storm Chandra, I went to visit Somerset on the 10th of February. One of the hon. Members from the party opposite and saw devastating impacts of flooding firsthand and was taken out by one of the farmers in the tractors to go and see. And what I saw, I mean, you could describe it as flooding, but a lake basically where his farmland was, where his farmland was under. And we had a really good, helpful conversation about and, and one thing I was struck by actually was him telling me about those extra things that he did to support his community, the way that the hon.

Lady outlined, the fact that the farmers were there, sort of helping people go to the shops, they were there helping people pick up their potion, and they were providing this additional because they care

**** Possible New Speaker ****

about the communities that they are part of. Of course. I'm grateful to the Minister for giving way, and I was grateful for her visit to Somerset. But does she accept that when the Environment accept that when the Environment Agency announce that they're withdrawing from main River maintenance, when they stop maintenance, when they stop dredging the River Parrett, it is exactly that sort of action that contributes towards the devastating

**** Possible New Speaker ****

flooding that she witnessed. A really good conversation. I won't make it about Somerset, I promise, but but we had a really good conversation with the Environment Agency, the internal drainage boards and members from the council as well. During that during that visit, and we were talking about the use of pumps, use of temporary pumps when the threshold is met, and looking at whether that threshold needs to be re-evaluated to see when there, you know. So that feels like there's some really positive work going on, looking at what's happened there and looking what needs to be done.

And hopefully we can say a bit more about that in the upcoming weeks. But that did feel like it was a very useful there was a willingness around the table to sort of have a look about how can we get this right in that very challenging area because it's so, so flat, you know how difficult it is and how much it relies on the use of pumps to move water around. And indeed, the question of, of maintenance was, was part of that conversation conversation too.

And I'd like to acknowledge the vital work of local authorities, emergency services, members of the internal drainage boards, the voluntary community,
19:37
Emma Hardy Portrait Emma Hardy MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice, Labour)
-
-
the faith sector and others who responded to floods both across Somerset, Dorset and other locations impacted. So the good news is around 24,500 properties were protected by the Environment were protected by the Environment Agency. But of course that is of little consolation to the people who are actually flooded. And I want to express my personal sympathies to all those impacted. On Monday this week, we held our On Monday this week, we held our sixth Flood Resilience Task Force group, and that's fantastic because it brings everyone together.

So on that group sits the internal drainage boards, but also the Abi. The Association of British Insurers is on their flood. We are on there as well. And the flood action groups which bring that lived experience of flooding to the conversations. And one of the pieces of work, because we have the where we bring everyone together for the production groups. And then there's sort of task groups that go off and do work in between the big meetings. And one of them is this one looking at the experience of people who've been flooded from the point at which you're flooded to you going back to your property, one of the things I want to look at is where are the pain points along that way? Where are the difficulties? And I'm once that's all sort of set up and official, I'd welcome from all members across the House, you know, them to feed in their experiences so we can identify at which points are the difficult points.

I had a great conversation with Aviva on last Thursday. I think it was when I went to go and visit a house that had been improved through Build Back Better and went to go, and they had a wonderful experience. A devastating thing happened, but then a wonderful experience. But we know that that's not universal. And we had a really good. I had one and then I will. OK.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to the old lady giving way. As she mentioned, Aviva, one of Norfolk's great Aviva, one of Norfolk's great companies. Has she seen the Aviva Report recently that highlights they're the biggest insurer of houses in the country, that it's in houses in the country, that it's in their calculation, about 4.78 million houses at serious risk of million houses at serious risk of flooding over the next ten years, and I congratulate her on securing the funding in the autumn, which I think was going to protect 60,000 houses, and I.

Does she agree with me? The scale of this challenge is something that the Treasury should really be thinking very deeply about in terms of national resilience.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We had to mention the biggest, ever, greatest, most fantastic, largest investment into flood defences that this government has defences that this government has just announced. But on a more serious note, yes, they did talk to me about that report, as you can me about that report, as you can imagine. And we had a conversation without straying too much out of my remit and into planning

**** Possible New Speaker ****

remit and into planning conversations. But I believe those conversations are ongoing with MCHLG. I thank the Minister for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving way. She did invite the House to present pain points, so perhaps if I can just share one from my time in her department, which was the natural England gold plating, in my view of some of its statutory objectives, seemed often at odds with the ministerial steers that were given. And I just wonder whether she feels she has sufficient control over the direction of Natural England in order to deliver the sort of actions that I'm sure she was discussing at the taskforce.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I mean, I wouldn't want to advise her and your gentleman, but I think hearts and minds is always a good way to win things within the a good way to win things within the department. And so, no, I do feel confident there is there is a conversation around dredging and it often comes up, you know, whether it's appropriate. And when I have conversations with the Environment Agency, their response to me is it Agency, their response to me is it depends. It depends on the river, it depends on where it is.

It depends whether you're in a place where you want to move something quickly or it it depends. But there's certainly from the from everything they've told me, there isn't a set policy against something. They just want to do what's best in the area. But of course, if you have different

**** Possible New Speaker ****

examples, you want me to follow up with, happy to take them. I thank you for for giving way

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank you for for giving way and we are still waiting for delivery of the River Thames in my area. And while that's happening, area. And while that's happening, we'd be very grateful to have some dredging because at the moment there is no River Thames flood alleviation scheme. Would you take this opportunity to reconfirm the government's commitment to delivering the ATM scheme that affects my constituency, but also neighbouring constituency of Spelthorne?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you gentlemen. And actually I was just having a conversation about him earlier on conversation about him earlier on today and the meeting that we had when we were talking about the flooding, local response. And when it doesn't meet the level, we know the Resilience Forum and at what level and how can we bring things together. And I do acknowledge that together. And I do acknowledge that you had a really interesting ideas about how that can operate that recovery on a on a local, on a local level.

So I might invite him to send that back in into me. When we look at those, when we look at those pain points and earlier on today, in fact, at 5:30 until 6:30, I'm losing track of time. The Environment Agency were here in the House doing a drop in and inviting all members to go in, have those conversations about their schemes, what's happening with their schemes during this year. I mean, it is a record amount of money, which is fantastic news, but this year is a massively build year.

There's so much going on in terms of capital spend of things being built right this year. There's quite a bit of money going into the development moving forward in future projects, so I don't have his scheme in front of me, so apologies for that. But of course, if you ask them where you are, there's no projects have been cancelled. They'll either be in development or they'll be in build. So it's probably best worth having that conversation with the EA. But I will get back to the hon.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ladies questions that she mentioned. Oh God. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. She's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker. She's making an excellent speech. Perhaps she wants to say a little bit about the importance of measures further the importance of measures further upstream to protect my residents, and indeed, the hon. Gentleman's in the River Thames catchment. Obviously, it's a huge catchment. Obviously, it's a huge catchment. There are a number of significant tributaries like the Kennet and the Loddon, many others as well, and Loddon, many others as well, and she has referred in the past to her interest in rewilding, in managing flood waters as they come down through the Thames, particularly looking at vegetation near to rivers and various other measures

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to try to slow the flow of water. My hon. Friend, and it wouldn't be a flooding debate without my be a flooding debate without my hon. Friends contributions, and I know how much he cares about this, both restoring nature and doing both restoring nature and doing what he can to alleviate flooding. And the new formula, which kicks in on the 1st of April, does give that on the 1st of April, does give that greater emphasis to natural flood management and how we can increase the number of nature based solutions to look at flooding where solutions to look at flooding where appropriate, of course, and that is absolutely something that I want to achieve because not only is it more affordable, it's good for nature, but it also can help alleviate flooding.

But of course, as part of a of a wider picture. So I thank him for that. But I thought you were bobbing them to go on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

One of the, one of the things that I wanted to contribute. I thank the Minister for giving way is my colleague from Rutland and is my colleague from Rutland and Stamford is a. Also covers Leicestershire. One of the impacts that we've had in Leicestershire is that we've had in Leicestershire is just the sheer volume of water and our villages in our rural parts of Leicestershire have just felt left Leicestershire have just felt left behind with with money. I'm grateful that Derby South was selected in this time round, but selected in this time round, but I'd be really, really grateful to hear the minister's view about the impact on rural communities and how work can be done to make sure rural communities don't feel left behind with flood works.

Overall.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend is absolutely at the forefront of my mind, having been to see some of mind, having been to see some of the farmers this year and before before the election and had those conversations, I am actively trying conversations, I am actively trying to look at what would be a good solution to support our our rural communities, bearing in mind, as communities, bearing in mind, as the comment was made around, it might be fewer properties, but that doesn't lessen or lessen the impact doesn't lessen or lessen the impact that that it's had.

And so just to mention, so for the hon. Lady's constituency, the Environment Agency is developing a new hydraulic model and hydrology for the catchment to provide further information and foundation for future flood risk management within that area. So if obviously there's it would be helpful probably if the Environment Agency reach out and have a conversation and explain that in detail to her. And just yesterday, as mentioned, we've announced a £1.4 billion investment into flooding in 2627, which will help protect tens of thousands of homes and businesses and funding for more than 600 flood schemes across the country, including upgraded barriers, embankments, natural flood management projects, of course, that slow the flow, which I'm hugely, hugely big fan of, and it includes the £5.5 million as part of the lower risk debris screens project to increase flood resilience in the hon.

Member's constituency, as well as other members constituencies. As part of wider investment across the East Midlands, and more than 260 million will be spent managing, maintaining and repairing Environment Agency assets, including those damaged by storm and Chandra, ensuring vital protections are made strong where communities need them the most. This investment forms part of the largest flood defence programme in English history, with at least 10.5 billion invested between 24 and 36 to protect homes, businesses and critical infrastructure in every corner of the country, from the growing threat of flooding.

And on the section 19 reports. I'm very happy to take away that question around how quickly they are done, because I think I'm always mindful of how hard working our local councillors are and the need to do something well and the need to do something timely, and how there can be a tension between them. But I think it is important that section 19 are completed as quickly as possible so that we can really understand what's happened and hopefully, therefore do something to mitigate it in the future.

And the point the hon. Lady made about council tax, I'll have to take that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

obviously to Mhclg, but happy to do it. Yeah, just. Being very generous with interventions. We're about to run interventions. We're about to run out the clock, but just to say, I'd be very grateful if there were a few more questions, if she was able few more questions, if she was able to come back in writing on them, because I know how diligently she does take this brief and I'm really grateful to her for that. But it'd

**** Possible New Speaker ****

grateful to her for that. But it'd be great to have answers to all the wider points that I raised as well. Yeah, very happy to. Apologies.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, very happy to. Apologies. I should normally listen out for the coughing that comes through. And there we and there we have it. So in conclusion, everybody this government is committed to strengthening resilience, to flooding. This not only keeps people safe, but supports economic growth in our rural and local communities across the country by protecting businesses, reducing disruption and safeguarding jobs. These measures contribute to stability and growth in the face of increasing climate change and flood risk. The government's record investment in flood defences will benefit communities across the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

country. Thank you. The question. Is that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is that. This House do now adjourn as many as are of that opinion, say I.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page