Commons Chamber

Tuesday 7th July 2026

(began 3 weeks, 2 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:34
11:35
11:36
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:51
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:54
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:58
Michael Shanks Portrait Michael Shanks MP, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)
-
-
That is? Shadow Minister is his face gives away every single time that he doesn't believe a word that he is saying. However, I do welcome the saying. However, I do welcome the former Minister for consultation and his view on his nuclear ambition, which of course, never ambition, which of course, never came to fruition in the 14 years they were in government. Meanwhile, delivery. He talks about is exactly what we are getting on with in this government. Delivering on the Hinckley and Sizewell C nuclear reactors, delivering on an SMR programme which is already having international reputation with countries around the world interested in that technology and building the nuclear that he only talked about.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The government closely follows government closely follows developments in the Agrivoltaics sector and supports innovative technologies, including through initiatives funded by the UK initiatives funded by the UK Research and Innovation in the solar Roadmap that we published. Government and industry is committed to exploring further

**** Possible New Speaker ****

research and demonstration opportunities for Agrivoltaic systems. Daniel Zeichner Mr. Speaker, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Daniel Zeichner Mr. Speaker, I commend the Secretary of State and his team for their determination and resolve in this transfer to renewables. Now, in this extraordinary, unprecedented weather we're having at the moment, some shade would be really welcome in parts of the east of England. I can assure the House, and with the opportunities for agrivoltaics, opportunities for agrivoltaics, including possibly on reservoirs, to tackle evaporation, but in the to tackle evaporation, but in the fields to tackle the the the stress that livestock and crops can face.

Isn't it time to use this innovative and imaginative approach innovative and imaginative approach to greater effect?
11:59
12:00
12:00
12:01
12:02
None Portrait Q9. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of small modular reactors on job opportunities. (900863)
-

company and Great British Energy Nuclear are working together on developing an industrialisation strategy to strengthen British nuclear supply chains.
12:02
12:02
12:03
12:03
12:04
12:04
12:04
12:04
12:05
12:05
12:06
12:06
12:07
12:07
12:07
12:08
12:08
12:09
12:09
12:10
12:10
12:11
12:11
12:11
12:11
12:12
12:13
12:13
12:14
12:14
12:14
12:15
12:15
12:16
12:16
12:17
12:17
12:18
12:18
12:18
12:19
12:19
12:20
12:20
12:21
12:21
12:22
12:22
12:23
12:23
12:24
12:24
12:24
12:25
12:25
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:28
12:29
12:29
12:29
12:30
12:30
12:30
12:30
12:31
12:31
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:33
12:34
12:34
12:35
12:35
12:35
12:36
12:36
12:37
12:37
12:37
12:38
12:38
12:38
12:38
12:39
12:39
12:40
12:41
None Portrait Ten Minute Rule Motion: Outdoor education
-

child be offered at least one outdoor education experience during primary and secondary school years, primary and secondary school years, and for connected purposes. Modern medicine, Mr. Speaker, is always looking for the next big story to looking for the next big story to change lives. Yet we are missing out on the cheapest, easiest and quickest way to turn around the vicious mental health crisis we see in our children and young people, a crisis that affects their ability to learn, to achieve, to work and to live a healthy and happy life.

The answer, Mr. Speaker, is outdoor learning. It's staggering to read that the amount of time children spend outside has fallen by 50% in a single generation, that children roam just 300m from home, and among those in the most deprived parts of the country, a fifth of children never spend meaningful time outdoors. Yet research shows that being out in nature makes children happy, and children who spend time outside care more about nature. That unstructured, risky, nature based play outdoors improves confidence and cognitive development.

Research funded by Defra through Natural England found that 95% of children found outdoor learning made lessons more enjoyable, and 90% reported improved engagement of students with learning and improved health and wellbeing. These figures are staggering and they deserve to be taken seriously. This bill is about improving the lives of our children and young people, and by using outdoor learning, raising a generation of people who will care more about nature, the one thing we know will protect us from the most devastating effects of climate change.

As Andy Jasper, the CEO of The Eden Project, told us last week on a brilliant parliamentary visit, there simply will be no future without nature. Shockingly, a third of children never have school lessons outdoors. Yet in many schools in South Devon, outdoor learning is a regular weekly part of the curriculum in playgrounds, school, vege gardens, parks and little bits of woodland. Children who live the furthest distance from green or open outdoor spaces spend more time on screens and have poor mental health than children living in close proximity.

A lack of time spent outdoors is linked to childhood health disorders such as ADHD, obesity and depression. And yet, it's not just kids from the inner city who are missing out on the benefits of the great outdoors. In my beautiful constituency of South Devon, there is a stark disparity that might surprise many in this House. I often hear of children who live just a couple of miles from stunning beaches, but have never been. There are few buses to the beach, and the parking costs are a serious barrier for some.

And this mirrors research, which shows that young people in communities all around the UK coast view the beach as not for them, but for visitors and tourists, which is why taking kids outdoors to do lessons at school is so vitally important. To introduce them to the idea of being in nature and develop a familiarity with the great outdoors. There isn't a subject on the curriculum that can't be enhanced by outdoor learning. The Fibonacci sequence is seen in the petals of a flower, the scales of a pine cone, and the seeds of a sunflower.

English, science, music, poetry, drama, geography all of this can be enhanced by teaching outside. And as one child said, when we were on our field trip, we did maths, English and science, but it was like we didn't realise we were doing it. That is pure magic for teachers. Tottenham Saint Johns Church of England Primary School is located in a large housing estate and it has a 44% send cohort. Their brilliant example could be replicated by schools up and down the country.

The headteacher told me that her pupils regularly used the school's outdoor spaces to support emotional regulation, and it is incredibly effective. They thrive outdoors, so we take as much learning as possible into the ground, delivering learning in this experiential, immersive and hands on way makes it more purposeful as well as easier for children to understand and retain. The school has adapted its uniform to enable children to be outside as much as possible, regardless of the weather, and all the children have wellies in school at black Bolton North East Darlington children have a dedicated afternoon of forest school, as well as an hour of outdoor PE every week.

The opportunities to explore, problem solve, take risks, work collaboratively, collaboratively and simply spend time outdoors have a significant impact on children's confidence, resilience and wellbeing, said head teacher Liam Fielding. For some children, particularly those who may struggle within a traditional classroom environment, outdoor learning provides a different opportunity to succeed, develop relationships and build self-esteem. We regularly see children return to the classroom calmer, more focussed and more ready to learn after spending time outdoors. Think phonics in the mud, maths with sticks and I was thrilled to be able to connect Harbertonford Primary School with volunteers from force for nature, who turned up and built raised veg beds in the playground so the pupils can learn how to grow healthy food, which they can eat in school.

This kind of learning is straightforward and can engage those who struggle in a traditional classroom environment. The child who can be disruptive in the classroom is hard to spot once outside with the whole class, but it takes confidence from school leaders and teachers to do this. And it's crucial that outdoor learning features in CPD and training. I want to see a curriculum and assessment review that includes outdoor learning, and that Ofsted include it as a plus. When assessing how schools are performing.

There is no school in the country that can't open the doors and take learning outside, and to take it one step further is the Holy Grail, the outdoor residential. I still remember the school trips I enjoyed at Lagan Valley Centre near Aviemore. The experiences have stayed with me for many decades, and yet we're still waiting to see Labour's Access to Nature Green Paper, which they promised in this Parliament. And that creates uncertainty for those who deliver programs that provide such invaluable opportunities, and they have decided not to renew the Generation Green programme, which provided access to nature through structured outdoor learning, residentials, farm visits and more, to over 125,000 children, including 26,000 from the most disadvantaged communities.

The recent Milburn Review is also clear that mental health has become a primary driver of youth disengagement, not a secondary consideration. Rising anxiety, neurodiversity and long term health conditions are reshaping who participates in post 16 education. So if we really want to help our young people achieve more, perhaps getting them outside is a very good place to start. Yes, Residentials costs money, but let's talk about the return on investment. DEFRA funded research from the University of Cumbria demonstrates that there is a social return on investment of £4.32 for every pound spent on outdoor education.

As part of the curriculum. The Scottish Government have already acted on this and we should too, because outdoor residentials can literally change lives. They pull kids out of their comfort zone, teach them they can do things that they thought were impossible. Activities teach teamwork and problem problem solving, improve self-belief and build friendships. And these are the skills that will give children the resilience to help them cope with all the stuff life throws at them as they grow up. They also offer space to connect with peers and teachers in a new way, offering valuable side by side moments.

It's like being in Minecraft is a phrase often heard as the kids walk through the woods near Sands in South Devon. For many children who come here to experience the great outdoors on a school residential, this will be the first time they have set foot in a wood. They might be nervous of sitting on the grass, or find it hard to walk down a steep grassy field towards the sea. But all these little moments are teaching them resilience. Pete and Andrea Moore both gave up traditional teaching jobs to open the brilliant forest and beach outdoor centre, such was their passion for teaching children the value of experiencing the outdoors, not just seeing it on a screen.

And Kurt Mockridge, who runs Grenville House Outdoor Education Centre in Brixham, has told me of kids who come to his centre from a primary school just at the top of the hill, who have never been down to the beach or in the water that is right on their doorstep. Because parents who don't have the familiarity, confidence or time may struggle to take their kids out, which is why these trips are so crucial, especially for those from more deprived areas. For many young people living in urban areas, their only realistic opportunity to experience nature comes through residential outdoor learning, where they are taken out of their local environment altogether, and by building their confidence in the outdoors, we are instilling a respect for and an understanding of nature, which is crucial as we face the challenges of changing climate will bring.

We simply cannot expect future generations to nurture our planet if they don't understand the wonder of nature. So, for the mental health and wellbeing of our children and young people, for the enhanced learning outcomes they will gain, for the joy of learning and for the future of this planet that we call home. I commend this bill to the House.

**** 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 of that opinion say. I of the contrary, no, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Who will prepare to bring

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in the. Tim Farron doctor Roz Savage doctor Danny Chambers Maya Ellis, Sir Julian Lewis. Chris Law and myself, Mr. Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Outdoor education Bill. Second Reading. What day?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Second Reading. What day? Friday the 16th of October.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friday the 16th of October. Friday the 16th of October. We

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friday the 16th of October. We now come to the opposition day motion on summer jobs. Inform the House that I've selected the House that I've selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I now call the opposition

**** Possible New Speaker ****

spokesman to move opposition spokesperson to move the motion. Call Gareth Davies. Well, thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, thank you. Mr. Speaker. I beg to move the motion which stands in my name and
12:51
12:51
Gareth Davies Portrait Opposition Day Debate: Summer jobs Gareth Davies MP (Grantham and Bourne, Conservative)
-
-
true in the world of work. Everyone remembers their first job, sometimes fondly, other times not. A first job, though, is not just a first wage. It is the first time a young person learns the world of work. It learns that it will pay them for what they can do, that they have a role to play, that they are needed and that they belong. It is where you learn to turn up on time, to look a customer in the eye, to take pride in a shift well worked and a wage honestly earned.

So this debate is not insignificant. It's about whether the next generation gets that same chance or whether the government pulls the ladder up behind it. I contend that rung by rung, that's exactly what they are doing. Yes, as a conservative, I've always believed in the dignity of work, of the security and freedom that a regular wage brings. But today too many people are being held back, and for their sake, it's important that we reflect on why they are not being held back by a lack of their own ambition that exists in abundance.

Nor are many people being stopped by their parents, their schools, colleges or universities. They all want them to succeed. Instead, more often than not, as the chief economist of the Institute of Directors has pointed out, it is government policy that, in her words, is choking off work opportunities for young people. There are now over 1 million young people aged 16 to 24. Not in education, not in employment or in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

training. Of course. Thank you for giving way. And again, congratulate the the again, congratulate the the opposition and the and the hon. Member for bringing this forward. I can well remember my first job. It wasn't just about the pocket money, because it wasn't very much in those days. It was about the punctuality of about turning up. It was about social engagement. It's about meeting people. All those things were important. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that hon. Gentleman agree with me that when nowadays my customers and my constituents in Strangford are telling me it's business rates, it's energy costs, it's all the things that prevent them from employing somebody, not just for a job, but for student job.

They just can't do it anymore. And does that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

responsibility fall on the shoulders of the Labour Party? Always grateful to the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Always grateful to the hon. Gentleman he learned in his first job, clearly the importance of showing up. And he certainly does showing up. And he certainly does every single day in this place, which I commend him for. I agree which I commend him for. I agree with him, and I will set out in detail what I believe are the causes for the situation we find causes for the situation we find today, where I said before that 1 million young people aged 16 to 24

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are not in education, employment or training. A good way, of course, sir. Alec Shelbrooke thank you, Mr. Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker. Does my hon. Friend. Find it incredulous. That in the amendment put forward by the government, they say forward by the government, they say it welcomes the Rights Act plan to make work pay? Do you think this is just an example of burying their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

just an example of burying their head in the sand? That work may pay, Minister. Well, exactly, exactly right.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, exactly, exactly right. There is no point in having a pay that is on an upward trajectory, which we all support if there aren't any jobs in the first place. And actually, under this government, the record is very clear that the employment levels are in decline,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not in a positive trajectory. Would my. Honourable thing, of course. with.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with. Me that the. Biggest tragedy are for those kids who go to university, with all the costs that that involves and three years of their life, only to find they're no further forward? And does he agree further forward? And does he agree with me that the government would be well advised to focus on skills be well advised to focus on skills through further education, rather than obsessing about higher education, which I'm afraid is a fraud on young people? Yeah, yeah.

Well, of course, this is exactly why in. The last conservative government, we had such a huge focus on skills and training and vocational courses. My own constituency of Grantham and Stamford at the time benefited from much needed funding to boost skills and vocational training. He is absolutely right on his point and I Harlow.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Christopher Vince. The member nearly forgot what particular I represented, which would have been disappointing. Never, never. Oh. I would.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would. Agree with you. I don't agree with some of the conclusions he's making and going to make. I think the issue of young people out of work is, is a far longer term issue than two years. But what I would just say to him on the point of skills, I think we can find some cross-party consensus, is that actually there's a need to embed some of those skills earlier in young people's education. So would he agree with me, actually, that the need to actually a broader the curriculum include those vital employment related skills at an early age? I'm thinking of things like financial education and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

computer literacy, for example. Gareth Davies. Well, I'll always take the opportunity to agree with any point about the need for financial literacy, but I would simply make the point and the point that we're making today with our motion, that making today with our motion, that we believe in work, work as a route out of poverty, work as a way to increase the prosperity of this increase the prosperity of this country, and highlighting the red tape that is strangling businesses right now and preventing them from hiring young workers, young workers, hiring young workers, young workers, which gives them a step on the ladder.

As I was setting out, let me just make some progress, if I may, just for the moment, because it is so clear that something, as we've all been talking about, isn't working. So we have to understand and try and explain why that is. It shouldn't need to be pointed out. But higher taxes and more regulation are simply not conducive to economic growth or higher employment. If you just look at what a business must now weigh before it looks to hire somebody first, of course, there's the jobs tax.

The tax that doesn't target profit. It doesn't target success. It taxes the very basic act of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

employing another human being. Yeah. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree with me that that's perhaps agree with me that that's perhaps the most corrosive consequence of all that businesses are facing, all of the pressure that's bearing down of the pressure that's bearing down on them. But so many are telling me that it's just not worth it. The correlation between effort and correlation between effort and success is being depleted, their self-confidence is being eroded, and as a result, our economy is and as a result, our economy is being sapped of any desire to contribute because the effort does not reap any reward.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Time and time again we try and make the point on this side of the house that it's not any one particular policy. Actually, it's the overall overall environment. We the overall overall environment. We don't, as a state, as a government, create jobs. It's the businesses that create jobs. And they need to know that the government is behind know that the government is behind them. They need to know that there is an environment in which they can invest in people. And right now,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

invest in people. And right now, for a combination of reasons, that is not the case. I'm really. Grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He's making some very, very important points. Obviously. In some parts of the world, mine included, there are many jobs on included, there are many jobs on offer, and it's hard for those young people to take up those jobs. So 60% of employers in the So 60% of employers in the hospitality and tourism industry in the Lake District are finding it difficult to recruit staff. One of difficult to recruit staff. One of the reasons is a lack of public transport to get young people to the places where they would work in the late evening is a lack of the late evening is a lack of affordable housing.

So does he recognise that this is a structural problem affecting young people everywhere, but particularly in rural areas like Cumbria?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gareth Davies well. I'm very grateful to him for making that point. Of course, as I was saying, it's not one particular policy that impacts this issue. And as he as he has pointed out, it's a as he as he has pointed out, it's a combination of factors, particularly to do with geography and rural areas such as his, but also in Lincolnshire as well in transport connectivity. I absolutely agree with him is a critical part of that. And the way critical part of that.

And the way in which you pay for more public infrastructure, by the way, is to boost tax receipts through work, through employment, through enterprise, through risk taking. And that is a point that I'm afraid is being lost right now, because Labour's £25 billion jobs tax has forced businesses to cut back hiring at every level, but especially especially for young people. Thousands of people have now been let go because, let's face it, because of the Chancellor's choices now. Secondly, there are the permits, the restrictions, the forms and all the red tape that's wrapped around those looking to specifically employ young people who simply want to work during the summer.

That's a fact that we're trying to make with this amendment, and I encourage everybody to look at the detail of it, because it's not often talked about in this place, but out there among young

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people. It is. Yeah. Andrew Snowden thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Minister for giving way in areas. Like Fylde. Which are very. Dependent on the tourism economy. I would.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would. Say it is the most beautiful part of Lancashire, but I do not want to incur the wrath of the want to incur the wrath of the speaker. So the joint most beautiful area in Lancashire, the local economy is also based very much on that seasonal trends. It is important not just for the young people who get those jobs, but for the viability of the tourism and hospitality economy as a whole. So does the Shadow Minister agree with me that the wider impact of this is actually on the economy that sustains areas like Witham St Albans on coastal towns across Britain.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is completely. And the fact that today we're even talking about a today we're even talking about a tax on the Great British holiday, which impacts his area. Mr. overnight levy and overnight visitors levy known as the holiday tax. And that's a tax that threatens his area. It threatens threatens his area. It threatens Whitby, it threatens Scarborough, Blackpool, Bournemouth, the Norfolk coast and even my county of Lincolnshire walls, they call it modest. But the seaside landlady struggles to.

Who's struggling to fill her rooms, calls it the difference between a season that works and one that doesn't. Hospitality UK have actually warned that this tax means that consumers visiting destinations in England are charged double the tax of visiting Paris, and 70% more than Barcelona or Rome. In effect, the government's half £1 billion holiday tax represents little more than a self-inflicted trade tariff on domestic breaks, driving holidaymakers overseas. Of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wendy Morton thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's the truth. Not hear that when it comes to businesses, we have a government that simply we have a government that simply doesn't understand business, and they simply think that you can squeeze and squeeze and tax and tax and legislate against and tangle up in red tape the very businesses that we need to drive our economy, get the growth that they say they want, and provide jobs and opportunities for, for working

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people, for young people. And they just simply don't get it. Gareth Davies well, the facts are there for all to see. And as I was saying, it's vital that we support the business community. It's vital that we support those small businesses. So often the narrative is about large multinationals, but it's actually SMEs and small business owners who drive our country forward, who employ people across the country, but especially young people. And one of the things, one of the additional things that we are now facing in this country and businesses are now facing is the now famous or infamous Employment Rights Act.

So much red tape that the Corner Cafe has to focus on hiring a lawyer before they hire a waiter. The government has laid down so many requirements for employers who need to move on. Underperforming employees, indeed, their own law says that after six months, you're protected from unfair dismissal. But I have to ask, where were these protections for the poor old Prime Minister with whom they dispatched over a single weekend on WhatsApp? He got less probation than a probationary barista.

It's one rule for the shop floor, another rule for the Labour front bench. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He will know that the giving way. He will know that the right to guaranteed hours contained in the Employment Rights Act is a great concern to the hospitality great concern to the hospitality and leisure business in Burnham on Sea. In my constituency. They are worried that if they enjoy a period worried that if they enjoy a period of good weather during which they engage more casual staff, followed by a period of poor weather when they have potentially very few customers, they will be compelled to offer guaranteed hours to those staff they have no need of.

So does he share my concern that the right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to guaranteed hours will prevent many young people from getting their first job this summer? Yes. Gareth Davies the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gareth Davies the. Whole point here and the points that I'm trying to make in this that I'm trying to make in this speech is that businesses, the country, people need flexibility. The whole country runs on choice and flexibility. And if there are restrictions that are unnecessary, if there are restrictions that will if there are restrictions that will harm economic activity, if there are restrictions that prevent young people from entering the workforce when they want to, that is clearly not a good thing for our country.

So I thank him for that intervention, and it's a very good point about the overall Employment Rights Act, which, of course, we have made very clear we disagree with. But I have to say, Mr. Speaker, it's not just about the dismissal elements of the Employment Rights Act. The Employment Rights Act also talks a lot about how British businesses. In fact, it makes British businesses have a fair and open recruitment process. Businesses must find the right candidate on merit from a proper field of candidates.

But yet where are we? And here we are today. They're filling the highest office of the land with a shortlist of one. They'll regulate the Saturday job to within an inch of its life, but run their own leadership contest with the rigour of a one ticket raffle. They'll hold a whole by election to find work for one man while imposing on every under 16 in the country a permit for a Sunday working ban and a levy on the town in which they live in.

It is the same old Labour time and time again. Rules for thee, but not for me. We are now two years since the last election and their policies are starting to bite. Job vacancies are down by almost 150 000. Thousands of job opportunities have gone and the youth unemployment rate is up by 2.5%. That's 735,000 young people now out of work. Borrowing costs have hit record highs. Labour are spending more on welfare than defence, education and prisons combined.

Our economy is shrinking, Mr. Speaker. It doesn't have to be this way. We have a plan that respects young people and the fact that they want to work hard and they want to succeed. We have a plan to back young people already in work and support those who want to find work and gain experience, especially through a summer job where Labour's red tape harms employment will work with businesses to scrap it. This includes red tape on the employment of under 16, such as the two hour Sunday working limit in sectors where Labour's taxes threaten to have the largest impact, will choose a different course to.

We'll abolish business rates entirely for thousands of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses on our high streets, with a 100% relief benefiting one quarter of a million firms. And we have ruled out the government's disastrous holiday tax on working families and treasured domestic tourist destinations. Unlike the government, we understand that to back businesses and employers is to back their customers and the people they employ too. Mr. speaker, we cannot lose the aspiration of a generation because of the barrier raised by the failed choices of this government.

Young people want to work. They want to do their bit. They want to build their own futures. It's our job not to stand in their way, but to support them. Our plan does just that. The party opposite has spent all summer worrying about one man's job. We say worry about all the others, back British businesses, back our high streets and back the young people of this country who ask for nothing more than the chance to work. Yes.
13:09
Chris Bryant Portrait Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)
-
-
The question is, does on the Order Paper I call the Minister to move the amendment or not? Minister. Good morning. No. Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. I don't know how you Mr. Speaker. I don't know how you felt when you got up this morning and you saw the Order Paper. I saw a debate on summer jobs. So it's a debate on summer jobs. So it's all going to be nice and summery and bright and optimistic. Sun is shining in the sky. There ain't a cloud in sight.

But then along comes Mr. Night. With all his doom and gloom and room in his eye. A depressing version of reality. And, Mr. Speaker, just to be absolutely clear, I will not be moving the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister this afternoon. We've had the single. I know the Tories don't support proportional representation, but. But we have nonetheless had the single transferable speech from the Conservative Party frontbench, to quote Sam Fender and Olivia Dean, all my memories of the Tory frontbench ring like tinnitus.

Only I don't mean it in a good way as it is in the song. Let's look at the actual facts, Mr. Speaker. GDP, he's been predicting doom for months, but the UK economy grew by a robust 0.6% in the first quarter of 2026, something they would have died for during their 14 years in government inflation. He's been making dire predictions for months, but CPI stayed steadily at 2.8% in May, defying expectations. Wages average regular pay, excluding bonuses, increased by 3.4% year on year up to April 2026, ahead of inflation.

Productivity. Oh, woe is me, he kept on saying. Here, there and everywhere, in every and broadcast outlet in the land. But UK productivity increased by 0.9% in the first quarter of 2026 and employment? We're doomed, he said. We're doomed. Captain Mannering, in the three months to April 2026, UK, unemployment fell slightly to 4.9%. That means we are outperforming other major economies, including Canada and the European Union average, and we have a record number of people in employment at 34.4 million people.

We are absolutely not complacent on any of this. Some of the global headwinds remain challenging. The impacts of the war in Iran, which, of course, they wanted us to go in full scale,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have yet to be fully felt. But we are making progress. Of course, I give way to the hon. Gentleman. Thank the Minister for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank the Minister for giving way. No. Where is the summer job more important for young people finding work than on the Isle of finding work than on the Isle of Wight? But employers are telling me that it's increasingly hard to employ young people because of the tax and the red tape that this government has put on them. It's no wonder youth unemployment is up. wonder youth unemployment is up. I've got an idea for the Minister. Why doesn't he reform welfare and reverse the decisions made by his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government so young people can find a job? Yes. Well, I'm not sure that there's nowhere in the country that is more nowhere in the country that is more important than the Isle of Wight. I think every single constituency in the land faces challenges around getting young people into work. getting young people into work. Some have been referred to the hon. Gentleman, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, are completely Liberal Democrats, are completely different set of issues that have been that have been raised by the hon.

Gentleman. But of course we've got to reform welfare. I don't got to reform welfare. I don't think there's a single member of the House that doesn't believe that we have to reform welfare. We have to make sure that welfare works for people and enables people to get into jobs, into jobs. And there's one phrase that the hon. Gentleman used that I would completely agree with. I would just change one word. I think he said, as a conservative, I believe that work is the route out of poverty and into prosperity.

I agree, I believe as a socialist and as a Labour Party politician that work is the route out of poverty. It's the route to self-fulfilment. It's a route to better mental health. It's a route to increased social cohesion across the whole of the country. So of course, it is an absolute priority for any Labour government to want to get as many young people into work and profitable work as is possible. Let me deal with three main issues, Mr. Speaker, that have been brought up in the debate.

Firstly, young people and their summer jobs. Secondly, support for businesses and thirdly, tourism. I see that the Minister from Shadow DCMS Secretary, is here, so he might be wanting to raise some of these tourism issues later. He might be. He's been a bit too much in the sun. I think I'm a bit worried about this. For skin cancer is a major problem in the country, but the. So summer jobs, Mr. speaker, I'm sure we can all remember our. What. All right.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well. Come on. Deputy Chief Whip should know better and I expect him to set

**** Possible New Speaker ****

better and I expect him to set examples, not break them. Didn't know he was the Deputy Chief whip. But there we are anyway. Chief whip. But there we are anyway. If the hon. Member is upset. I'm terribly sorry. I don't think I think he was taking it in the way that I intended it. Mr. speaker, that I intended it. Mr. speaker, I'm sure we can all remember our first summer job. Mine was in a newsagent, stroke sweet shop, and others might have been behind a bar.

It's most common. Or working in a hotel. Wimbledon, of course, takes on 280 14 to 17 year olds as Bbg's every year, plus many more in their bars and hospitality. The Commonwealth Games in Glasgow, which should bring in £150 million worth of extra investment into the city, will take on more than 3000 volunteers and hundreds of temporary staff. The Edinburgh festivals will take an even take on even more young people working during all the different festivals and in tourism hotspots across the country, from Margate to Harrogate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and Witmer Gate In York, in Bath, Stratford, the Lake District, the Peak District Lake District, the Peak District and the Jurassic Coast. Youngsters will be earning a wage for the very first time, and it's a really first time, and it's a really important part of their social development and personal development. We all know how important these jobs are to the important these jobs are to the whole young people getting their first experience of work, as several hon. Members have referred several hon.

Members have referred to already, that the need to turn up on time and the need to look somebody in the face to engage with somebody to understand the rigours of work and stay until the end of the day. The tourism industry, of course, meets domestic and international demand, and we are still ambitious. We want to get to 50 million international visitors to the UK by the year 2030, and hospitality offers young people, young people, the chance to go from no qualifications or experience to skilled staff member faster than any other sector in the UK, which is why it is so important now.

Oh yes, of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If the situation is so rosy, can the Minister explain to me why the Minister explain to me why youth unemployment amongst the 16 to 17 year olds is currently running at staggering 30%, which is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

running at staggering 30%, which is up from 24.7% Minister. I never said that the situation

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I never said that the situation was all rosy. I've said earlier that I'm completely not complacent about the situation, and I know that the problem facing, which has that the problem facing, which has been endemic in our economy for the last 15 to 20 years, facing young people and going into work. And I would just say one of the hon. Members earlier asked the question about why isn't university or education? I can't remember who it was. Sorry. Isn't that a fraud on young people? Of course, it's really important to strike this balance between experience, getting experience to go into work rather than necessarily taking on an academic career.

And that mix is one of the things that we've been very keen to change since we came into government. Now, I don't suppose there's a single member on this side of the House who doesn't worry about the number of young people who are not in education, employment or training or NEETs, as people have referred to them already. Alan Milburn's report is a real wake up call for us all, and we will. We are fully backing the review and will, of course, act on its recommendations when they finally appear.

We do want to make sure that these are all based on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

evidence, which I know is precisely what Alan Milburn is pursuing. Yes. Of course. Mr.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. I thank the Minister for giving way, and I apologise to the whole House. When I did my previous intervention, I didn't mention my intervention, I didn't mention my constituency of Harlow. I'm going to put the record straight and talk about the incredible work that Harlow College are doing, supporting young people, not in supporting young people, not in education and employment and training. So would he, as part of the ongoing Milburn Review and look

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the ongoing Milburn Review and look at some of the good case studies like Harlow to to help benefit the government's thinking? I don't know, Mr. Speaker. Did you know that he's the Member for Harlow? No, no, it had passed us by, hadn't it? Yes, completely. Well, he makes a very good point, and I'm sure somebody will send him a letter thanking him for the point that he's just made. But I'm sure lots of us in all of our constituencies have similar. Maybe the Leader of the House, not the Leader of the House.

The Father of the House is about to give us another instance of an institution in his constituency.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Known to Father of the House. Come on, Sir Edward. Just wondering. If the Minister was looking.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If the Minister was looking. Forward to a new. Summer job. At the end of July. And whether he can give.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

he can give. Us any confidence. That the MP for Makerfield has any new ideas to get young people

**** Possible New Speaker ****

into work? I'm not aware of it yet. Well. Actually, quite a few of the mayors around the country, mayors around the country, including the the right hon. Member for Makerfield, have advanced quite a lot of ideas in their areas, which have precisely done that. And sometimes I think it's important that we don't simply adopt a one kind of issues that I have in my patch, I think will be very different from those in his. And we need to be able to match that.

As for the longest reshuffle in history, I think most of us are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bored with it already, so. Oh really? All right. Dave Doogan.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Dave Doogan. I thank the Minister for giving way. He's talking up the economic performance of the United Kingdom performance of the United Kingdom since his party took over in 2024. He's labouring the point about the He's labouring the point about the first quarter of this year. The less confident I detect about the second quarter of this year. We'll second quarter of this year. We'll see what that brings. But with youth unemployment at 626,000, which was where it was last year, with this fabulous economy that he's talking about, why has it gone up 109,000 more, 109,000 more, 16

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to 24 year olds now out of work under this government than this time last year? Look, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Look, I. Want to be absolutely clear. I'm not trying to suggest that everything is perfect in the nation and that that we are in a version and that that we are in a version of Nirvana. I'm not saying that at all. I know I have friends and relatives who work in the relatives who work in the hospitality industry. I know these last few years, not just the last two, but the last 15 years have been really tough for hospitality. been really tough for hospitality.

I think we lost something like 6800 pubs from 2010 to 2024, and we've been losing more pubs since then as well. I'm still trying to answer the SNP. If the if my the hon. Gentleman would allow me. But. And we have faced significant headwinds this year, we are keen to pursue the work that Alan Milburn has done, and I'm just going to come on, if I'm allowed to, to some of the ways that we are trying to address the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

specific problem that we have, I give way to the hon. Gentleman. Grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I recognise he wants to come on to what the government is going to do. But does he not accept the do. But does he not accept the decisions already made in the last two years with respect to the price of of employment, National Living Wage and in terms of the cost of Wage and in terms of the cost of employment with the legislation and the business rates, has depressed the appetite of many small businesses to employ more people.

So regardless of the strategic changes around the Melbourne Review, which I accept needs to be evidence based, those decisions have had a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

chilling effect on the capacity of the economy to employ young people. Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd say two things. First of all about the National Living wage. And first, it must surely be wrong. If somebody works 40 hours a week that they can't afford to pay their they can't afford to pay their bills at the end of the week, if they've been a diligent worker, they've done played by the rules, they're doing everything properly, they're doing everything properly, and they still can't afford to put food on the table for themselves and for their children and pay the electricity bill and the rest of it.

That must surely be wrong. And that's why we introduced the whole idea of a minimum wage in the first place, and then the National Living wage. And I would just say, I know there are some people who say about young people, of course, it only applies to young people over school age, so 18 and above. But some people say, well, you know, there are they have an impression that they're all living at home. And so they don't need to earn the same in the same way as others.

That that simply isn't true for lots of my 19, 20, 21 year olds, they are earning. That is their living and they need to pay the bills just like anybody else. So, so there is a difficult balancing act to be struck there. And similarly, I would argue around National Insurance contributions. Now, what we've tried to do, as the hon. Member will know, right hon. Member will know, is that we've tried to make sure that that the sectors of the of the economy that are smaller and have less ability to absorb the additional costs, don't have to meet it.

I think it's something like 50%. I'll correct the record. If I've got the number wrong. 50% of businesses don't have to pay any more at all. But in the end, I don't hear people frequently calling for us to slash expenditure on defence, on education, on the health service and so on. So I do sometimes just want to say to hon. Members, it's all very well to, to, to denounce the National Insurance contribution increase, but at the same time, then you've got to find the money to to pay from that, from other budgets and, and all very well to say, let's cut it from welfare.

A lot of the welfare projects are actually designed to make sure that people have an opportunity to put food on the table and pay the bills. Well, I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

keen to sort of move on, but I'm an enormous fan of the hon. Member, so I will give way to him. So, Iain Duncan Smith, I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So, Iain Duncan Smith, I'm grateful to the honourable. Always great to have him at the despatch box. We always have a lot of fun, box. We always have a lot of fun, but I just want to say to him something very important. Having had to juggle this myself, does he honestly think if he had the honestly think if he had the opportunity to do it, that that putting a starting rate for National Insurance payments at National Insurance payments at almost half the rate it was before, does that not affect part time employment and does it not discourage, therefore, those who would like to give starter jobs to people, it makes it much more

**** Possible New Speaker ****

difficult for them. Surely that is a reality. Yes. Well, he makes a decent point

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, he makes a decent point and I you know, there's a balancing act that has to be struck in all of these. And in the end, you have to these. And in the end, you have to make the sums add up when it comes to a Budget as well. So those are the problem, the difficult the problem, the difficult decisions that we had to make back in November 2024. And of course, the other issue we faced was that, you know, no provision had been you know, no provision had been made for the support for business rates beyond April 2025 prior to that Budget in November 2024.

And so, of course, when we introduced measures then that had to be paid for as well. And I hear what the shadow spokesman has just said about abolishing business rates. I think this is trussonomics. I'm afraid it's just it sounds great. Let's abolish all tax. Why not? You actually have to pay for it, and you have to prove that you have the wherewithal to do that. If I might, Mr. Deputy Mr Speaker, sorry to demote you there, Mr. Speaker. I will crack on.

We are already, of course, taking action, putting an additional £1 billion into programmes such as the Youth Guarantee and the Growth and Skills Levy, and these are supporting almost 1 million young people and creating up to 500,000 opportunities for them to earn and learn. We have also been offering new incentives of £2,000 for those hiring foundation apprentices, aged 16 to 21. That comes on top of a complete National Insurance contributions exemption for employees under 21 and apprentices under 25, which I think meets some of the arguments that some have been making.

I don't know where that came from. If he doesn't mind, I'm going to crack on. I'm afraid you will have an opportunity to pursue. No, no, it hasn't recommended him to me any further, I have to say, making a snide remark. But. We have a seasonal job. May be the first route out of Neet. That's why we built flexibility into the Employment Rights Act to address issues of seasonal demand. Not all seasonal work is on a zero hours or similar basis, but where it is, there are provisions in the legislation to allow those guaranteed hours to be part of a fixed or limited term contract, where it's appropriate.

The right to guaranteed hours does not force companies to make seasonal workers permanent. Let me be clear about this. It gives workers the right to choose certainty and stability in their contracts where they want it, which will help them Budget and plan their lives. That's the right thing to do. Ensuring workers are fairly treated and affording employers the flexibility they need, while also giving around 2.7 million workers a pay rise thanks to increases in the National Living wage and national minimum wage. I should add that the department is running a consultation at the moment on some of the finer details of our zero hours policies before they come into effect.

I would encourage businesses to please share their views with us so that these reforms work in practice, not just on paper. Oh, I've got hours

**** Possible New Speaker ****

yet and I've still got to wait to the hon. Gentleman, but of course, a good way. I'm very grateful to him. So the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So the. Minister said he wasn't going to move the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I don't think that's unheard of, but I'm just that's unheard of, but I'm just curious to understand why, having put down such an amendment, the government wouldn't. I think there government wouldn't. I think there are three main things he's talked about. Two of them the Employment Rights Act and apprenticeship. The Rights Act and apprenticeship. The third main thing seems to be about planned changes for business rates.

We're not moving the amendment. Is he saying that the government does not stick by what it said previously about upcoming changes to business rates for pubs?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Sorry, I mean Minister. Oh,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh, Touche, Mr. Speaker. No. Oh,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Touche, Mr. Speaker. No. Oh, well, I thought I saw you off, Mr. Speaker. I think if you look at history,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it's not the case. It's all got very unconventional. No, that isn't that isn't he? He is misinterpreting what's occurring. If you if he wants to talk to the to reason with this, he needs to talk to the whips, I'm afraid, who are in charge of decisions about whether we move things to a vote. Madam Deputy Speaker, support for businesses. I also said I would address the issue of support for businesses. That is precisely what our backing your business plan is all about.

We are rolling out one of the most significant pieces of legislation to tackle late payments in over 25 years, the Commercial Payments Bill. We are expanding access to finance through the British Business Bank to give more small firms the confidence to grow and take on more staff, with guidance and support available from our business growth service. Every step of the way, we're bringing in new hospitality zones with reduced red tape and licensing costs. These new zones make it easier for businesses to move into disused spaces and employ more people.

In addition to all this, we are cutting this year's business rates bills for pubs and live music venues by 15% following a two year freeze, and we're encouraging large concert venues to introduce a £1 levy on a voluntary basis to go to support live music venues. I would just say that I wish this. It's great that Harry Styles and Olivia Dean and others are encouraging people and to do this for their tickets, but it's not universal yet, and this could be a significant advance advantage, rather for live music venues.

So I would include I would encourage all operators to include this. Of course, I will give way to the honourable. I'm happy to give way to him again if he wants.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving way. Just talking about supporting for businesses. The Brackley Antique seller, however, is a very Antique seller, however, is a very unique business which has 200 dealers with it, but business rates is really affecting them. And is really affecting them. And because they take on often antiques places take on very unique properties. This is something that's really hurting them. So can that's really hurting them. So can I ask the Minister to, perhaps as part of that supporting, reconsider the business rates, levies for businesses like these antique sellers?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sellers? Well, I have actually heard that issue in relation to some other antiques businesses where they they basically lots of stalls in one sense, or small shops inside a much larger, older building. And I think she makes a decent point. And it's one of the things that, of course, we'll be considering as we move forward to look at the future of business rates. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, we've also introduced permanently low tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties with rateable values below £500,000.

This gives long term certainty and support to the high street, and it stands in marked contrast to the previous forms of relief, which created a yearly cliff edge and which had been due to end entirely in April of 2025. At the same time, we are increasing the Hospitality Support Fund to £10 million, helping more businesses within this sector to grow and to create more summer jobs. As hon. Members will know, we have extended World Cup opening hours and cut alcohol duty on draught pints.

I very much hope, despite being a Welshman, that we have to do this rather more frequently over the next two weeks. Well, I still think I've got this SNP if he wants

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to have another go, but if not I'll. I'll go to. Does the Minister not accept

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does the Minister not accept that whilst the schemes and programmes that he's suggesting around the World Cup. So let's hope England keeps in for as long as England keeps in for as long as possible to help those businesses. These are merely small sticking plasters. What we really need are plasters. What we really need are longer term solutions that are much more sustainable for these industries.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

industries. Yes, I don't think the England's football prospects over the next two weeks are going to be the sole answer to the problem. That's why I've been laying out a series of different areas where we are already taking action, which I think provides precisely the kind of long term answers that the sector needs. Madam Deputy Speaker, the government has also protected the smallest businesses. I think this is really important and is very rarely mentioned in conservative speeches. We have protected the smallest businesses from the impact of the increase to employer National Insurance contributions by more than doubling the employment allowance from £5000 to £10,500.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I said I would talk about tourism. I know the Conservative Party dislikes the idea of the tourism levy, and I've heard businesses complain about this as well, in particular hotels and and and some other parts of the sector. I also worry that businesses are already facing a heavy tax burden, and I don't particularly want to increase that. But let's not exaggerate. Firstly, all we are considering doing is allowing mayors to introduce a local levy. Some areas have already done so on a voluntary basis and have done so very successfully.

It seems extraordinary to forbid them from doing so, especially if they ensure that all the money raised goes into projects that support the tourism and hospitality sector. That could be, in certain instances where mayors want to take this forward, a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

real opportunity to drive forward opportunity, economic opportunity in that sector, of course. Jayne Kirkham thank you very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jayne Kirkham thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I just wanted to ask the Minister. The King's Speech did mention that King's Speech did mention that mayors may be able to have this power, but also foundation single authorities, strategic authorities authorities, strategic authorities might also be able to have this power. Obviously, it's not decided yet, but just to ask the Minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that that's still the case. Yes, sorry. I'm very glad she picked me up on that. That's a very good point. And I want to make another point about this, which is some people seem to be suggesting that all of this is going to start in a couple of weeks time. Far from it. This is far from imminent. We are consulting on this. It's a process that will take some time. I would doubt that we would have anything in place in the next 12 months.

So I very much encourage people to take part in the consultation and we can see how we can move forward. Any mayor in one, any mayor, of course, or strategic authority, will want to consider all of the issues in the round and about whether there is a net benefit that can be gained from introducing such a levy and notwithstanding the additional pressures that they might be on costs and in the tourism and hospitality sector, of course, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way to the hon. Gentleman. I'm really grateful. To the Minister for raising the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

issue and indeed for giving way. A mayor in Cumbria. Will have one next May. One of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will have one next May. One of the considerations. They'll have to make is the fact that we have 20 million visitors every year to a million visitors every year to a county of, what, 600,000 people? Those people use facilities and they're very welcome to use them in our communities, police, hospitals our communities, police, hospitals and many council facilities, not least the roads. And there's not a penny contributed towards them. I think there'll be an instinct against the tourism tax, but the government's choice to cut funding to the local authority by 31% is going to put the mayor in a position, position in whatever political colour they are, they'll feel they've got no alternative.

Wouldn't it be better if mayors were able to make decisions and have our services funded properly,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as a result of the visitors who come with us in the first place? Yes, sir. Well, I think one of the areas

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I think one of the areas where he and I would agree is that this is a very overcentralised state. We make far too many decisions on a national basis, decisions on a national basis, rather than allowing local people to make more decisions that more directly affect their businesses directly affect their businesses and their local economy, which may be very, very differently in his constituency from mine or anybody constituency from mine or anybody else's in the in the country, and in particular in relation to tourism.

I'm conscious that some of the biggest tourism attractions in the country are in London, the British Museum, the National. I think I'm getting them in the wrong order now. The British Museum and the National History Museum, for instance, roughly 6 million each. And then there are a few other cities Bath, Stratford, Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh and so on that do phenomenally well. Now, those cities might want to take a different attitude to other parts of the country, and I think that that is the right way for us to move forward.

There will be pressure for people who say, well, hang on, if all if all our local museums are free for entry, why is it that local taxpayers are having to pay for that rather than tourists when they arrive? So these are the issues that mayors and strategic authorities will obviously have to bear in mind. And I think sometimes it will be it will be borderline what what is the right decision to make? But I think it's right that we give people the power and it's then up to them whether they choose to exercise it or not.

Madam Deputy Speaker, just one final policy area I want to touch on, because it's mentioned in the opposition's motion, which is red tape. And there is an irony about this. Much of the red tape, of course, that we're dealing with is in place because the previous government introduced it, and that is why we've set ourselves a very clear target to cut the administrative burden on businesses by 25% through to the end of this Parliament. And we are absolutely determined around this, because I fully accept the argument that this is far too much red tape.

If we make it too difficult, simply too difficult for people to be able to employ people, then that is an own goal for Britain. We're making progress. We've already announced a series of significant reforms which mean no more mandatory strategic reports for medium sized firms, and no more director's reports for businesses of any size, either. That's going to save businesses some £230 million a year. But obviously we need to go further, and the business secretary is going to be making further announcements

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and. OK. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. My very first experience of employment was waiting at a bus, waiting at a van to try and go and waiting at a van to try and go and to try and get a day's work, cash in hand at the at the berries, in hand at the at the berries, which was, was something that you usually did at the age of 13 or 14 and you looked a wee bit older. I and you looked a wee bit older. I am hoping that the hon.

Gentleman is not is not proposing that a return to those days, because I kind of got the impression from the from the the, the shadow, the shadow Minister, that that was the exact type of employment he was looking to return to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, sir. No, I to be fair to the opposition, I don't I don't think he's intending to send children up the up the chimneys anymore. That was his policy a few years ago. But was his policy a few years ago. But it's not his policy anymore, or maybe his predecessor's policy. But no, honestly, I think they're more or less I mean, it's not quite planet earth that they're on, to quote Duran Duran, but they're quote Duran Duran, but they're close to it.

So. But, Mr. Speaker. No, Madam Deputy Speaker, the opposition motion talks a lot about regret. It regrets the Employment Rights Act and the National Insurance contributions and so on. It tempts me, I'm afraid, Madam Deputy Speaker, to give my notorious Edith Piaf impersonation. Non je Emma Foody du passé. But what's missing, Madam Deputy Speaker, in these regrets of theirs, no regrets for helping draft the quasi Budget which led to the fastest ever increase in mortgage rates, sending millions of families into unaffordable debt.

No regret for the biggest fall in living standards for two centuries. No regret for slashing our public services, including the NHS, local government and our armed forces. No regrets for 14 years of anaemic economic growth. No regrets? No. Madam Deputy Speaker, I have regrets. I regret that they ever got into power. I regret that they have become Mrs. Thatcher's moaning minis. I regret they left us with a nation divided against itself. But I don't regret the Employment Rights Act.

I am proud of it. To be clear, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not and am not moving the amendment. I call Liberal Democrat spokesperson Sarah Olney. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm sure that colleagues across the House have heard from businesses on their local high streets and across their local high streets and across their constituencies about the challenges they face from Unaffordably high energy bills, the Unaffordably high energy bills, the government's NICs rise and recent business rates increases. This is a really challenging economic landscape for businesses, particularly those in the hospitality and retail sector, made worse by this government's repeated mistakes.

The increasing burden on SMEs means that many do not have the resources to provide employment opportunities. Where many young people traditionally found their first jobs. However, we can't lose sight of the fact that many of these issues began under the last conservative government. It was them who undermined hospitality, retail, farming, agriculture and so many other sectors providing seasonal work over summer through their terrible Brexit deal, the disastrous mini Budget and their failure to reform business rates as they have promised. Their record is a dispiriting picture of low growth, rising costs and falling living standards, all of which pave the way for where we are now.

And that's why it's so disappointing that this government has added to these challenges through it, through its short sighted tax grabs, and is not acting with more urgency to support local economies and job opportunities around the UK. The state of our economy requires bold action to give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I. Note that she calls out the record of the previous government. She's right to do so. But I do She's right to do so. But I do remember in 2012, youth unemployment was at 22%, 40% higher than it is now. Of course, her party was in government at that time, very keen to work collaboratively. But, I mean, it is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

worth just noting that. I'm terribly sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I didn't catch all of the gentleman's intervention he made. gentleman's intervention he made. He said something about unemployment in 2012, which was, of course, very soon after the global
13:41
Sarah Olney Portrait Sarah Olney MP (Richmond Park, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
banking crash, which was a huge, huge impact. The state of our economy requires bold action. Addressing the workforce skills crisis, reversing the National Insurance jobs tax, speeding up Insurance jobs tax, speeding up delivery of the industrial strategy and most importantly, negotiating a new growth and defence partnership new growth and defence partnership with the EU, including joining the single market and forming a new single market and forming a new customs union. More than 1 million young people in this country are currently not in employment, education or training, the highest level in over a decade.

This is a really worrying statistic. The Melbourne Review has warned that the UK is at risk of experiencing a lost generation of young people due to rising ill health, growing skills gaps, a dysfunctional housing market and many other structural factors. This is not a lack of ambition among young people, but an institutional failure of both the current and the previous government. Ministers should be urgently looking to ensure that young people have access to the skills, training and work experience necessary to begin their careers and participate in the workforce, but they cannot gain this experience if businesses simply can't afford to offer new opportunities because they are struggling to stay afloat, the cost of employment has risen significantly during Labour's time in office, and there have been over 110 000 jobs lost in the hospitality sector alone since the NICs rise.

If businesses aren't able to grow, it won't just be summer jobs that will suffer, but employment opportunities across the board. And of course, this explains why we've seen the unemployment rate climb from 4.3% at the time of the 2024 Budget to 4.9%. Now, our SMEs face huge challenges and very many are already struggling to absorb rising costs. So unless more is done to support them, vital entry level jobs and a central contributions to the culture and character of our local communities are at risk of being lost.

Looking at issues affecting the workforce more broadly, Liberal Democrats welcome the industrial strategy alongside a funding boost for skills and training, but this progress stops well short of the fundamental reform. We need to see if we're going to address the workforce shortages, which many industries are facing. British businesses must be able to hire the people they need with the skills they need, but they must also have scope to employ less experienced workers who are just starting to climb the career ladder. Opportunities for young people are shrinking.

Any business will tell you the apprenticeship levy is not fit for purpose. Firms can't get the funding they need to train staff, and hundreds of millions of pounds of funding goes unspent. The Liberal Democrats have long called for proper reform of the apprenticeship system to give businesses real flexibility over how they spend their money to train their staff. Today's motion also causes the abolition of business rates. The Liberal Democrats agree that we need to see a complete overhaul of this unfair and damaging system, but it was the previous conservative government that failed to deliver the fundamental review of the business rate system it promised in its 2019 manifesto.

Perhaps things would have been different today if they hadn't simply kicked the can down the road. With the hospitality sector struggling to employ new workers, damage is being done to the prospects of our young people, who are now facing a soaring youth unemployment rate of 16.2%. It is self-evident that this trend is damaging to our economy as a whole. At the heart of this debate are people who are finding it incredibly difficult to find a job to support themselves, their partners, their children and their families, to pay rent, to pay their bills, to pay for groceries, to pay for essentials.

This is what must not get lost in this debate. Today's motion looks to examine the factors limiting opportunities for young people. Perhaps unsurprisingly, there's a glaring omission of any reference to the damage caused by the last government's failed Brexit deal. The appalling agreement negotiated by the Conservative Party has been a complete disaster for our country, particularly for small businesses who are held back by reams of red tape and new barriers to trade. An astonishing 16,000 firms have stopped all exports to the EU as a result, while the Liberal Democrats welcome the steps even of small and hesitant, that this government is taking to improve our relationship with the EU, I urge the Minister to recognise that this should only be the start towards a much deeper trading relationship, which should include joining the single market and forming a new customs union.

This would be truly transformational for our economy and for our young people's employment prospects. At the very least, the government should be making far more progress to secure a youth mobility scheme with the EU. If this were in place, British young people have had exponentially more work opportunities available to them this summer, so I wish to ask the Minister if they will set out a timeline for the introduction of their Youth Experience scheme, which would be beneficial to our whole economy and could ease some of the burdens which our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hospitality sector is facing. Happy to give. I thank the hon. Member for making an excellent speech. Jim making an excellent speech. Jim Shannon Youth Mobility Scheme. At the moment, the UK has youth mobility visa arrangements with a number of countries around the world and with only one country in Europe, which is Dora, which is a fat lot of good, frankly. And. And fat lot of good, frankly. And. And yet from people in the hospitality sector I mentioned earlier their desperate need to recruit more desperate need to recruit more staff.

A youth mobility scheme may be the scheme with our with our neighbours in the European Union will be good for young people in this country to get experience overseas, but also allow the hospitality sector in the lakes and London and elsewhere to be able to recruit the staff that they need to work over the summer.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So I thank my my hon. Friend for his intervention. Of course, he's absolutely right. The benefits of a youth mobility scheme are not just youth mobility scheme are not just for young people who live in this country, but also to our businesses who can recruit from across the EU who can recruit from across the EU and get the the hospitality staff, the short term staff that the hospitality businesses in his hospitality businesses in his constituency so badly need. Madam Deputy Speaker, Businesses across the country, especially our SMEs, the country, especially our SMEs, are struggling with unprecedentedly high costs while battling a rising tax burden and an unfavourable economic climate.

Struggling businesses means fewer jobs, lost opportunities and lower living standards. So it's absolutely clear that we must look for ways to support local businesses and all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

those that rely on them. Thank you. Madam. Deputy Speaker. And I'm very grateful to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I'm very grateful to the official opposition for giving us an opportunity to all reminisce about our own summer jobs. In my case, probably many further years case, probably many further years ago than I'd care to have met when I was lucky enough to work both as a cleaner and at my local co-op to a cleaner and at my local co-op to help pay my way through summer. Now, those jobs were both really important to me, and not just because they stopped murdering my because they stopped murdering my mum, murdering me because I was around the house too much, but because they actually provided that crucial introduction to the world of work and the opportunity to start to establish some of the disciplines and awarenesses of life that have served me, I'd like to think reasonably well of my 36 years on this planet to date, but I thank the protestations from the frontbench.

But they were also very crucial for me for starting to form my politics. I was incredibly lucky in both settings to work with some fantastic colleagues, not least because my clumsiness from spilled buckets to broken bottles in the aisles meant I'd often rely on their generosity and patience with my ineptitude at times, but also for the ways in which they started to give me windows into very different lives to the ones I led
13:48
Alistair Strathern Portrait Alistair Strathern MP (Hitchin, Labour)
-
-
to date. There were similarities between both. Both worked in industries where the minimum wage had been crucial to driving up had been crucial to driving up their own security and their own sense of prosperity. Both were grateful for that, and very had a grateful for that, and very had a lot of support for the Labour government at the time as a result. But there was one crucial difference. At my co-op, the difference. At my co-op, the workers that I worked with had regular contracts, secure work, good terms, supported by recognised good terms, supported by recognised trade union and felt a comfort and security in their jobs that was denied to many of those I worked with cleaning local schools there.

The practical realities of limited terms and conditions and insecure work. Non-Guaranteed hours weren't artefacts of a contract or remote bureaucracy. They were very tangible insecurities that hung over their day to day lives and undermined their own sense of security in life, and their own ability to plan with confidence for the future. They wanted to build and provide for their families. It's my many years later down the line, I'm proud to have been part of a Labour government that's delivering a record expansion of workplace rights with the Employment Rights Act, and it's why that fundamental vision of protecting workers and ensuring there is that minimum contract, minimum social contract for those working hard for their families and to do right by their communities is always going to be foundational to my politics.

We come here not to embrace the contradictions and tensions that inhibit social change and progress, but to be creative and up and bold enough to try and lead the country and lead our economic settlement to a better one for those working families that we're here to serve. It's why the minimum wage has been so transformational for our country. It's why we have weekends now. And it's why I'm very confident that over time, the Employment Rights Act will prove to have been a big step forward for so many of the working people I'm proud to represent.

Now, that doesn't mean every aspect will always be perfect. Absolutely. Consultations with businesses, consultations with employers will be foundational to ensure we get the nuances of how those play out in different employment settings, right? But that fundamental principle that my constituents, that those cleaners I worked with don't deserve more confidence and security in their employment, I think, is one that is exactly why I feel completely at home on the government benches with my Labour colleagues here today. Now, I do think there are some important issues raised by the opposition's motion.

It's absolutely right that collectively, over many years now, we have not done enough to bear down on some of the barriers that young people have faced getting into employment. And there's lots we're doing on that, but lots more we need to be doing, too. I'm really glad that this government is waking up to the need to do far more on vocational skills and apprenticeships, thinking about how we can reform qualifications to ensure greater alignment with our industrial strategy and those growth opportunities at the industrial changes to come in the future, but also breaking down some of the practical barriers to young people accessing some of those opportunities in my communities and communities right across the country.

Introducing Foundation Apprenticeships to make sure those are now in reach of some of those hard to reach young people, those who are so desperately in need of the steps into apprenticeships can provide, and reforming some of the levies to make it cheaper for employers to take on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

apprenticeships and give them the training they desperately deserve. Absolutely, sir. I very much agree with those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I very much agree with those members who've talked about the importance of summer jobs for young people. But we also, as you say, need to be thinking about more long need to be thinking about more long term jobs, too. So does the hon. Member agree that it is also vital for the government to reinvest all for the government to reinvest all the money from the apprenticeships, growth and skills levy in the skills, and not let the Treasury take away a top slice, and to make take away a top slice, and to make sure that the apprenticeship Budget actually reflects the ambition of the sector, which could drive transformational change for getting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our young people into good jobs that they all deserve for good long term job prospects as well as summer jobs. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I absolutely. Agree that I think we need to look to do more, to invest in apprenticeships to ensure that many apprenticeships to ensure that many more young people can access those and work placement opportunities in their communities. It's why I welcome the kind of forensic spotlight that The Milburn Review is already starting to shine on some of the barriers to young people accessing these opportunities, and why I'm really opportunities, and why I'm really keen to ensure that the government leans into the practical implications of this diagnosis, that at the moment, we need to shift more of the amount of money that we're spending on supporting young people out of work into helping to get them into good paid work in the first place.

Alongside that, it's why I'm very proud to have supported the government's youth job guarantee and some of the wider work we're doing to try and ensure that employers in my community and those right across the country are practically financially incentivised to bring young people into the world of work, supported to do so, supported to train them up and supported to ensure that those young people can benefit from opportunities that it's fair to say, for far too many of them feel out of reach at the moment, but that's an approach we need to be threading into all of our work in this space.

So I was very moved by a lot of the conversations that Gareth Southgate had in his documentary last month, with young men who've been out of work for a very long time, in terms of the impact that was having on their self-esteem, but also how it reflected issues around their own confidence that have been long in the making, long in the making about how they felt in their communities. The longer they make it about how they felt treated at school. It's why continued focus on curriculum reform and place based investment is so important to putting that right.

But it's why also, I'd like to see this government go further in embracing some of the recommendations of the recent review into white working class underachievement at schools to make sure that every young person, no matter what community they live in, no matter where they come from, has no barriers to succeeding and feeling confident in their ability to succeed at school. And yes, you know, in a moment of agreement, I would agree with the opposition party's diagnosis that we need to go slightly further on business rates to support some of my fantastic local employers to do more for their young people, too.

I think they are being slightly cheeky and skirting the fact that the plans we inherited from them would have seen a huge cliff edge increase in business rates, and the fact that there are very many financial pressures we had to juggle since coming into government has meant we have to balance things in a challenging way. I approve of the work we've done to try and ease some of those multipliers. I'd like to see us go further still. I approve that the work we've done to give further discounts to pubs, given the decline they've been in for decades, and I'd like to see us go further still there.

But fundamentally, I don't think it is complete acknowledgement of reality to suggest that the plans we inherited from the last government would have been anything other than completely disastrous for the very businesses that are espousing the virtues of today. And it's why also, if they are so passionate about the errors of the government's choices on the minimum wage and national insurance, I'd like to encourage them to be bolder than just offering regret today, because regret won't change a single aspect of those policies implications if they genuinely believe they were the wrong ones, if they were genuinely confident that there were better ways to plug the gaps in our financial, in our public finances and improve our public services, why are they not committing to reverse the national insurance hikes today if they genuinely believe that the minimum wage has gone up too far for people in this country, why are they not embracing the practical reality, the practical end point of that argument and suggesting they'd cut it? I would offer Madam Deputy Speaker my view that that's maybe because much as they like to complain about some of the implications of those policies, they might begrudgingly recognise that in incredibly difficult circumstances we inherited both those choices may well have been the right one.

I look forward to a member proving me wrong from the opposition benches if they're going to today. But in the meantime, I'd like to thank the very many members who've already shared their fantastic experience of summer work. The many colleagues who I've been really inspired to work with on some of these issues, including the charity in my constituency, Amazing Apprenticeships, which is doing genuinely amazing work to boost opportunities for apprenticeships for young people in my constituency and across the country right now. And it's of course I'm looking forward to continue to work with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

them from as the government brings forward in the review. Thank you. Peter Bedford thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker. As an accountant, it will come as no surprise to members from across the House that I take a keen across the House that I take a keen interest in numbers. Unfortunately for this government, the numbers do not make for pleasant reading. While members opposite have been busy crowning their Messiah from the North, a coronation conducted the North, a coronation conducted with little scrutiny and even, even even fewer debate, I wonder whether they are aware that young. That youth unemployment now stands at 16.2%, close to its highest level since 2015 and already above the pandemic peak.

I wonder whether they know also that 735,000 young people are out of work, up 109,000 on the year. I wonder, too, whether they know for the first time since 2013, the number of young people not in education, employment or training has passed 1 million.
13:56
Peter Bedford Portrait Mr Peter Bedford MP (Mid Leicestershire, Conservative)
-
-
Whatever is happening in the labour market is landing hardest and first on our young people. It is the pain, measurable consequences of decisions taken by this government, decisions taken by this government, higher National Insurance, the Employment Rights Act, as we've heard today, has added costs and heard today, has added costs and burdens to employers, both large and small, and I ask hon. Members opposite to think like an employer opposite to think like an employer for a moment, not a large firm with a HR department, but the owner of a farm, a hotel or a shop on the high street deciding whether to take someone on for the first time, perhaps over the summer under the act, that decision now carries real legal risk within six months rather than two years.

So the rational choice is perhaps not to take that risk at all. The farm does not hire the extra hand for the harvest. The guesthouse does not take on the extra staff for the holiday season. The high street shops does not offer the Saturday job. That may lead to a summer job and permanent employment. And let us be honest about the cost by the government's top end estimate, the act lands over £1 billion on employers. Small and medium sized enterprises are the backbone of our economy, a key gateway into work for young people.

Yet the. The uncertainty has left too many high street businesses reluctant to invest, to expand or to hire. Madam Deputy Speaker, these are not merely statistics to be traded across the House. Behind every percentage point and every headline figure is a person. A young person searching for a first job, a young person eager to build skills, to gain experience and to achieve independence. Too many are growing up believing that hard work

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is no longer rewarded, and that aspiration is no longer valued. On that point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On that point. I'll give way. honourable. Gentleman is. Making an excellent speech.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In his response to me, the Minister pointed out that it was necessary to increase the national necessary to increase the national living wage so everyone had enough money, which is obviously a reasonable point to make. But does reasonable point to make. But does he not feel that the pace with which that was done, increasing it faster than the rate of inflation, has actually caused a situation where some young people will now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not no longer have the jobs that otherwise they could have expected. I thank my friend for his intervention. I totally agree with intervention. I totally agree with him. I think I think the pace at which this was brought in has which this was brought in has really had a massive impact on businesses, particularly small businesses, and their ability to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

adapt to a changing labour market. I'll give way. Allow me to continue the conversation with the hon. Gentleman on the back bench. I think the the my my other concern is how can it possibly be right that somebody is employed for 40 hours a week, works 40 hours a week, and doesn't get enough pay, not only to pay the bills, but not to have to be subsidised by the state afterwards. That's one of the key questions we've got to answer.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. So too many people are growing up So too many people are growing up believing that hard work is no longer rewarded and aspiration is no longer valued. And that is not no longer valued. And that is not the message we should be sending to the next generation. We owe our young people better than that. For young people better than that. For too many of us in this House, or for many of us in this House. Rather, a summer job was the first Rather, a summer job was the first place we learned what work actually is.

Mine started stacking shelves in a corner shop, then behind the counter at a local cafe, and then in a greengrocers. And each one of those jobs taught me the same lesson. The value of money and the pride that comes from earning it yourself. And that is why I support the action that we on these benches are taking to save the summer job, we would cut business rates for the businesses that create those first rung jobs, not another round of tinkering and multipliers with the reliefs.

We would scrap the archaic restrictions that stop young people choosing when they work, the outdated limits on Sunday working, and the rules that bar them from working. After 9 p.m. a young person helping in a restaurant or a hotel is not being exploited. They are gaining experience, earning money and developing the skills that employers value. We would end the culture of excessive bureaucracy that greets any employer, offering a teenager their first opportunity, because every unnecessary form is yet another reason to say no.

We would repeal the most damaging aspects of the Employment Rights Act and give employers the confidence to hire again. And we would give SME SMEs proper, simple access to growth and skills levy, so a seasonal job can become an apprenticeship instead of simply ending in September. I've heard Ministers speak and I've heard members speak today, but I believe it's important that we give young people the dignity of a job. But a government serious about work does not legislate away the very jobs that our young people need.

A summer job is not simply about a payslip. It's about confidence, responsibility and resilience. This government's actions have limited those opportunities. So I urge the House to support our motion, and I urge Ministers to give our young

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people back their first chance of building a successful career. For Sean Woodcock.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For Sean Woodcock. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was in two minds about joining this debate on summer jobs, to be frank, because my first jobs, to be frank, because my first job actually was over Christmas stacking shelves in Martin Spencer. But I hope you'll forgive me for for joining in anyway, because I want to start actually by thanking the opposition for bringing this the opposition for bringing this debate. I think it's actually really, really important the hopes, aspirations and opportunities of young people and their life chances are so important that they are something that this side of the House, the party of Labour, should embrace the opportunity to debate rather than shy away from.

But listening to the benches opposite, you would think that the challenges facing young people in the labour market today materialise out of thin air, or just started on the 4th of July 2024, when the reality is that the number of young people not in education, employment or training rose starkly in the years going up to the general election. And yes, it has continued to go up. That's why it is right that the opposition look at what this government has done in this sphere.

And that's absolutely it's absolutely the case that they should do that, and they should provide that level of scrutiny. But the opposition did miss out a few things that this government is looking to do, whether it's youth hubs to get young people the localised support that they need in their local labour market. This government have also been offering new incentives of £2,000 for those hiring foundation apprenticeships, aged 16 to 21. That comes on top of a complete NICs exemption for employees under 21 and apprentices under 25.

But ultimately where we are now is that the underemployment and the stagnant wages that young workers face today are directly linked to the 14 years that we had from the party opposite, because for over a decade, the party opposite oversaw an economy that was built on precarious and insecure work, a strong package of workers rights and protections goes hand in hand with a strong economy. The Employment Rights Act has been vital to modernising protections and making work pay, because when we give people certainty over their hours and their wages, we give them the confidence to go and spend on our high streets to go into their local pubs to support their local corner shop, and that will then benefit all of us.

With growth in the economy. Throughout the passage of this act, the government has listened carefully to stakeholders to ensure that these reforms are balanced, fair, pro-worker and
14:04
Sean Woodcock Portrait Sean Woodcock MP (Banbury, Labour)
-
-
pro-business. You'll note the amendments that were made Madam Deputy Speaker with regard to on Deputy Speaker with regard to on the rights that you have on the first day of employment. There were changes there made because of the fact that the government showed fact that the government showed that it was willing to listen. And despite what the opposition may claim, this government actually claim, this government actually appreciates that work fluctuate seasonally. That is why the explicitly provides powers for zero explicitly provides powers for zero hours measures to cater for seasonal work, and the government is continuing to consult employers and trade unions to inform any future changes.

The legislation maintains flexibility, allowing businesses to use contracts offering variable hours at different times of the year and guaranteed hours. Offers can take the form of limited term contracts where reasonable. Some of the key changes in the Employment Rights Act, when those made to statutory sick pay, which ensured a safety net is available to those who need it most. The opposition tried to paint this as a devastating blow to business, but to be clear, the regulatory impact assessment published last October concluded that the additional cost of these reforms would be £15 per employee, removing.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Employers right across. My constituency constituency in Mid Bedfordshire, particularly the SMEs and those in retail, hospitality and those in retail, hospitality and leisure businesses are telling me that the Employment Rights Bill is reducing flexibility and it's is reducing flexibility and it's having a chilling effect on their ability to employ people, particularly young people. So if employers are telling me that, why are they not telling him the same

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in his constituency? Sean Woodcock. I'm grateful to the hon. Member for his contribution. I mean, I meet with businesses in my constituency all the time and as stated at the beginning of my speech, they raise a whole number of issues that the opposition have raised. And and I wouldn't seek to pretend that none of them come up in my conversation. What I haven't yet heard come up in this conversation that we've heard from the party opposite is, yes, they talk about the Employment Rights Act and wanted to get rid of the worst aspects of it they haven't yet named, which what the worst aspects of it are, and which bits of the Employment Rights Act they would get rid of.

It's just something that they're mentioning without any really clear proposals to what they plan to do, just like they're continuing false promises on business rates, on necs and and various other things. If I return to my speech, however, removing the three day waiting period, that employee means that employees can recover from short term illness without spreading infectious diseases in the workplace, which actually reduces the risk of more employees needing time off. It's about protecting the firm and the other employees and the productivity of the business as much as it is about protecting that employee.

Madam Deputy Speaker this debate, though, really exposes the fundamental difference in vision. The opposition want and believe in an unstable, low growth economy built on a race to the bottom. This side of the House believed that working people need an economy that values their contribution, secures their rights, and delivers genuine economic growth and good job creation. I'm proud that that is what this government seeks to do. I want to conclude, Madam Speaker, by mentioning that last month I had the opportunity to sit down with young people in the heart of Banbury in my constituency to discuss these issues facing face, and they were very clear that it is a actually a multitude of different things that are blocking them in the labour market.

They talked about AI, they talked about how that is coming up and being used in interviews and filtering out job applicants. They talked about failings in the school system, failings in careers. They talked about fears about their mental health and whether they would have appropriate support, whether they to enter the labour market. These were the issues that they brought up when I spoke to them. And what I would say is, unlike this motion, they want us to tackle this issue. And and they did mention costs.

That employer has say that there are employing people. But alongside those issues. So like colleagues on this side, I wouldn't seek to pretend that it has no impact whatsoever on the conversation. But what they asked me to take away and bring to this place is that we look at all of these issues in the round and want to create a near the end of my speech, so I won't, and to tackle them in the round and in a systemic way, rather than through party political point scoring and throwing statistics across the chamber as we had from the previous member.

And because it is too important, it's too important, and it is also the right thing for us

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to do to get this right. For Damian Hinds. Thank you very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For Damian Hinds. Thank you very much, speaker. So we have. 109 000. More young people out of work. The youth unemployment rate is 16%. And youth unemployment rate is 16%. And now our ratio between youth unemployment and overall unemployment at European levels. unemployment at European levels. Why do we particularly care about youth unemployment? Well, two reasons. Firstly, because it's a reasons. Firstly, because it's a matter of what's right and justice for young people, but also because of something else. If you're unemployed when you are a young adult, the effect can stay with you for five, ten, 20 years into the future with what is known as the scarring effect on your future career and earnings.

And it is true, definitely, that the labour market has softened a lot. And what I hear in East Hampshire is that this has not been about mass layoffs. It has been overwhelmingly about not taking people on in the first place, or not increasing the amount of
14:10
Damian Hinds Portrait Rt Hon Damian Hinds MP (East Hampshire, Conservative)
-
-
work, the number of work hours for people already in your employment. This is especially true about those This is especially true about those marginal employment decisions about Saturday jobs, seasonal work, and Saturday jobs, seasonal work, and the title of today's debate, Summer jobs. Now, of course, the number of apprenticeships is about to rise dramatically. That is because the government has reduced the minimum specification and length of time specification and length of time for an apprenticeship, and every time you do that, the number goes up hugely.

But I worry, Madam Deputy Speaker, that on a like for like basis, apprenticeships in key sectors that employ employ lots of school leavers. I hear about this in East Hampshire. I'm sure others do as well, particularly in, for example, hairdressing, that those apprenticeships actually are going to and are already falling. I hear business owners in my constituency who are reluctant to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To expand because of the risk, who are not maxing out on business opportunities, where they are opportunities, where they are fluctuating or seasonal. And the phrase pub closing time has become phrase pub closing time has become meaningless because pubs are closing earlier and earlier, all at different times and in some cases different times and in some cases not opening for whole days at a. I spoke a little earlier about the the scarring effect of being unemployed as a young adult.

There is also a big cost, a big downside to not being able to get the. The kind of work experience those very early paid employment opportunities. Before you become a full time employer. Now, to be fair, the Saturday job and part time employment for young people, children under 18 in particular has been in long term decline. That's partly to do with the decline of paper rounds and milk rounds. But there has also been a decline in Saturday work in retail, some of which is to do with an increasing nervousness, often an ill placed, unnecessary nervousness on the part of employers about their responsibilities in hiring young people.

But for whatever the different mix of reasons, the numbers have come down over time, it has now accelerated that decline. And why? Well, for two reasons. Firstly, because I'm afraid whenever the economy takes a hit, it is always young people who feel it first because of the last in, first out approach to employment, and because of people not being taken on in the first place, and secondly, because it has now become relatively speaking to before, relatively costlier and riskier to take on those young people because of direct employment costs and because of the Employment Rights Act.

Let me start there with the Employment Rights Act. And I wonder how many. Look, we're all members of Parliament, right? We've done reasonably well in our lives. Most of us before we came here had successful careers of one type or another. How many colleagues in this place today had their first paid employment for 37.5 hours a week, full time, reliably throughout the whole year? I certainly didn't. My first job. Madam Deputy Speaker, was a zero hours contract. We just didn't call it that then.

In fact, to be fair, it wasn't quite a zero hours contract because there was no actual contract, but there was no guaranteed work. It fluctuated week to week. It fluctuated night to night washing dishes in a local restaurant. But it is where I learned some of those crucial what they now call them soft. There's nothing soft about soft skills. They're hard. What I learned all those things about taking criticism, about turning up again the next day, turning up when you're tired, turning up when you're feeling not that great looking.

The customer in the eye, as people have said, and coming back day after day, week after week. And if you keep on doing that, then at the end of the week they give you money. And that is a very important that is a very important life lesson. Now, zero hours contracts, actually a very high proportion of people with zero hours contracts are young people. I had a very high proportion of my students or have another job, but just by the by, one of the biggest employers of people on zero hours contract is the National Health Service, because NHS bank staff apply in that in that way.

But they can work particularly for young people. In my constituency, for example, I know plenty of young people who have two zero hours contracts job one at home where they are during the holidays and one where they're away studying, where they work during the term time. And I don't see why that doesn't work perfectly well for both employer and employee. My right hon. Friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. I'm interested that he's on zero hour contracts. I've always thought it was a terrible name for thought it was a terrible name for what an actual fact was. Flexible hours, wrongly named. And there was always an ideological opposition to always an ideological opposition to it, but not on practice. Over two thirds of those who were on those contracts, adults as well, often contracts, adults as well, often with caring responsibilities, love the idea of being able to work when they could and not having to come they could and not having to come into work when they couldn't manage it.

That's the flexibility that's necessary in an economy. And if you take that out, and by the way, it was it was loved by people in Europe who wanted to do the same

**** Possible New Speaker ****

but never got round to doing it. Well, my right hon. Friend is is right. I've spent an inordinate amount of time studying zero hours amount of time studying zero hours contracts, partly because the immediate previous leader of the Labour Party used to bring it up at Prime Minister's Questions every single week, and gave the impression that half the country was on a zero hours contract and was on a zero hours contract and was getting no work whatsoever. In fact, it turned out that less than 3% of people had their main job was a zero hours contract.

And so far from it being having zero hours, the average number of hours was 20. Yes, look it up. The average number of hours was, oh, I'm spoilt for choice. Who? Who wants to contradict me? I will take the hon. Gentleman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm really grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He he right honourable. Gentleman. He he right honourable. I apologise, zero hours contracts. He's right. I had a zero hours He's right. I had a zero hours contract when I was a student and it worked for me because, crucially, I was able to say, no, I can't come I was able to say, no, I can't come in today. Surely he understands there is a difference between that and where huge companies often but and where huge companies often but not solely, are saying you have a zero hour contract or the.

And that is it. There is no alternative. But you are expected to come in for these hours or. And that. That is the particular. Surely he understands there is a. There is exploitation in his contract. It is not about trying to get rid of zero

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hours contract that work for individuals such as students. Well, look, of course he is right and nobody wants exploitative zero hours contracts. Sometimes quite, quite often when the opposition talk about contracts, opposition talk about contracts, they think that word automatically gets inserted into the phrase. That gets inserted into the phrase. That is why, by the way, we stopped exclusivity clauses in zero hours contracts way back when we were in government, and nobody should be exploited. But that does not mean that you cannot have a job which works.

The employee works for the employer and gives flexibility in the in in the economy. Now that I, I don't, I don't know how, how, how tight we are on time. I'm getting a sort of a wobbly, a sort of even have I of course, the right the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hon. Lady. To go back to zero hours contracts. Of course there are zero hours contracts that work for some people and don't work for others. For example, if it's by the choice of the employee, then that's fair enough. But if your job, if your work is cancelled on your way to work, that's not fair enough. And work, that's not fair enough. And you know that the legislation does still allow people who are employed still allow people who are employed to say, no, I don't want those average hours.

I'm happy to work on a zero hours contract. So that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

optionality is still there. Good employers who want to keep

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Good employers who want to keep employees don't do stupid things that upset their employees. Good employers will always want to keep good people, to build their to build their business. Madam Deputy build their business. Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to come on to the direct costs of of labour. I, I better not I think I need to, I think I although I always I mean, it always brightens my life. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Gentleman. I do thank her for giving me. And he has been talking quite a lot of interventions, but he will of interventions, but he will acknowledge that. I mean, we are here to think about not so good employees, employers, not not just employees, employers, not not just the good ones, but the not so good ones. And that's what the workers rights bill's about. I met an employer at the weekend. He did employer at the weekend. He did have minor concerns about what was going to mean for him, but he said by and large, he was already doing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

by and large, he was already doing a lot of this stuff. So it's not about the good employers, it's about the not so good ones. Look, of course, of course he's right. And I don't think anybody I mean, literally nobody in the House of Commons argues that there should be no employment workplace regulation at all. Well, I mean, I, I, I don't think anybody does genuinely. Madam Deputy Speaker, I certainly don't I welcome very many of the rights that have come over the years, but it would be just totally ignorant to suggest that you can bring in new inflexibilities, new rigidities into labour markets, and they're not to be in effect on unemployment.

And whenever there is an effect on effect, on unemployment, there is always a magnified effect on youth unemployment. And we want to make sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that young people can get into and stay in jobs. I wanted to speak briefly about the costs of employment, and this is much harder to talk about because whenever anybody not that they do, very often talks about the realities of equalising pay between younger people and slightly older adults, they can be vilified very, very easily as being heartless, uncaring, discriminatory, you name it.

But, you know, sometimes in this place, being a politician, being a representative and having the best interests of our constituents at heart, sometimes you have to say difficult things. And this difficult thing is something which I think most people in this place know, including I think actually most Labour MPs. But it is a difficult thing to say. Now, let me take a little bit of the heat and the politics out of it by talking about a hypothetical situation. This is not the situation that we actually have today, because we have differential national Insurance contributions by age.

But you imagine a situation where you've got a job vacancy and you've got two applicants who in all other respects are the same applicant, but one is 30 years old and one is 18 years old. Who are you going to employ at exactly the same wage? Other things being equal, of course, you're going to employ the person with experience, the person with work experience, but also the person with life experience who has just been doing it a little bit longer, who has been working with teams, dealing with colleagues, dealing with customers.

And I give that hypothetical situation just to establish the principle, Madam Deputy Speaker, that there is a that wages do have an effect, and that is why the Low Pay Commission, he can screw up his face again wishe help him. However, this is why the Low Pay Commission back in 1999, and he will recall, I think, that it was a Labour government at the time. It's why the Low Pay Commission, when the original minimum wage came in, specified that there should be a different rate for young people for two reasons.

Firstly, because of the work experience effect, that there is a difference in how employers view people with a few years work experience and others. And if you had them, if you had those rates exactly the same, youth unemployment would inevitably rise. The second reason was to recognise that very many of those younger workers are, in some form or other, of education or training at the at the same time. And it is true, of course. And we all want people to be properly rewarded for the work that they do.

And the best thing is to be well rewarded for in a job. But the worst thing of all is to have a job that is well rewarded, that you do not have a hope of getting into. And so I do. I do think it is right. Obviously, we've talked a little bit about the national living wage. Of course, we want the National Living Wage to keep up. That's why we brought it in, by the way, in 2015 and with the explicit intention that it would keep rising up and rising up until it was further up, the further up the income distribution.

But we do have to acknowledge we do have to acknowledge the reality that, as I say, I think most people in this room know that there is a difference by age and it's there

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for a it's there for a reason. The hon. Lady. Is at the moment that there still is that differential, isn't still is that differential, isn't there? There's still about £2 difference between under 21 and over 21. So that isn't actually over 21. So that isn't actually having the impact that the right hon. Member suggests that it should. If there's still that differential, If there's still that differential, why is there that problem at the moment when they're not paying National Insurance for under 21 National Insurance for under 21 either? So why, considering the differential still exists, does the problem exist?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm genuinely I don't mean I genuinely don't know quite how to respond to that. The differential respond to that. The differential has come down. It is due to come down further. It is due to be eliminated. There will still be the difference in National Insurance contributions. So. So there will. Nobody is at this current time envisaging. There will be no envisaging. There will be no difference in employment costs at all. Why? Why? I said I want to take a hypothetical case and take a hypothetical case and establish a principle was to demonstrate why there is a wage effect onto youth unemployment.

I was going to talk about the overnight visitor levy on which I have strong views, and which I think is going to be bad for our local economies, bad for international inbound tourism, bad for seaside towns in particular, in places that rely on domestic tourism. But because of in the interest of time, Madam Speaker, I won't. I will just end by saying that I would have thought the Labour Party would like to break out of that cliche. You know, that thing about every Labour government that has ever existed has left office with unemployment higher than when it came in.

If I was them, I'd want to say with this enormous majority we've got, and perhaps with this new Prime Minister about to have, this could be our chance to break out that. So nobody can ever say that to us again. We are, after all, we are labour. We are supposed to be the party of work. Let us devote all our energies to maximising employment and particularly maximising the opportunities for young people coming into the labour market. It is not too late for them to take that approach.

And by the way, also I might say, Madam Deputy Speaker, we haven't really talked about this at all today, or hardly at all, ever. In the context of some of these changes, the number of people will be forced into self employment as a result of the changes in Employment Rights Act. I encourage strongly the government to change

**** Possible New Speaker ****

course. And before I call the next speaker, just to let members know that I'm aiming to start from bench contributions around. 335 Jonathan Davies thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Davies thank. You very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm grateful to His Majesty's opposition for calling this debate today, because it gives this debate today, because it gives me an opportunity to talk about a survey of young people, which I did last year. I had over 500 young people in the Mid Derbyshire constituency engage with my survey about the work and education opportunities, also their views on their futures. So it is broad survey and statistically significant. But before I come to that, perhaps I'll offer some reflections of my own experience of summer jobs, since that is the title of today's debate.

They included pulling out weeds for very low pay. It really did teach me the value of hard work, and I would go home every every day from that work absolutely exhausted. I also spent some time in university holidays pulling pints, and that taught me how to sometimes deal with difficult people, a skill which I find myself using quite regularly in my current role. And I always welcome when I have an application for somebody who wants to work with me, who spent some of their early career in hospitality, because you do learn a great many skills there, which can furnish you well in a great many jobs across the labour market.

I also spent some time as a gravedigger in university in sixth form holidays, which perhaps serves as a metaphor for 1 or 2 things that I subsequently have done. Now, I understand that there may be some jobs going this summer with a new incumbent in Downing Street, so perhaps if the Minister might have a word on my behalf, I shall be waiting by the phone. So in terms of the survey which I conducted, sorry, do you want to come in?
14:27
Jonathan Davies Portrait Jonathan Davies MP (Mid Derbyshire, Labour)
-
-
Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Member. There is a problem in Clacton in particular with certain people applying for jobs and then not actually doing them, or doing not actually doing them, or doing lots of other jobs instead of the one that they should actually be doing. And maybe could we think about a scheme where people like that do work experience with some of the incredible, hard working young people doing vital jobs so that those people could actually learn a thing or two about how to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

behave in work and how to work hard. Well, thank you for intervention. My focus is on the people of Mid Derbyshire. I'm sure the people are Clacton will hold their representatives to account in the appropriate way. 44% of the young appropriate way. 44% of the young people which responded to my survey said that the cost of living was the biggest issue which they faced. That was followed by housing and That was followed by housing and renting costs at 34% and 33%, cited in employment and jobs as their in employment and jobs as their biggest issue.

And I did just want to read one contribution, which was made by a constituent, which I found to be particularly profound. They said that life for young people especially, isn't just affordable, it feels completely unattainable. I've had a job for nearly five years and I am on the minimum wage. There is no way, with the state of the housing market and general cost of living that I'd be able to sustain moving out, renting, or even learning to drive or buy a car. My independence seems, and I imagine it does for a lot of young people, like it will never fully arrive.

And I found that quite profound. And it was mirrored in the fact that a great many young people engaged with my survey were not optimistic about their futures, and that is a moral and political tragedy. But there is happy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Looking to the future. There's a job vacancy just come up in Clacton. It would be really good to know if the Labour Party were putting the Labour Party were putting somebody of a youthful nature forward for that candidacy, but to get back to the core of the debate, the Secretary of State, in his meandering rebuttal to the motion meandering rebuttal to the motion from His Majesty's opposition today, talked about £1 million fund to talked about £1 million fund to help people aged 16 to 24 get back into work.

That would be £1.50 per unemployed person aged 16 to 24, or if they just applied it, if the government just applied it to the 109 000 extra unemployed young people over the past 12 months, it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wouldn't even be a tenner. Does he think that will make much of a difference? I spent most of his intervention

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I spent most of his intervention trying to find out what was going on in Clacton there, but perhaps the Minister heard, so maybe he will furnish him with a fuller will furnish him with a fuller response in his. In his summing up, the government is doing a great many good things to support young many good things to support young people. There is more to do, but I will just touch on some of them. We do have 4.9% unemployment. It's far do have 4.9% unemployment.

It's far too high, but we are outperforming many of the other major economies, including Canada in the EU. I particularly welcome the Youth Guarantee and the skill, the growth and skills levy and the other levers that we're doing to reduce business costs, including on energy. We're expanding access to finance through the British Business Bank, and we are reducing red tape and licensing costs on summer jobs. I think it's particularly important that we highlight the support that we've offered for hospitality, including cutting business rates for pubs and live music venues by 15%, which will be followed by a two year freeze.

And we're also increasing the hospitality support fund to £10 million, which will really help those sectors. We've heard a little bit from the opposition benches today about wage increase increases and national insurance, and I think on wage increases, my points that have come through the survey that I did and the fact that when I go to food banks, I often meet young people who are in work. They're still not making ends meet. And that's that that really is a tragedy. So I do welcome the wage increases, but I do acknowledge the concerns that businesses have raised with me and that the opposition has has raised today.

But we've got to deal with this cost of living crisis, because you shouldn't be going to work, working as many hours as you can and still not able to get by on National Insurance. I do think it's it's quite interesting. We the decision to increase employers National Insurance was, was a difficult one, and it is one that I would rather that we hadn't had to do. But we did have to do it because public services were failing so badly that that in itself was a brake on the economy.

And I do note that under the previous government, they also effectively tried to increase national insurance by 1.25% in 2021. It was called the Health and Social Care levy. They did row back on that. So the reality is we did have a very we've got a long term problem here with public services, and that is holding people's lives back and the economy back. And we have grasped the nettle with that. And I do hope sometime later in this Parliament we can revisit this issue.

We did stand by businesses in Covid and we're asking them to stand with with us now as we rebuild public services. But as the economy continues to grow, I hope that is an option that's on the table for the government. So going forward, there's a few things that I would like the Minister to bear in mind. I very much welcome the Great British Summer Savings Scheme, which offers VAT cuts to the visitor economy sector. We know that is a very important employer of young people, including in in Derbyshire.

And once that scheme ends, I'd be grateful if a review could be undertaken to see how much economic growth it's generated, how many jobs that it's generated, because my long term aspiration is for us to be in a place where we can offer a cut in VAT, particularly for the hospitality sector. After the financial crisis in 2008, when the previous government cut VAT to 15%, it was subsequently put up to 20%. When the Conservatives came in. That was a real shot in the arm for the economy.

So if the Great British Summer Savings Scheme evidences that it is a real driver for economic growth, particularly in that important sector which employs a lot of young people, let's see if we can harness that. Let's see if we can offer a different rate of VAT for the visitor economy and hospitality, because that's that that I do believe that will be good for the economy, but it would also be good for our high streets and people's sense of place and well-being. And if there's one thing that this happy to.

Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Because that's the important thing is that this summer savings scheme could be really useful. And I think there's an onus on all of I think there's an onus on all of us as members of Parliament to get out and spread that message and just say to our businesses across our high streets that they should use that, make the most of that. So then we can see how well it works.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

then we can see how well it works. Yeah, I really, I really do very much hope that it is a success. And I know in her part of the world in Cornwall, there will be a great many businesses and visitors benefiting from that scheme. So Alan Milburn's report that highlighting the million young people that are out of work is it's something which I'm very much struggling to to comprehend. It is a it is a moral scandal which has been brewing for a very long time.

And there are steps that the government is taking to address that. I do think it is worth noting that youth unemployment now at 16.2%. It's appallingly high, but it is lower than it was under the previous government in 2012. We've got a great deal of work to do to give these young people a sense of hope and opportunity for the future. We've got was four years after the financial crisis, but, well, we effectively had a financial we had effectively had a financial crash after the mini Budget to deal with.

So yes, we do have a great deal of, of, of, of work to do, but particularly on the summer savings schemes, I think there is the, the foundations there to do something particularly around young people's work. So I would be grateful if the Minister would take that forward

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and see if we can expand it into the future. Sir Iain Duncan Smith Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sir Iain Duncan Smith Madam Deputy Speaker. It's always good to to speak with the hon. Gentleman to speak with the hon. Gentleman sitting on the other side. Were we discussing the threat we face, the problems we have with China, the problems we have with China, the desperate way they've undercut the markets using a slave labour. We would be on the same side of the House completely. So my respect for him is enormous. However. However, I do want to talk about the subject today.

I wasn't planning to say anything about summer jobs, but all I can say is that my first experience of a summer job was in Italy, where I'd been studying. I had gone to find a job at the coast. All I could find was working as a plunger, as it were, in the dishwashing section of the restaurant, mostly because I was a useless waiter, and they told me to stop sitting down and talking to those who were actually eating. I was sent back to Mid Cheshire, but during the evenings I had nowhere else to stay, but I drove.

I managed to borrow a Fiat 600, an old one. You could start with the end of a teaspoon. I drove it round
14:36
Iain Duncan Smith Portrait Rt Hon Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP (Chingford and Woodford Green, Conservative)
-
-
to the car park. I used to sleep in the back of that, which was wonderfully cheap, but not exactly wonderfully cheap, but not exactly very comfortable, so I'm not quite sure what I learned about that. I learned a few lessons. I'm afraid I'm not prepared to divulge those I'm not prepared to divulge those lessons that I learned here, but washing in the sea was one of them. And I have to tell you, I'm not And I have to tell you, I'm not sure how that's paid me any good stead for the last few years.

I don't know how, in fact. Yeah, well, don't know how, in fact. Yeah, well, we'll move on from that. But anyway, so you can overread the amount. But the one thing it does teach you, of course, is working hard to get a salary turning up on time, as colleagues have said, and recognising actually that if you don't do it, then they have every right to get rid of you. And I think that's the key bit that we constantly talk to our families about. But I do want to come back to the problem here that we face, having sat through having to pick up after a big recession when I was secretary for Work and Pensions, when we came in in 2010, huge, difficult recession, lots of high unemployment that we had, and we had to get that unemployment down.

And the one thing I would say to the government is it isn't that an issue alone is the cause of all your problems. It's when you fail to realise the impact of one change after another. Ultimately on the most at risk group and the most at risk group, which I agree completely with my hon. Friend are young people. When you make changes in employment regulation, when you add costs onto those and when you change in a way the rights that people have, it's always the younger people that will be the most affected because they are the easiest to move out of employment, and they're the last ones in almost invariably, and they are the most expensive to look after while they're in work for a good reason.

And I always remember when I used to tour the job centres, talking to young people who were in the job centre looking for a job, and I used to say to them, what is the biggest hurdle that you face? And they say, every time I go in front of an employer, they say, what experience have you in work? And I say, I have no experience in work. And they say, well, we cannot take that risk and therefore you won't get the job.

I'm looking for somebody else. So not only is it my friend said marginal cost, it's also a complete lack of experience and the risk that that employer takes on when they take on the younger person. So the triple whammy of the national insurance charge, particularly on part time work, the Employment Rights Act, and the rise of the minimum wage, are the vise that is squeezing this. Any one of those probably you could have got through, but to have all three of them hitting that level of employment and unemployment as a result, is the real problem that we face.

I mean, when you look at what we've got here, we now have somebody who's also said 16.2% youth unemployment, which is a staggering figure. We always used to pride ourselves of having lower youth unemployment than the rest of Europe, but that's not necessarily the case. I mean, the latest figures shows quite categorically that it was now three times the Neet rate that they have in the Netherlands, three times the rate of NEETs in the UK to what they have in the Netherlands.

The Netherlands is probably the closest type of economy to us in Europe. It's often quite flexible, and it often looks to the UK to import some of its flexibilities as well. And the reality, therefore we have is that the group that is now going to suffer from this was always going to suffer from. This is young people without that work experience, they're not going to go on to get that job that they want to take, the job that they in fact, need as a starter job.

And it's interesting to also to look at the difference now with the issue concerning apprenticeships, it's now much, much more likely that an individual, an apprenticeship, will get a full time job and will go on to earn more money now than somebody who has been studying at university. The collapse of that relationship between university and a brilliant career is really what is going to fundamentally change the nature of who we are as a country if we find that, therefore, people who went to the university with the promise that they would earn much more money than ever have to pay in their debts is now a broken concept, and it has to be dealt with.

It's a matter for both sides of the House. We have to deal with this issue because if we don't deal with it, then many of them. I have families as well who are paying debts off now, and the interest rates on those debts has become staggering, astonishing and is trapping them, unable to look at buying houses or anything else. But that's another reason why the pressure on them and the pressure on what they earn at work is sometimes not enough to make sure, therefore, that they themselves can get by and do well.

And so the point that we want to make here today, and I think the opposition statement earlier on, which I want to come to in a second, is really, really important because we have to make a change. If the government wants to have young people in work, if it wants those so-called Saturday jobs. As Alan Milburn said in his report, the first rung has thinned. He said the clearest examples are the decline in the Saturday job. Earlier generations. These were the routes through which young people first entered working life.

This is him. They provide income, but they also help young people build confidence, learn the habits of work and show employers what they could do for too many young people. Now those opportunities are weaker or have disappeared together altogether. And I simply say, therefore, knowing that we didn't really even need the Alan Milburn Report because we knew what was going on. But even to have him say that must be telling to the government that you have, that the government itself has overstepped their realities.

For example, when we talk about zero hour contracts and we made this point together about it, zero hour contracts were flexible hour contracts. They were they were liked by the vast majority of those who had them. Adults. Older adults were mostly about caring responsibilities, having the flexibility one week to do hospital appointments, to take people to hospitals to help, sometimes with those who have disabilities, and on other weeks to be able to work. And they would work more hours to make up the money.

That flexibility helped them. It helped students who were coming out to do all those big jobs in, in entertainment and in hotels and in those short term affairs, rather like somebody mentioned in Wimbledon. Now, to have tightened up on that bit, I think is a travesty for the government to have done. And I think they need to learn from this. Most people, as I stress again, like the idea of the zero contract contracts, because it gave them the flexibility in work that allowed them one to get work experience, which they could then sell when they went to get a full time job, and two to earn some money so they can subsidise themselves while they do other work, studying or whatever.

And to have got rid of that. That is astonishing. And the other point that the government that the opposition motion says, quite rightly, my party says this business rates now on the high Street are astonishing. We talk, quite rightly, about wanting to protect our high streets and against competition of online retailing, etc. you know, and all the majority of those part time and small jobs are on the high streets. They're in the small businesses that need people in their shops or in their small businesses to be able to help them make that business grow.

And the problem is, in my area, we've seen some of the business rates on those shops in the high street rise by 60% in the last year. That is unbelievable that you can actually think that the rate, like 60% increase is somehow going to allow a small business to survive. It has to make the choices. Then it has to lay people off, not just to hire them. It can no longer it can no longer keep them in employment. And so we've seen laying off in the high street dramatically, and then closures in the high street for the very simple reason that they cannot

**** Possible New Speaker ****

afford to run their business. I do indeed. I thank my right hon. Friend giving way. And I wonder if he also recognises that the group of people that often get forgotten in these debates, and certainly from the benches on the other side, are the business owners who actually, when they are trying to hang on to these young people because they want to do the right thing, or they want to do the right thing, or they want to hang on even just to their normal employees, because those minimum wages have gone up, they have to pay them before they pay themselves.

pay them before they pay themselves. And so actually, often by the time their business is closed, they have seen themselves not benefiting from the income from that business themselves. We tend to forget those small business owners, don't we? And I think that's what we're trying to highlight this afternoon,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that they're vitally important. It's all about throwing out the baby with the bathwater, because I fully understand the government fully understand the government wants to regulate some of that employment to make sure people are protected. But the nature of the protected. But the nature of the Employment Rights Act is so all consuming and far reaching that not consuming and far reaching that not just the cost, which I think is estimated at about 5 billion for companies and businesses. It's the companies and businesses.

It's the knock on effect of that to those who would need the job and can no longer be employed, or for those who would employ them, that are going to have to close their businesses. So flexibility is critical in employment. It's always been critical, always been a case of what's the risk in hiring you? Do you have the experience? Can you do the job? Can I afford to pay you the wages? Do I have to do half of that job for you as a result? And the answer for small businesses, that's a very real problem for them.

And I have to say, the Employment Rights Act has been a real nightmare. And it's not just the 5 billion, it's also the way that that impacts then on economic growth. So the idea that you have an isolated issue of regulating employment that doesn't affect anything else. It does. It affects growth as well in the economy. And as I talked earlier on about the triple whammy, when you get the business rates going alongside that, now businesses are faced with even higher costs and higher problems.

They're being regulated to a great deal. They don't have the flexibility in the employment. And at the same time, they have to pay more. And the other one, which I wanted to come to the third of these things, which is critical and is in our motion today, is the whole cost of energy in the United Kingdom today. It is astonishing. We have the highest energy costs in the developed world. It could be said we have the highest energy costs in the the world as it is, and huge amounts of that are to do with the fact of this ridiculous helter skelter dive drive to get to clean energy.

No matter what. We're now threatening businesses with fines if they don't produce. In the case of car industry, the right cars and the charges on the cost of energy are so high that businesses now can no longer manage to manufacture goods here, and we will need to manufacture goods here when we need to spend the money that we haven't got at the moment. But we have to have for the defence industry, that is a manufacturing case. And yet none of those industries say they can afford to expand their manufacturing base because the cost of energy are so high.

So those three things are critical, and I therefore support the opposition motion today. But I want to finish with one single fact. We've all rather blithely been talking about what we did in the summer, how we got our first jobs. But it's worth reminding ourselves now that for this generation, going through the flexibility, the opportunities, and the ability to earn are far less than they've been for ever, I think. In that case, talk to your own children. You discover how difficult employment is for them.

Talk to them about being able to earn the right money, or to be able to pay for a house or paying sky high rents. This is a serious problem for us here. And if we want to face that, if we want to take it on, then the old health dictum do none harm. And the only thing I would say to the government is, when you pile those three massive burdens onto industry and onto the individual, you are doing great harm to those that we need to protect.

So my only advice to the government is very simply this. Think again about the triple whammy and make sure that you reduce the burden that you've now put on those industries.
14:48
David Reed Portrait David Reed MP (Exmouth and Exeter East, Conservative)
-
-
David Reed thank. agree that I have a beautiful constituency, and that fact is no secret. Many people visit our secret. Many people visit our corner of Devon, and catering for that tourism means seasonal work is vital to our local economy now. vital to our local economy now. Last year I visited Devon Cliffs and Ladram Bay, two of the largest and most popular holiday parks in the area, signs up the support hundreds of jobs and their impact reaches far beyond the parks themselves, sustaining local suppliers, tradespeople, retailers and service businesses across the constituency.

They give young people their first opportunity to step into the world of work an opportunity to contribute, to earn their own, keep to learn customer service, to work in a team and to lead one and to develop confidence grounded in real experience. And I think we can all agree that these are skills and experiences that form the foundations of a good society. But the accumulation of taxes levied on these businesses has forced them into an impossible position. Absorb the cost by cutting jobs or pass them on to the consumer.

And tourism is a price sensitive market. Families choosing a holiday will simply go elsewhere if prices rise. Either way, the result is the same fewer jobs, and it's the young seasonal workers who are first out of the door. That's how this government's tax policies have deepened the youth unemployment crisis. And that's why tackling the growing number of young people not in education, employment or training must be a priority for the government. Youth unemployment has reached the highest level in a decade outside of the pandemic, and too many young people are leaving education without a pathway into work now.

Alan Milburn's report found that 84% of young people genuinely want a job. They want to be in education or they want to be in training. Yet the policies of this government are making that harder to achieve. We all know that that the the longer someone remains out of work, the harder it becomes to find lasting employment. And that's been a point that's been raised by multiple honourable and right hon. Gentleman members today, prolonged unemployment damages, confidence, limits prospects and increases the risk of long term reliance on state support.

Yet at the very moment we need the sector to be creating opportunities for young people, businesses within it face mounting pressures, rising wage bills, higher national insurance contributions, business rates and the burden of excessive red tape, all compounded by unsustainably high energy costs, a point that was raised by my right hon. Friend. On top of this, accommodation businesses already face a 20% VAT rate on stays, double the rates charged in France, Italy, Spain and Portugal, and the 2024 autumn Budget imposed a £3.4 billion tax on the hospitality sector.

The consequences have been serious and we've all seen this in all of our constituencies. Over 100,000 jobs have been lost in the hospitality sector since that Budget. And against that backdrop, the proposed holiday tax would add yet another burden. I recently met representatives from the Professional Association of Self Caterers, who warned that businesses would have no good options, absorb that levy and cut back further, or pass it on to the price that hard working families would pay for an affordable holiday.

Rather than giving this vital sector the confidence and breathing space it needs to invest and create jobs, the government proposes yet another charge, one left to the discretion of mayors who decide whether or not to implement it in their area. That will create stark disparities, with areas that choose not to impose the tax, gaining an advantage over those that do. Tourism contributes £147 billion to the United Kingdom economy, as supports jobs and growth in every corner of our country. It should be encouraged to grow, not weighed down by ever increasing costs.

And it's not just the holiday parks and hospitality businesses feeling the strain. The newly elected. The newly passed Employment Rights Act tax, combined with the sharp rise in National Living wage for 18 to 20 year olds, the very people who rely on Saturday jobs, summer jobs and the Christmas jobs is now compounding the problem. The new net zero contract rules actually deter employees employers from taking on 16 to 24 year olds for fear of being locked into offering permanent hours. And we've heard similar stories again from members across the House today.

Businesses need the flexibility to take on extra staff over the summer or at Christmas, and the act takes that flexibility away. This legislation does not create job security. It creates job insecurity. Madam Deputy Speaker, the young people of Exmouth and Exeter East do not want handouts. They want a first job, a first wage and a first step business in my in my constituency. Stand ready to give them that chance. But they cannot do so while this government taxes, regulates and burdens them at every turn.

So I urge the Minister scrap the proposed holiday tax, ease the pressure on hospitality and restore the flexibility that seasonal employers need. Give our young people back the ladder of opportunity before this government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

kicks it away entirely. Gagan Mohindra thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I refer the House to my declarations of House to my declarations of interest? Every summer, thousands of students, school leavers and young people across our country young people across our country begin searching for seasonal work. For many, these jobs are much more than a payslip. They are first step than a payslip. They are first step into employment, a chance to earn their own money, gain independence, their own money, gain independence, develop confidence and learn the responsibilities that come with work.

I know just how valuable these opportunities can be. That is why today's debate is so important. This is not simply just about businesses, it is about protecting opportunity. It is about ensuring that the next generation has the chance to develop the skills, confidence and experience that will shape the rest of their lives. Seasonal jobs matter because they support people at every stage of life from responsibility and skills. I learned of my childhood paper round to the office, temping I did throughout university.

My seasonal jobs helped shape my career. These
14:54
Gagan Mohindra Portrait Mr Gagan Mohindra MP (South West Hertfordshire, Conservative)
-
-
first experiences of employment have been just as valuable to my career as the more permanent roles career as the more permanent roles that followed. Like me. For students across the country, these jobs help students earn money jobs help students earn money towards university or everyday living costs. They give young people confidence and experience people confidence and experience before entering the full time workforce, and they enable businesses to meet the increased businesses to meet the increased demand that often comes with the busy summer months.

But those opportunities only exist if businesses have the confidence to recruit, and that confidence is being steadily eroded by the policies of this Labour government. As a result, these opportunities are becoming harder and harder to find and youth unemployment is rising. Businesses across the country are facing rising costs from every direction. Employer national insurance contributions have increased, wage costs have has significantly, has risen significantly. Employment regulations have become more complex and burdensome, energy bills and overheads have continued to soar.

Any one of those pressures would be challenging. Together, they are forcing businesses to make difficult decisions. The businesses I speak to are not telling me they no longer need staff. They are telling me they simply cannot afford to employ as many people as they once could, and that has consequences far beyond their balance sheets across South West Hertfordshire. I have heard this message repeatedly in Sarah Owen, I experience. They even offered apprenticeships. Today, that has become much harder as wage costs have increased.

More experienced workers are being prioritised for roles that would previously have been filled by young seasonal workers simply to keep costs down. Apprenticeships are no longer financially viable and have indeed stopped. The manager, Tom, left me with a simple, powerful question how can this government expect businesses like this to continue supporting their local community when they are spending most of shifts there have traditionally been filled by students, giving hundreds of young people meaningful employment and helping them build confidence, responsibility and valuable workplace skills.

They explain. The increases in national Insurance contributions and wage costs have added millions of pounds to the company's costs, forcing it to make significant efficiency savings across the business. For now, as a large employer, Waitrose if even businesses of that size are having to reduce costs elsewhere, what does that mean for smaller employers who simply do not have hit with huge costs after a last minute change to VAT resulted in refunds for a significant amount of presale tickets. When businesses uncertainty this government creates for these businesses, it is our young, inexperienced people whose opportunities are at risk.

At the Grove Hotel in my constituency, I was told that, disappointingly, the cost of hiring staff since this government has been in office, the business has had to tighten its approach to seasonal work and has taken longer on longer fixed contracts over more flexible opportunities that suit students, again taking away even more vital first employment opportunities for young people. In my constituency, another hospitality business, Anna's Kitchen, which caters events across my area, employs many young people around term time. In fact, one of my members of staff worked there before joining my office at just 18 years old.

The skills, confidence and responsibility he developed through that job played an important role in helping him secure employment here in Parliament. These stories are exactly why these opportunities matter. They are not simply summer jobs. They are stepping stones to successful careers. And behind every one of these examples lies the same concern. Businesses still want to employ young people. They still recognise the value they bring and the value they can offer to them. But increasing costs are making those opportunities more difficult to provide.

The consequences stretch far beyond individual businesses. When seasonal jobs disappear, young people lose valuable first experiences of work. Businesses reduced their opening hours or scale back services. Hospitality, tourism and retail suffer local economies, lose spending power and ultimately, economic growth slows. Growth happens when businesses have the confidence to invest, expand and create jobs. That is why this government must work with businesses, not against them, and why the Conservatives will reduce the cost of employing seasonal workers by repealing large parts of the Employment Rights Act, abolishing business rates for thousands of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, cutting the red tape that stops employers recruiting young people and introduce our cheap power plan that would cut electricity bills by 20% for businesses.

I will go back to what I said at the start. This debate is ultimately about opportunity. Our young people should not be priced out of those vital first steps into employment due to the harmful policies of this Labour government that using to fund their welfare, their welfare bill, every seasonal job created is another young person gaining confidence, building skills and taking that first important step into the world of work. Those opportunities are worth protecting, and I urge the government to recognise the damage that they are doing to the opportunity for our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

young people to fulfil their full potential. Thank you. Wendy Morton thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wendy Morton thank. You, Madam Deputy Speaker and it's a pleasure to follow my my it's a pleasure to follow my my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire. And in so many of these debates, we actually find we learn a little bit about our we learn a little bit about our colleagues on both sides of the House. And I think it gives us an opportunity in this particular opportunity in this particular debate to perhaps reflect on those summer jobs that many of us have.

And I I think back, Madam Deputy Speaker, my first I'm going to show how old I am now, but my my first job. I'll take 21 any day. My first job paid the grandson of £0.50 an hour. And you know something at the end of the week when I got my pay packet because it was a pay packet. In those days there was no bank transfer. I felt actually quite wealthy. And I actually, for the first time, I had a bit of my own money that I could spend on what I wanted without having to go and ask the bank of mum and Dad.

And it was liberating. It really, really was. But there was something more than that. It got me used to actually that whole mindset of going to work, getting up, being there for a certain time, asking, is there anything else I can do? My job was waitressing and obviously the usual pot washing as well. And when I was old enough, I learned how to pull a pint as alongside that too, my sister did the same thing. Other youngsters of our village and our
15:02
Wendy Morton Portrait Rt Hon Wendy Morton MP (Aldridge-Brownhills, Conservative)
-
-
and the local towns did as well. And the employer was absolutely fantastic because for those who didn't have transport, whose parents could them couldn't take them, he'd pick them up and make sure they got back home as well. To sure they got back home as well. To me, that was a responsible employer. But what it gave me was a But what it gave me was a confidence, a confidence because I was forced to speak to people in a restaurant environment, a restaurant environment, a confidence in handling cash, handling bookings, skills that I think are really, really important.

But the biggest one of all was confidence. Confidence that I could go out and I could work. And, you know, we talk about working people. I very much think this is the party of working people. And I look at the benches. We've outnumbered them in this in this debate, as I grew up, there was always an expectation you would go through education and then you went out to work. If you wanted something, you worked for it. That was the that was the way that we were.

We were brought up. So but today's debate has really highlighted something which I think is actually quite sad, which is that young people today do not have the amount of opportunities to go and get that summer job. They don't have the chance. It's not just about earning money, it's about their experience. And I speak to so many employers and have done for some time about the importance of employability. And too often I hear that employers, small and large, want to take on young people, but they those young people.

And it is not their fault. They do not have all of those skills because they've not had that summer job. Maybe the newspaper round, whatever it was, which which just helped that little bit when it came. It comes to starting your first job on that very first, first day. And I think we we now need to really take a long, hard look at the employment market. And we need to look at what's happened in the last couple couple of years. We've heard today how youth unemployment is running at 14.5% between 18 to 24 year olds.

That's up from 12% in 2024. Youth unemployment for those between 16 and 17 is a staggering 30%, up from 24.7%. And I was reading, Madam Deputy Speaker, that 70,000 700,000 graduates are out of work and claiming benefits. There is something wrong there because we encourage young people to go through education, to go to university, and then they're struggling to find employment. It's partly because unemployment is high, but it's equally because of the burdens that are being placed onto our businesses.

We talk a lot about large business, but often it's the SMEs, it's the micro SMEs, those that are the lifeblood of local communities and local high streets. The ones that I have the pleasure of representing across Aldridge-Brownhills, they are being buried literally in red tape. They have seen their national. Their employers, National Insurance hiked. They. They are being blocked from employing under 16 seconds to to work. And they're also being really suffering as a result of high energy costs.

Any business that you go to, they will talk about the hike in energy costs. If you are an energy intensive industry, it is particularly difficult. So in my constituency, we have a lot of brick makers being in the West Midlands, brick making the ceramics industry is really important and although Denbigh isn't in my constituency, who doesn't like picking up a Denbigh piece of pottery and seeing it proudly, say Made in England stamped under underneath, underneath that. But we are losing these businesses, so we are losing opportunities for young people.

We are using. We are losing the opportunity to grow our economy. We are losing the opportunity to develop more, more skills and we are losing something which I think is critically important and that is our manufacturing capability. We saw during Covid how important it was to have sovereign, UK based manufacturing capacity and capability when we needed to manufacture those critical Covid vaccines. That surely should have taught us something. We have to build some, build up, more homemade skills.

So I would also urge the government today to look at skills, to look at opportunities for young people, but look more broadly at what is the skill set that we need, what is the skill set that we need for today, and what is the skill set that we need for the future? We talk about the opportunities that AI will bring, but AI will also bring some challenges to some sectors as well. The big question is, are we ready for that? And I don't think we've done nearly enough thinking to get us to that point, because we have to do that now to make sure that we are creating the right skills that we need for years.

Madam Deputy Speaker, those people who had perhaps done an apprenticeship, maybe along the lines of engineering or plumbing, we're often seen perhaps as not earning as much money as the graduates who've been to university and got the high tech jobs. But those are the sort of skills and the tool makers as well. There's a we can we can laugh about tool makers. But in the West Midlands there's a history of tool making. But the point there is that those are some of the skills that that AI won't be able to replace all of those skills.

We need to be really looking at what we need in the future, our education system, be that our schools, our universities and our colleges need to be making sure that we're all working together. But critical to that conversation is business. And it's not just big business. I come back to my point about small business, and I'm going to end very quickly. We started our business many, many years ago with something called enterprise Allowance. It was my my husband had an idea and that Enterprise Allowance paid us £40 a week, £40 a week.

It didn't seem like much at the time, but my goodness, we felt that the government was actually backing us as a business to create an income, a living, a business. We need much more backing, much more confidence for our business community. It's time we created a culture that supports business where business isn't. The bad word in all of this business is not bad. It's not bad to make a profit, because that profit is so often put back into the business and back into employment and back into the very young people that I think we would all agree today.

We want to nurture and encourage so that they can get into employment, get a job, future.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

thank. You, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to start with something that I want to start with something that I think is abundantly obvious to most people, certainly on this side of the House, which is that economic the House, which is that economic growth is only possible with a culture of risk taking and a culture of risk taking and a culture where we support businesses to take risks. And by that I mean to take risks. And by that I mean risks in all its forms, including the taking on of staff.

But also we need abundant and clean energy. That was proven in the Industrial Revolution was proven also in the 1980s. I'll gladly give way.
15:10
15:10
15:10
Blake Stephenson Portrait Blake Stephenson MP (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)
-
-
Friend makes a compelling case for drilling in the North Sea, and it's a case that he made very successfully in the by election in Aberdeen South, for which I congratulate him on and welcome to him. Welcome to his place in to his place here in the House of Commons over the past 15 years, Madam Deputy Speaker, which is the period of time that I've been working full time in the city before coming here, I've seen a ratcheting up of costs and de-risking of our economy.

Energy costs have increased as we've sought to decarbonise employment. Flexibility has gone down, taxes have gone up. Regulatory burdens are uncontrollably high. Two examples from my time in financial services, and I know that it's not related necessarily to summer jobs, but I'll come to it. Anti-Money laundering regulations are now costing the economy £33.6 billion a year, and bank ring fencing is costing banks £1.5 billion a year. You know, the regulatory burdens throughout our economy are absolutely incredible.

And of course, we have failed to properly recognise that it's businesses that grow the economy, not governments. And over the past two years, there's been an opportunity that has been missed by this government. They came in claiming that they would be the change government, but of course they've doubled down on all of the mistakes of the past. Tax has gone up over the past two budgets. It's gone up by £66 billion. Red tape has gone up. I know the Minister earlier said that he has aspirations to reduce red tape, but actually what what the government has demonstrated that it's capable of doing is increasing red tape, not reducing it.

And with the Employment Rights bill or unemployment rights bill, Labour flexibility is down. Britain has spent two decades trying to build an economy on less risk, and it's just not possible to do that. And the impact, unfortunately. Madam Deputy Speaker, is felt most acutely on our young constituents, and particularly with the government's interventions over the past two years. The Saturday job is disappearing, and I think that's absolutely tragic. Honourable and right hon. Members across this House have spoken passionately about their first jobs.

If you would believe this, my first job in North West Hampshire was sweeping away bridge at a scrapyard, and I have to say that was not under contract and I was not promised any particular hours. But as a, I think a 16 year old at the time there or thereabouts, I would sweep the weighbridge in the morning. I would wash the owner's car and get £20, not £0.50. So, so there was so there was quite some inflation between my right hon.

Friends. Or indeed I was overpaid indeed. But I moved on and I washed the pots in my local pub, I progressed, I became a waiter, I ran wedding receptions and by the time I got to university, I was working in a pizza restaurant. Other pizza restaurants are available and I enjoyed it thoroughly. I made connections, I blossomed, I became more confident, and these are the skills that I know people describe as soft skills, but correct. He's not in his place now, but the.

My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire correctly said, these are hard skills, these are difficult skills, and these are skills that we need in our economy, and we only have them in our economy by by growing those skills in young people when they first

**** Possible New Speaker ****

start out, I will gladly give way. I thank you for. Giving way. What he's saying this afternoon reminds me that this afternoon reminds me that actually, I think one of the other skills, those soft skills that you learn through this is resilience, because I'm just wondering how he because I'm just wondering how he got to those jobs that he did, because I earned £10 a day in my first job sweeping the floor in a florist. And if I was lucky, bundling up some flowers before I sold them.

But part of my £10 was my bus fare to get to and from work, because it was actually a long way away from the city centre where I was fortunate enough to live. So I believe, and I wonder if you'd agree with me, that resilience is that skill that a lot of the time we see missing in today's young people. And if we're taking away these jobs where they can learn those skills, it's yet another

**** Possible New Speaker ****

thing where we are potentially future. Well, I'm pleased that my hon. Friend and I started our live sweeping floors, so that's something that we have in common in common. And of course, resilience common. And of course, resilience is really important. It's important skill in life and it's learnt best when we are young. And I remember when we are young. And I remember those early days on my bike, cycling in the cold with my knuckles freezing. I don't want to knuckles freezing.

I don't want to sound like my father, but it is true. And I had to get to that workplace and I had to get there on time. And there was no public transport, and it was a few miles away. And so I jumped on my bike and I did it. And this is where you learn resilience and this is where we we grow as people and this is how we succeed in the economy. But youth unemployment is now at an all time high 14.5% of 18 to 24 year olds are unemployed.

And the figure was mentioned earlier, I think, by my honourable right hon. Friend, 30.7% of 16 to 17 year olds are now unemployed. These are people who are not learning. The skills that we've just agreed are important for young people to grow into strong, resilient young people. And of course, it feeds through the whole of the economy. And now, with 700 000 recent graduates out of work and claiming benefits, there is a generation of young people really at risk of unemployment and being left behind, being unable to find work, the dignity of work, being able to save, buy their homes, invest for their futures.

And this is a very serious problem that we are facing in our economy, all as a result of the decisions by this government, which is putting the summer job at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Risk. It all starts with the summer job. So what needs to be done? Madam Deputy Speaker, in my view, we need a fundamental reset view, we need a fundamental reset in how we think about risk, investment and enterprise. We investment and enterprise. We should be in this House creating the conditions for economic, allowing businesses to get on with allowing businesses to get on with what they do best, and then we should get out of the way. But of course, this government is doing the absolute opposite.

It is meddling. It is getting in the way. It is wrapping businesses up in red tape. It is increasing costs by increasing levies, which is the polite word for taxes. And it is also increasing taxes and taxes on jobs. And it really is not fair on our young people. And it is doing a disservice to the opportunities that exist throughout our economy. Madam Deputy Speaker, in the interests of time, because I think my hon. Friend want to contribute, I'm just going to make a final point, if I may, on repealing red tape.

The Melbourne Review says that the decline of the Saturday job has made it more difficult for young people to enter the workforce. It is absolutely right. Previous generations have had far more routes through which we all started our working lives, and there are many examples here today. Not only did these routes provide us income, but they taught us skills, confidence and habits of work. Without these, none of us here would be where we are today. The first steps into a lifetime of work are crucially important for us to understand what it is, what we want to do for the rest of our life, and what we want to achieve, and how we can learn the skills to get there.

Madam Deputy Speaker, young people need the government to get out of their way to help them back into work, and that's what a conservative government would do. Yeah.
15:18
Saqib Bhatti Portrait Saqib Bhatti MP (Meriden and Solihull East, Conservative)
-
-
Saqib Bhatti thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and. >> Thank my hon. Friend for his excellent speech. I obviously agree with everything he just said, because this is a really important debate, and I think the motion put forward by His Majesty's opposition is so significant for young people. I've probably not been more worried for this is the most I've ever been worried for young people and their future prospects. And while I don't doubt the intentions of many of the speakers on the opposite side, I have to say I do sense a massive disconnect between government policy.

I think my right hon. Friend for Chingford and Woodford Green spoke about the triple whammy, which I will come on to some of those policies. I'm conscious of time, but there was a massive disconnect between what government is saying it is doing and what the reality on the ground is, because when I speak to businesses in my constituency of Meriden and Solihull East, what I'm increasingly hearing is businesses saying actually that they can't take on any young people. The cost of doing business are so high.

On polling day in the recent elections, a business owner came up to me while I was knocking on doors and said, I just I just want to say that actually, I just don't know if it's worth it anymore doing that. And that really did strike me as very, very significantly because I just thought, what a sad state of affairs that you've got someone who's grafting away, running a small business, and all he wants to do is hire, hire people, do the right thing, and he's unable to do so.

And it's really, really significant. And there are three things that have had a huge impact. If it had been just one of the interventions, it's possible that there would have been there would have been some impact on the labour market because it's a fundamental of basic economics that if you interfere in the labour market, there will be a consequence. And naturally, business owners who have to make logical decisions will decide to adjust their employment numbers accordingly and they'll do what they can afford. But of course, they have to make a profit.

But because it's been the triple whammy, as has been referred to. So the the business rates impact the national insurance, the jobs tax, and of course, the Employment Rights Act, which is possibly one of the single most damaging piece of legislation done to business by any single government. And I think we will see the impact of that. I think the hon. Member for Banbury talked about what bits of the era we would repeal. I would repeal everything that's got to do with the liberation of trade unions, because what we're what we've really seen, and that legislation was not about employment rights.

That legislation was a love letter to trade unions. That legislation was there to ensure that trade unions, the hand of the state, could interfere on private enterprise. And we are starting to see the consequences of that. And that will only increase, by the way, because, of course, when it comes down to it and my right hon. Friend for East Hampshire made this argument. I thought it was very logically and very eloquently. When it comes down to it, and a business owner has to make a decision.

He used the hypothetical of the 18 year old and the 30 year old. Well, the reality is business owners have to make those decisions. And of course, they take the individual with more experience because that is that individual requires less training. They've proven they're resilient. They've proven that that kind of opportunity cost of hiring them is, is much lower than the 18 year old. And I have to say, when I ran a business, I loved hiring apprentices and young people. They had a hunger.

But of course, you can only do that within the parameters of what is affordable and what profits that you can project in your own small business. And the consequence of the impact of the government's policies is that actually youth unemployment is so high, it's at 14.5%, much, much higher than when they took office in 2024. In 16 to 17 year olds, it's 30.7%. You know, these are huge numbers. And I really do worry about that. Just recently, I held a debate in Westminster Hall on the impact of the government's policies on rural pubs, because obviously, and it's been alluded to here today hospitality, leisure, retail, these are great employers, not just of the Saturday job, but of young people.

And actually the impact of those pieces of policy have meant that those those pubs, if they if they are staying open, aren't able to hire more young people, it's going the opposite way. And we are seeing the impact and the consequence of that, as has been alluded to many, many times and has been said by a number of members, you know, the employment having work, there is dignity in that. It gives young people the soft skills or the soft underscore underscore hard skills, as my hon.

Friend referred to. And it gets them ready for life and it gives them an opportunity to do do so. And while there might be other structural issues such as getting on the work ladder, the reality is that first job, it has so much positive impact on young people. And and as we've heard, whether it's sweeping floors. It's about making sure that they're able to get to work. I still remember the 16 year old I hired once who didn't have his tie tie done up and, and his shirt tucked in.

But I took a risk on him, and it was a risk because I had to train him up and do that. And then it was only when. And I said to him, young man, you're going to have to tuck your shirt in and do your tie up. And it was only two years later when there was a grad who had come to interview and as I said, send him in. And as he was going and he said, tuck your shirt in, do your tie up.

And you know, I just made me laugh. I thought, you know, look how far that young individual has come on. And, and he went on to do, you know, other forms of employment and go up the jobs ladder, you know, and get higher wages and all the other things. I take great pride in all the young people I employed, and I train. And so flexibility in the labour market is really, really important. And so is making sure that we don't increase and the government doesn't increase burden on on businesses.

I did think that. And I come back to that disconnect that there's there was a the the Minister who I actually have a great time for who did the opening opening debate, spent a great and a valiant effort, I. I have lots of time for the the. The Minister will be closing as I've not heard him speak yet, so I'll reserve judgement. But but the. But the. But the honourable. The hon. Member made a valiant effort of defending the government's record. But there was no acknowledgement of the fact that the unemployment rates have gone up and this is a natural consequence of the interventions by the government.

And there's no prospect, by the way, there's no indication of how they're going to get those down, because for the best will in the world, they can spend as much money trying to train them up and doing interventions, all that kind of thing. If businesses aren't hiring. The unemployment rate will still be the unemployment rate. And that is a that is a that is a thing. Actually, I invite the the Minister who will be closing to to address that point. And what reassurances is he going to give to those 16 year olds who are or those 18 year olds or those young people who want that hope, who want to build their lives? And look, there is and I'll end in this point, because I know my my hon.

Friend will want to come in. But the but but I just recently, I was at the opening of the Bluebell Wood Cafe in my constituency in the north of my in North Solihull. It was a. It was an idea that I came up with, and I worked with Andy Street, the former mayor of the West Midlands, and it was to make sure that we had. Because hospitality is a big employer in my. In my industry, we've got the National Exhibition Centre. I've got the large regional largest regional hotel and the Hilton Metropole and many, many others.

And, you know, they all talk about the need for skills. And we talked about University College Birmingham. We talked to them to bring over to North Solihull a, a, a, a restaurant, a training restaurant for top level, you know, training chefs, maitre d's. And actually, when I cut the ribbon on that, the, the, the main chef there said, actually, we're training level one and level one apprentices to do level three work. And I can tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I invite you to come and do a visit there if you if you'd like to, because there's top football clubs going there to recruit, there's top restaurateurs going there to recruit, but then there have to be jobs at the end of the line.

And that is why this is so, so important. So I urge the government to reflect on their policies and to consider the impact they've had on the futures and prospects of young people.
15:26
Douglas Lumsden Portrait Douglas Lumsden MP (Aberdeen South, Conservative)
-
-
Lumsden. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We've heard a lot of people describing their summer jobs, and that's something that I'm going to that's something that I'm going to do also, because when I was a student, I enjoyed a summer job. I was actually working as a postman in my constituency, delivering letters and leaflets to homes up and down Aberdeen. And what do you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, 35 years later, I'm still delivering leaflets and letters right across my the city of Aberdeen.

And it was a job that was vital to me because it gave me the resource that I needed to have, that money that I could spend through the rest of the year. So it's really, it's a vital thing to, to so many people. But what has changed in the intervening years in our city of Aberdeen, we now find ourselves under attack from not one but two governments. The enterprise crippling national insurance, increase of the party opposite and the double whammy of business rate increases and banditry from the First Minister in Holyrood.

The First Minister is clearly content in hoarding business rates in Edinburgh to fund his independence obsession and his failed other projects. And that is before we even talk about the Barons of Aberdeen City Council, run by an SNP Lib Dem coalition of malaise, and it will be of no surprise to this House that all they want to do is tax, tax, tax. And this is clear because of the massive 7% tourism tax levied by the council onto hotel stays. And I think this is the highest in Scotland, more than Glasgow, more than Edinburgh.

And as a result, hotels are sitting empty and the council is content to punish vendors and visitors alike. So you have to think, why would you start a business? And I will indeed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wonder. As as the government looks to introduce this hated so-called introduce this hated so-called overnight visitor levy in England and members opposite, I believe they are as members opposite always they are as members opposite always say, well, don't worry, it's not very much money. It's all going to be Hypothecated won't have any be Hypothecated won't have any effect on on the incoming the inbound tourism industry. I wonder if my hon. Friend thinks perhaps some of those colleagues opposite some of those colleagues opposite might look at the example in his home city of Aberdeen and look at what it could be.

Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I, I thank the right hon. Friend for intervention. Yes, there's definitely lessons that has to be learned from what's happened in learned from what's happened in Scotland. We're seeing a big, big impact. And it is coming back to my point about why would you actually point about why would you actually start a business in Aberdeen just now? Because new businesses have to factor in rent, business rates, factor in rent, business rates, insurance, energy costs, waste charges, and that's before you even charges, and that's before you even get to national To do business, and it is no wonder that our high streets are struggling.

And as my hon. Friend made the point about business owners as well. Often it's the case that it's them that decide not to take a salary or have very, very little, you know, things like we've heard about a zero hours contracts, you know, that doesn't apply to them. Minimum wage doesn't apply to them. And often they are actually going without tax. They pay all their costs. And we do have organisations that are trying to make a difference. Our Union Street in Aberdeen, for example, do a great job of providing businesses with incentives and start up grants for new businesses, but they are a private organisation.

It should be council, city council and governments that are doing more to help those industry. Summer jobs are so critical for the hospitality sector, and I think of the beach front in my constituency, where we're fortunate to have two whole days of summer every year, and it's so important that these businesses have the flexibility to employ part time seasonal workers. So around the city, so many great businesses that benefit from seasonal workers, you know, I think about Codonas, and that's a funfair at the beach also employs hundreds of people, but these are most busy during the summer period.

So are the cafes and places like Duthie Park bustling when the weather is good and they need that flexibility? That was described by my hon. Friend. And recently, we've been fortunate to have a huge expansion at Aberdeen Harbour under the leadership of Bob Sanguinet. That means that cruise ships can now visit Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire. But it is seasonal and this is a tremendous asset, and we need to make sure that our hospitality sector is resourced to cope with this demand. So we need to support our hospitality sector.

Madam Deputy Speaker, But the SNP and Labour governments have been woeful at doing this. We have seen job taxes, business rates, bureaucracy, red tape and all this is hindering our industry and harming our jobs, causing businesses to fail young people who will be impacted most. The government needs to think again and allow our hospitality industry to thrive and support our amendment. A motion today a.
15:31
Nigel Huddleston Portrait Nigel Huddleston MP (Droitwich and Evesham, Conservative)
-
-
Nigel Hansen. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I refer hon. Members to my Register of Members Interests. Now, Register of Members Interests. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, I really don't get what the Labour Party has against people enjoying themselves, having a bit of fun, spending some of their hard earned cash on things that give them pleasure, whether that's having an occasional flutter on the horses or drink in the pub with mates, a meal out with friends, having a family holiday or indulging in a bit of retail therapy.

But the government, let's be in no doubt, has made policy decisions that have deliberately undermined these sectors, jeopardised the viability of once thriving businesses and decimated the workforce, especially summer jobs. Labour have whacked up swathes of taxes and made it more difficult and more expensive to hire people. Tourism, hospitality, leisure, pubs, bars, restaurants, sport, theme parks, casinos, events, nightclubs, shops, music and art venues all used to be dubbed part of the economy. Well, not under Labour. They're now the overburdened, overtaxed, struggling to survive economy.

Now we know Labour are generally glum bunch, but why do they want everybody else to be dragged down to their misery? Do the members on the government benches have any idea what people in the country are saying, who people are blaming for having to close their family businesses and for losing their jobs, or not having the opportunity of a summer job? Well, I've been travelling around the country. Madam Deputy Speaker, it's where I got my tan from. I'm actually getting out there doing my job, listening to stakeholders, business owners, workers and industry bodies from Wales to Scotland, Saint Ives to Skegness, from the Cotswolds to Chester and yesterday in Bognor, indeed the sunniest place in the country.

I found out yesterday. And this is what I've heard and I quote, Labour don't understand business. They don't care about business. Labour hate the private sector. They don't understand because they've never had a proper job. They don't understand the importance of cash flow. Have any of the Cabinet ever run their own business? They care more about people on welfare than workers. They said they wouldn't put up tax they have. I will never trust them again. This is what people are saying.

I know it is transparently clear that the government benches

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are not hearing this, which is why I'm doing my job now by telling. Them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A coastal hotelier said. A coastal hotelier said to me, I used to hire ten people over the summer. to hire ten people over the summer. I will be lucky this year to hire just one. A restaurateur told me I advertised for two summer jobs. I had 270 applications and sadly, had 270 applications and sadly, several times I heard many people say this well known phrase I wouldn't trust Labour to run a bath. Never mind the country. Not my words, the public, the eminently sensible British public who we're listening to.

I wish the government would. Now Labour MPs must surely, surely be hearing the same things in their own constituencies. Which begs the question why they're allowing the government to do so much damage in their own constituencies by raising National Insurance, whacking up business rates, imposing more regulations and restrictions on the labour market, and by failing to bring energy costs down. This government has destroyed jobs and especially summer jobs, and all while whacking up spending on welfare. While two pubs a day are closing down.

Stirrups in Evesham, in my own constituency, announced just this weekend it was closing because it said it's become impossible for us to continue operating. Another pub landlord told me that despite looking busy and having a turnover of over £1 million, they're actually unprofitable and may soon have to close. Yesterday I met a small amusement park and seaside arcade operator who told me he cannot afford to even open on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays now. And this is getting into peak season because he said if he opened on those days, he would lose money because of higher taxes and higher energy costs.

It's and is not hiring as many summer workers either. It used to be the case that people looking for summer jobs could just walk into a pub, bar, restaurant, in a seaside resort, or indeed in London. That is not happening this year because of labour policies. Of the nearly 200 000 job loss since the Chancellor's first Budget, over 100 000 have been in tourism and hospitality. That's thousands of summer jobs that have not been created because of this government's policies, depriving thousands of young people of the opportunity of their first job.

And yet, in their infinite wisdom, as if the sector is not already taxed enough, the government is planning on bringing in a new tourism tax. Despite the former Minister, the former tourism Minister, sitting opposite me. Having said in the House of Commons previously the tourism sector is already taxed enough, despite the government cutting the tourism marketing budgets, despite the UK already being one of the most taxed countries in the world for travel and tourism. This government thinks it will help the sector if it imposes more taxes on them.

Only a Labour administration can genuinely believe that the answer to the sector's problems is more taxes. It will be a disaster. A £2 per person per night levy would add an additional £56 to the cost of a one week, one week family holiday for four. That, in some cases is more than the cost of the accommodation. UK Hospitality Polling found that 57% of people said a £50 increase would put them off taking a holiday. It would particularly damage as well. The shoulder season, so vital to sustaining the economies of already challenged coastal resorts in non-peak months.

And there is also no guarantee that the money raised through such a levy would be reinvested into the tourism promotion or the visitor economy. Overall, and in other countries where tourism taxes exist, they are often accompanied by permanent lower VAT rates. There is a huge concern, too, about the scope creep and future rate increases. So as we enter the end of this Chancellor's time in office, her legacy will be as the destroyer of jobs and the destroyer of opportunities. Moreover, this economic disaster has been the result, not of external circumstances or even genuine mistakes, but of deliberate and conscious policy decisions made by a Chancellor, a Prime Minister, a government and a party that simply does not get business and does not have even the most basic grasp of economics.

You cannot tax your way to growth. You cannot create jobs if you implement policies that make it more expensive and more difficult to hire people, you cannot say you're on the side of workers if there is no work, and if instead you incentivise welfare. So let's be clear this government hasn't brought in, has brought in some of the most anti-business and therefore anti-worker policies this country has ever seen. Labour have increased taxes by £62 billion in the last two budgets. That's over £2,000 per household, we warned, business warned.

Even the Treasury warned that this government's tax hikes would jeopardise jobs. They didn't listen. We warned that failure to deal with a ballooning welfare state would inevitably lead to even higher taxes. We warned that their unemployment bill would inhibit hiring. They went ahead and pursued job destroying policies anyway. The cost of keeping the unions happy has been the destruction of the hopes, aspirations and opportunities of a generation of young people. It is of little consolation that the near 200,000, who have already lost their jobs under label will still soon be joined by the two leading architects of this economic havoc.

Labour may be changing leader, but the problem is they will still be Labour, big government, high tax living beyond their means, anti-business, still be Labour spending other people's money since 1900. And this government is well on the way to securing the unenviable record. As has been mentioned earlier, of every Labour government since the Second World War, of leaving office with unemployment higher than when they started. And if anything, the indicators are that the new leader, and if rumors are correct, the new Chancellor will be even more anti-business.

It is the private sector business and especially the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors, including thousands of small and family businesses that are paying the price for Labour's mistakes and poor judgment. And the damage is falling particularly hard on the young because tourism, hospitality and retail jobs skew young. Now I know that we are all in disbelief at the recent ONS figures revealing the true scale of youth unemployment, which has risen to 16.2% amongst 16 to 24 year olds, an astonishing. This is even higher than during and following the pandemic.

And we've also heard today several talk about the 1 million NEETs. Now, the government's recent announcement of subsidies for employing young people in hospitality wouldn't be necessary if they hadn't done so much damage to the sector in the first place. Now, we conservatives know that the best thing we can do for working people and to lift people out of poverty is to help them get a job. And we have a far we have a far better record than Labour doing this.

Now look at the improvements in educational standards under the Conservatives and on jobs. Between 2010 and 2024, conservative led government oversaw the creation of 4 million jobs over that period. That's an average of 800 a day. And this government is destroying jobs to the tune of hundreds a day. Overall, unemployment has risen to 5% from January to March 2026. Job losses and youth unemployment are the inevitable, expected and entirely predictable consequence of Labour's anti-business policies. But there is an alternative a pro-business, low regulation, low tax, conservative alternative, and we're developing policies based on sound conservative values and principles of smaller government, lower tax, personal responsibility, living within our means, defending our borders, protecting our citizens.

We conservatives are the party of business, the party of aspiration, the party of opportunity and enterprise. These are sound conservative values and they are sound British values. And before the opposition object, I know we made mistakes. We make mistakes. When we drift away from these values, we will not be doing that again. The difference between Labour and the Conservatives is that conservatives get the country into trouble. When we drift away from our values, Labour get the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

country into trouble when they stick to theirs. Thank you. So, for example, in terms of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So, for example, in terms of policy development, the vast majority of businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure space would benefit from our policy of 100% business rates relief. Our plan would benefit 250,000 plan would benefit 250,000 businesses and cover bills up to 110,000. Now, turning to a few key 110,000. Now, turning to a few key points made by colleagues the right hon. Member for East Hampshire quite rightly made a very important point about the soft skills, much maligned soft skills that are vital to career development and the importance of giving young people experience.

The hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire revealed that he was once a gravedigger. I'm sure there's a joke in there somewhere about the current state of the Labour Party, but I haven't worked it out. The hon. Member right hon. Member for Chingford and Wood Green made a really important point about international comparisons and in particular, the lessons learned from places like the Netherlands. The hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter spoke passionately about tourism and mentioned a very respected body, Pask, who I've also worked with in the past.

The hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire highlighted how the retail, hospitality and leisure businesses are facing challenges on so many fronts and that they can appear very busy and need more workers, but they simply can't afford to hire more people. The hon. Member, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-brownhills, mentioned that she got £0.50 per hour in her first job. I'm afraid I must be a little bit younger. Mine was £0.99. But what she did also say what she did also. What she did also say though, was a very, a very probably was it was very important point about 700 000.

Of course, graduate unemployed at the moment. The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire highlighted the need for government often to get out of the way. Very sensible, decent, proper, conservative value. Again, the hon. Member for Meredith and Solihull West highlighted the disconnect in the government Ministers opening speech versus the reality and the real world of what's actually happening out there. And the hon. Member for Aberdeen South, who I welcome to his place, highlighted the damaging experience. Of course, the tourism tax in Scotland and how many business owners.

This is an important point he made as well are actually earning themselves far less than minimum wage. A very important point. And then of course, the hon. Member for South West Devon, as well as the hon. Members for mid beds, made the important point that they had experience in the past of floor sweeping. Well, that will be of extreme value because we do need to do a huge amount in cleaning up the mess made of this government on the economy, but we are up to the task.

We are the only party up to the task, because the Conservative Party is the only genuinely pro-business party left in British politics, and by backing business we are backing workers and that is backing Britain. Please join us in doing so.
15:45
Blair McDougall Portrait Blair McDougall MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (East Renfrewshire, Labour)
-
-
Minister Blair MacDougall. >> Minister Blair MacDougall. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a pleasure to close this debate after so many thoughtful contributions from hon. Members across the House. There have been many difficult questions raised, and I did think of following the example of the former member for Clacton and just resigning to avoid those difficult questions, but I will, I will, I will resist, I will resist the encouragement from the hon. Gentleman. It's also been fantastic to listen to hon.

Members talking about their own experience of Saturday and summer jobs allowed me to imagine the Member for Aldridge-brownhills running around with multiple plates balanced on her arms. The Member for Mid Bedfordshire getting busy with his shammy, the new member for Abbott, the new member for Aberdeen South, who I welcome belatedly to his position. I pictured him in shorts, fighting off the rain coming off the North Sea as opposed day and right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green.

I pictured with long flowing locks, getting busy scrubbing the pots in the Italian sunshine. It was important because it allowed me to picture conservative MPs doing something productive. But more importantly and seriously, it was a reminder of the importance of those first employment experiences in making ourselves as fully rounded human beings and workers. For me, it was working on Saturdays before going to university and in summers at Beveridge Fishmongers in Giffnock, and the antisocial teenager in me would want to be in the back of the shop filleting something.

But every time a customer came in, you had to remake yourself. You had to find that confidence all over again. And I think all of the Saturday and summer jobs that hon. Members have spoken about is in no way an understatement to say it is why we are all here. It gave us that first chance and gave us the opportunity to find, as many hon. Members have said, that confidence within ourselves. But I would caution hon. Members opposite as well.

Yes, this is about experience. It is about people finding that opportunity. And as some have said, it is about avoiding the long term scarring effect of youth unemployment. But for many young workers, this is also about paying the bills. This is not a nice additional thing. I think of the young woman with her family, who I met with a zero hours contract who simply did not know month for month, whether she would be able to pay her rent, whether she would be able to take her kids to anything special that month.

And my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, spoke powerfully about how insecurity in the workplace is linked to the health of the economy. That when people's incomes are hollowed out, then hollows out the centre of our towns and it ends up

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in the empty high street shops that we see. The hon. Member for giving way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Member for giving way. I mean, he makes a very interesting point about city centres being hollowed out. But the main thrust of this debate is about young of this debate is about young people who are doing summer jobs before they go back to school in the autumn or back to university. the autumn or back to university. They are the very young people that ordinarily would then be taking those wages to buy a hot chocolate those wages to buy a hot chocolate in lorenzos like I used to, or to go and buy the new pair of trainers that they've just saved up for if they don't have a job in the first place, and they don't come from a family where their parents can subsidise all of these things, they're missing out on that opportunity.

So whilst I accept the point that he's making, will he also accept the point that I'm making? That actually the very thing we're discussing this afternoon is part of that problem and that if we remove these young

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people from the market altogether, it's not going to help. Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, the reason I'm responding with regard to the impact of zero hours contracts on the subject of the contracts on the subject of the debate is that hon. Members, after hon. Member opposite rose to speak hon. Member opposite rose to speak in defence of zero hours contracts and many people, of course, value flexibility in the workplace. But some employers have used that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

flexibility to take advantage of their employees, including young employees. Certainly. I thank the Minister for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving way. Summer jobs are really important, as are summer schools. Will he join me in welcoming the Burnley Summer school to Parliament Burnley Summer school to Parliament today? Who are joining us in the gallery, and Willie, perhaps including his speech, the fact that over the Tories time in power from 10 to 24, 7500 pubs closed across Britain, many of which were in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Britain, many of which were in Berlin, which meant that those jobs just didn't exist for people. Minister. I'm very happy to welcome the summer school from the despatch box and congratulate him on getting that into Hansard. And I also congratulate him on teaching them a lesson about the hypocrisy that they will get used to coming from the benches over. Many hon. Members spoke about seasonal worker spoke somehow that somehow seasonal contracts were going to be forced to be permanent contracts.

That is simply not the case within the legislation, where people where people genuinely value that flexibility in the workplace, they will be able to continue to work in that way. I happily give way, Minister, for taking the intervention. He speaks about zero hour contracts being such that such almost like the devil's work. But would he accept that there was zero hour contracts? Is that gives people the flexibility that they want when they're doing a job, they do not want to actually be committed to working so many hours a week.

And often for a lot of people, a zero hours contract actually fits in with their lifestyle. We are we are the workers, he describes feel that way. They won't have to. They won't have to. What we are talking about here is the people who work for the same employer with their main job, week after week after week, without any certainty of income. And the member, the hon. Member for East Hampshire, rose to say that it is only 3% of workers who rely on a zero hours contract as their main job.

That is 1 in 25 workers in his constituency. There are 6000 people of working age. That is hundreds of people in his constituency who do not have the right to regular hours. And maybe he can rise now, and I will take his intervention to say why he thinks those hundreds of workers in his constituency should not have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the right to full time employment. Deputy speaker, I contend that 3% is a relatively small percentage of 100%. Many of those people are students. Madam Deputy Speaker, the students. Madam Deputy Speaker, the Labour Party used to speak about zero hours contracts as if it was taking over the entire country, taking over the entire economy. taking over the entire economy. It's simply not true. It is a perfectly legitimate form of employment which works for some people. I describe a situation of my constituents who have one zero hours contract in their term, their term time address, another one at their at their home address.

What is wrong with that? If it works for the employer and it works for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

employee, why are they so against the flexibility. And they will still be able to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And they will still be able to do that. But we are talking about hundreds of people, hundreds of people in his constituency, people in his constituency, potentially, who rely on zero hours contracts. That was his formulation as their main form of employment, as their main form of employment, who have no certainty of income from month to month. That cannot go on in this country. It is fundamentally unfair. Several hon. Members opposite also raised business rates, something that obviously, on this side of the House we have taken incredibly seriously.

The party opposite undertook and began the revaluation without any plans whatsoever for any transitional support or relief for people impacted by it. On this side of the House, we introduced a support package worth £4.3 billion to protect against ratepayers. Seeing those large overnight increases in bills because of that revaluation. And as my right hon. Friend said a moment ago, over half of ratepayers will see no bill increases this year and 23% will see those bills go down.

Now, there are plenty of arguments that could be made about whether we have gone far enough, and how far our continued reforms of business rates should continue, and my colleagues in the Treasury will do that. But for a party who had no plans for any relief whatsoever to now be saying they are going to spend £4 billion without saying where it comes from on abolishing those rates altogether is is frankly ridiculous. My hon. Friend from Mid Derbyshire rightly highlighted the Great British Savings this summer and makes a very fair ask that the Treasury, as the.

Look at the impact on that should look at what the impact was on individual young people as well and on this issue, and I think that is a fair point. Many hon. Members opposite rightly raised the impact of National Insurance. And as I have said from this Dispatch Box before, we recognise that that was a big ask of business. But the impact of that was to say to the international money markets that we were a serious country again, that has been seen through people having lower mortgages, through businesses, having lower borrowing rates.

And and I get the genuine concern about the impact on youth employment. But I would say it is at best a partial explanation, given that for employers for under 21, they simply do not pay National Insurance at all, or those employing young apprentices are either the members for South West Hertfordshire, Meriden, Solihull as well as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green made a fair point, which is whenever government had any sort of a cost on to business.

It is about thinking about the cumulative impact of that rather than something in its isolation. And I think that is a completely fair argument. Every time we ask something of business that puts more of an incentive and a responsibility on us in government to do more, to remove the costs from businesses. Which is precisely why, through the Youth Guarantee, we £2.5 billion package, you are seeing £3,000 incentive to employ 18 to 24 year olds at risk of long term unemployment, £2,000 incentive around foundational apprentices, £2,000 for 16 to 24 year old apprenticeships and fully funded apprenticeships for 16 to 24 year olds.

And that, of course, is on top of all the other work we are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

doing to reduce the costs on business. Please thank the hon. Member for giving way, and I'm glad he's brought up the fully funded brought up the fully funded apprenticeships for under 25 year olds, because as soon as that was announced, an electrician in my announced, an electrician in my constituency contacted me and said, that's all well and good, but I still have to pay the higher wages. So although they're not paying the National Insurance, it's not as free and as cheap as the government maintains.

So will he accept that maintains. So will he accept that and highlight, you know, an agreement that that is actually the case, that it's not 100% correct to say that these are fully funded apprenticeships. They're still Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, as was said earlier on, we believe that people working full time should be able to afford the basics in life. My point is that we are dealing with the issue around youth unemployment by incentivising youth unemployment by incentivising people to to employ, and many hon. Members have raised red tape. They will not have to wait terribly long will not have to wait terribly long to see the work that I and my Secretary of State have been doing Secretary of State have been doing to reduce the administrative burden on business.

Many hon. Members opposite spoke about additional costs being put on to business. I would remind them that our target to reduce the administrative burden on business by £5.6 billion is a net target, and they will not have to wait terribly long to see the progress that we have made with this. The Member for Exmouth. I will take one more intervention and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister is coming out with these great plans. Can you confirm that the hon. Member for Makerfield that the hon. Member for Makerfield agrees with them and will implement them when he comes in as the Prime Minister, Minister?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of course he does. So. Labour, Labour manifesto and he is he has spoken about backing our industrial spoken about backing our industrial strategy. And this is a an incredibly important part of it. But the member member for Exmoor But the member member for Exmoor spoke about how beautiful his constituency was. Yes, I know, I know, I'm looking at him. I'm on my way later this month on holiday in Cornwall, and I'll perhaps stop off with the family there. But so many members opposite talked about us imposing a tourism tax on local areas.

There will be no such imposition. This is devolution, allowing local areas to decide whether they want to invest in that or not. I can confirm, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we will not be moving the amendment, but in summary, this government is proud to be taking employment law into the 21st century. We are proud that we are rebalancing business rates for smaller businesses to help young people get jobs, and we are proud that we are backing our high streets.

We have commissioned Alan Milburn to investigate the high levels of youth unemployment, and we look forward to the publication of his final report in the autumn. That report will be backed by evidence. It will be backed by the real experience of young people and the proper context of the changing labour market. What it will not be based on is outdated. Dickensian ideas about getting 13 year olds working late into the night before school. This Labour government will act. These reforms will deliver the national renewal that our country

**** Possible New Speaker ****

needs. Before I put the question, it's a shame that the Burnley Summer a shame that the Burnley Summer school have left. Of course, the Minister will want to be careful about use of the word hypocrisy in the chamber. The question is, as on the chamber. The question is, as on the Order Paper, As many as of that opinion say aye. I of the contrary. opinion say aye. I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it.

I will allow a few moments for the front benches to swap over.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Sorry, I didn't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Sorry, I didn't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

realise. Thank you very much. We now come to the opposition

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We now come to the opposition day motion on early release of prisoners. I inform the House that prisoners. I inform the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment. I call the Shadow Secretary of State to move the motion. Nick. Timothy.
16:01
16:01
Nick Timothy Portrait Opposition Day Debate: Early release of prisoners Nick Timothy MP (West Suffolk, Conservative)
-
-
Democrats voted against our amendments to exclude them from the early release scheme. Thanks to early release scheme. Thanks to those Labour and Lib Dem votes, some of those released may be convicted members of the rape gangs. Our position remains clear, Madam Deputy Speaker, not one of these Deputy Speaker, not one of these dangerous, disgusting people should ever have been included in Labour's ever have been included in Labour's early release scheme. And it seems the next leader of the Labour Party, the next Prime Minister, disagrees with the Justice Secretary and sentencing Minister and agrees with us, his people told the Sunday Times he wants to prevent child sex offenders walking free.

His advisers, they say, are working on primary legislation. But they also say with the right hon. Member for Makerfield not taking office before the summer recess, they might not be able to act in time. And this is what's very strange about this dangerous moment. We have a Prime Minister squatting in Downing Street, holding on until the World Cup final, recording videos in empty rooms about his achievements and legacy, pretending he'll intervene to overturn Gerald Cranston's red card with no mandate, no purpose and no authority.

And we have the next Prime Minister, indeed the only candidate to become Prime Minister, saying he disagrees with what the government is due to lead will do this September, but he lacks the time or the power to do anything about it. That is pathetic. The House is sitting this week and next before the summer recess, and there is plenty of time to act. The government could amend the Sentencing Act and exclude rapists and child sex offenders in emergency legislation.

It could lay new commencement regulations, delaying the introduction of the early release scheme, and give the new Prime Minister enough time to get his act together. We've invited the government to do these things. In the motion we laid before the House today, and we understand the government will not contest the motion after voting for the Sentencing Act and against our amendment to exclude sex offenders from the early release scheme today, they have folded, but they still cannot tell us the plan.

Will they bring forward emergency legislation? Will they bring forward new commencement regulations? Should we know these Ministers are in office but not in power? So will the right hon. Member for Makerfield tell us and tell the victims of these criminals what is going to happen? Madam Deputy Speaker, we should remember how we got here, for this is an ideologically anti prison government, and many of its policies look likely to continue under the new Prime Minister. The sentencing Minister is chuntering from his sedentary position.

I understand why he's anxious, because I've seen the tweets that he sent about the right hon. Member for Makerfield. I'm sure the next Prime Minister has too. I think he said he was. He said he was going to be worse than Jeremy Corbyn and had the political antenna of a of a dead cat.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, Sam, the hon. Member for Islington North, Nick Timothy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you for correcting me. Madam Deputy Speaker, I was I was quoting the tweets. So exactly. I quoting the tweets. So exactly. I forgot my my responsibilities. As I was saying. So this is an was saying. So this is an ideologically anti prison government. And many of the policies look likely to continue policies look likely to continue under the new Prime Minister. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Calls this side and anti government. We had 14 years of conservative government with a net conservative government with a net increase of 500 places. The very First Division, post King's speech in this Parliament. I remember voting to deal with that problem when we had to vote to actually to reduce sentencing time to deal with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that mess, otherwise the criminal justice system would have collapsed. Does he not agree, Nick? Timothy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Timothy. I think the hon. Gentleman would do well to not take the whip's questions when the whips have just given up in face of the wall of opinion in the Labour parliamentary party and and having given and having given ground in this debate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

today, the Prime Minister says I will give way. I thank my friend for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my friend for. Giving way. Does he agree with me that those early votes of the the member opposite referred to the member opposite referred to were actually a Trojan horse to allow sex offenders to now be released in those schemes? And actually, that's why we've come to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

actually, that's why we've come to the House to make sure we protect the British public. Yeah. I completely agree with my hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. And what I was gently trying to say to the member opposite was that if the argument is still that this government needs to let sex offenders out of prison because of a capacity problem, they're about to be embarrassed by the policy that's about to be introduced by the new Prime Minister. He agrees with us, but not with the hon. Member. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My friend, for giving way as he considers the evolution of this side of the House justice policy. I wonder if he might give wonder if he might give consideration to removing the need for either expansion or development for either expansion or development of new prisons to be taken out of the ordinary planning arena, as once it used to be. These should be once it used to be. These should be viewed as elements of critical infrastructure, and our sentencing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and detention policy should not be dictated merely by the availability of square footage. Nick Timothy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I completely agree with my right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. It is the case that over a period of time, the over a period of time, the construction of prisons has become needlessly expensive, needlessly time consuming. That's something that prisons have in common with other critical infrastructure in our country. And as we come forward with our plans to increase the capacity of our system, we will definitely be looking at those barriers. So. So I agree with my with my hon.

Friend. The prisons Minister says only a third of prisoners should be locked up. The sentencing Minister says a pretty big chunk of the prison population should not be there. They've legislated to get rid of short term sentences, effectively decriminalizing shoplifting and many knife crimes. They want to reduce sentences for criminals based on their age. And with this government, unsurprisingly, their identity. And for some, they want to scrap custodial punishments altogether. They want to increase the age of criminal responsibility to 14.

So criminals like the killers of Jamie Bulger and one of the Fordingbridge Bridge gang rapists can avoid criminal trials. They even want to weaken sentences

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for some murderers. I will give way. I thank the shadow Minister for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the shadow Minister for giving way further to the point that my hon. Friend meant that the last conservative government last conservative government granted early release, largely in secret, to more than 10,000 prisoners, including domestic abusers and those that posed a risk to children without appropriate safeguards in already in place and then called a general election when the prisons were full. Can he understand why we will not take any lectures on criminal justice on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this side of the House from then? Thank you. Timothy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Timothy. The hon. Gentleman resembles one of those Japanese soldiers who were of those Japanese soldiers who were still fighting in the Second World War found in 1950. The whips have given up on this debate. The Labour Party has given up on this debate, Party has given up on this debate, and he is still reading out the planted questions given to him by the whips earlier today, before the whips earlier today, before they bottled it and folded in this debate.

I will be happy to give way again if he wants to keep on this argument, but he's chuntering from a sedentary position. And of course, the very first action of this Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras, if you can keep up, was to announce he would let tens of thousands of hardened criminals out of prison early between September 24th and December 25th. Under the STS 40 scheme, more than 5000 prisoners were let out early. It's no surprise, as prison governors have been lining up to tell the government that in this rush to let criminals out, more prisoners have been released in error than at any time on record.

And it's no surprise that prisoners are finding it harder to make sure released prisoners have a plan for housing and for work. But that's not the only mess caused by this reckless policy. We know prisoner recalls are at a record high. In fact, more criminals have been recalled to prison than released under SDS 40. But Ministers refused to tell us how many recalled prisoners were let loose through early release. Now they're going further under the Sentencing Act 2026, an SDS 33 thousands of prisoners prisoners will be let out after serving just one third of their time.

More than 7000 victims have received letters telling them the perpetrators of the crimes against them may be set loose. No wonder the Justice Secretary is hiding today in his ministerial office, rather than defending his record or the policy that has now been abandoned in January, as this House considered Lords amendments to the then Sentencing Bill, the sentencing Minister told the House this is a quote. Nothing in the bill changes sentences for prisoners convicted of the most serious heinous crimes. We all knew that that was nonsense because when we tabled amendments to exclude SDS 33 exclude from SDS 33 those convicted of the most serious offences rape, sex offences, child sex offences and more.

The government whipped its MPs to vote against us. This would all be bad enough on its own terms, but it's clear that the government has completely lost control of the process for early release. They don't even know who is scheduled to be released or when. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle asked Ministers to break down which offenders would be released when, and to disclose what crimes they had committed, the sentencing Minister told the House this is another quote.

It's not possible to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

know future release data precisely so far in advance. One of my. I will happily give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will happily give way. There is, of course. Perpetual uncertainty about this,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Perpetual uncertainty about this, as my hon. Friend describes. But at the heart of it is the distance the heart of it is the distance between popular expectations of what criminal justice should deliver and what the government is deliver and what the government is now putting into place. I don't say this began with this government. By the way. I think there is a a more fundamental existential problem. But at the end, every time governments do this kind of thing, people lose faith in the justice of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

criminal justice. I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend, and I thank him for hon. Friend, and I thank him for his intervention. I think the statistics show that between 1993 statistics show that between 1993 and 2012, our prison population grew very, very significantly. And through that period crime fell. It through that period crime fell. It plateaued after 2012, 2012 as the population grew. And I think that was a mistake. And we on our side of the House, I think, are willing to accept that.

That was one of the errors of of the of the coalition government and, and the conservative time in power. And we need to move on from that. And we will develop policies so that a future conservative government can build the prison capacity that the country needs. So I thank my right hon. Friend, I will I will give him.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A similar theme that the public expect. What left Liberals may not like but remains the case like but remains the case nevertheless, and that is for the criminal justice system to exact retribution on those that have retribution on those that have offended against society. If we don't do that, then individuals may don't do that, then individuals may wish to take the law into their own hands, and we don't do that in a civilised country. We expect the civilised country.

We expect the state to do that on behalf of society. Does not agree with me that in constantly diminishing the sentences we hand down to to serious and dangerous offenders, society may begin to lose faith with the government that they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

expect to be doing this work on their behalf. Thank you Timothy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. I agree prison works and it works because it punishes and it works because it punishes the guilty and it gives justice to the innocent, but it takes dangerous people out of circulation and away from the rest of society, and away from the rest of society, and in doing so, reduces crime. This is a matter of common sense for most people in the country, but is a deeply controversial thing to say. Among many criminal criminologists and policy wonks.

I'm. I am very clear in my belief that prison works, and we need to use prison far more than we do. Only last week, when my hon. Friend asked the Minister to guarantee that convicted rape gang members would serve their sentences properly, he refused to do so. Lord Simpson, speaking for the government on channel four, went even further. He said it's this is another quote. It's impossible for us to say exactly who will be released, where and when. Madam Deputy Speaker, the first 700 released prisoners are due to walk free on the 2nd of September, and more will follow every month

**** Possible New Speaker ****

thereafter, so I will, I will. Grateful to my hon. Friend and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful to my hon. Friend and view of what he's just said, our constituents on both sides of the House just want a clear undertaking House just want a clear undertaking that dangerous criminals, rapists and others will not be set free. The government's obviously dug The government's obviously dug itself into a hole they've thrown in the towel this afternoon is my hon. Friend in a position to say very clearly, both in this chamber and for the benefit of those outside that, we have a limited amount of time left in this session before the summer recess.

But on this side of the House, we are willing to throw our weight in behind the government if they will take the necessary amendments to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

win the time that they need to get this right. Timothy. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I completely agree, and I'm happy to say that, yes, if the government to say that, yes, if the government wants to bring forward emergency legislation to fix this in primary legislation, if it wants to buy legislation, if it wants to buy itself a little more time to consider things more fully by introducing new commencement introducing new commencement regulations and delaying the introduction of the early release scheme, of course, the opposition will completely support them in doing that.

But for now, as I was saying, we don't know. The government isn't in a position to tell us who's going to be released, what crimes they committed and when exactly they will. So when will Ministers know the identity and what crimes have been committed by those due to be released? Are we to wait until they've reoffended and the details emerge as they are arrested, charged and prosecuted all over again? Is the cost of this ineptitude yet more crime, yet more victims of crime and yet more lives ruined a government that cannot tell the public who it's releasing from prison has no business releasing any of these dangerous criminals.

Today, the government has caved under conservative pressure, but we still don't know what the policy will be. We have a Minister here unable to answer. A political eunuch humiliated by his current boss, the justice secretary, and his next boss. If he gets a job left with nothing to say but wait for Andy. Madam Deputy Speaker, the approach of Ministers to all these concerns, very legitimate concerns shared by people up and down the country has been to say that there's nothing to see here.

They still tell us it's all going to be fine, but they haven't had the nerve to ask their MPs to vote on it. They say the criminals they release early will be. This is another quote will be managed under strict licence conditions and can be recalled if those conditions are breached, as though this is some kind of special new initiative. Of course they're released under licence, but the government refuses to say what these conditions will entail, whether their new conditions or tougher conditions, what safeguards are in place, and what resources will be deployed to ensure these criminals don't reoffend or disappear from the radar if they won't even tell us how many prisoners were released under SDS, 40 have been recalled to prison.

How can we trust them with what they say about SDS 33? If I will give one?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm a little puzzled by. This excuse. That they can always. Be.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Be. Recalled if they breach the terms, because. Presumably if they breach the terms, that means breach the terms, that means there's been a fresh victim of a there's been a fresh victim of a crime. And so otherwise it's rather it's rather pointless to see what it's rather pointless to see what reassurance this is giving. But what I'd really like to ask my hon. Friend is this does he know what proportion of the prison population is made up of serious, sexual or other serious offenders? Because I can't believe that it's such a high proportion that even if the prison system were utterly full up, they couldn't release someone else.

Rather than releasing such serious

**** Possible New Speaker ****

criminals. Exactly. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think my hon. Friend puts his I think my hon. Friend puts his finger on the button, and this is something we've been saying the government has been saying in government has been saying in response to us that, no, this is absolutely necessary. We must absolutely necessary. We must release these serious sex offenders, otherwise there will be a crisis in the prison system. But it's clear the prison system. But it's clear that the right hon.

Member for Makerfield, the next Prime Minister, agrees with us and not with them, which is why they folded in this debate and this speech this afternoon. And and I feel very sorry for the Minister that he's been put in this position. It's one man, two guvnors, and and he's in a very he's in a very difficult position. Of course, it's possible, even if you accept. We need to have an early release scheme of the kind that the government is introducing to exclude the kinds of offenders that my hon.

Friend just described, and if they're releasing, as I was saying, if they're releasing record numbers of prisoners in error, how can we trust the government to get these processes right? Madam Deputy Speaker, it's easy for debates like this to be lost in statistics, technocratic jargon and legal language. So I would like to end on this important note. Fiona Goddard was just 14 when she was abused by a rape gang. Seven of her abusers were convicted. In June last year, Fiona received a letter from the Ministry of Justice informing her that her abusers were likely to be eligible soon for early release, having served just half their sentences.

Last month, she received another letter saying Under the Government's Sentencing Act, her abusers may now be released after serving just one third of the time. She was told they would serve in prison. Originally, Fiona and several other victims Sarah Wilson from Rotherham, Carly and Jessica from Huddersfield, Erin from Dewsbury and the mother of a victim who has since died from Rochdale, have written to all of us, all members of the House, several of those brave women and some others are in the gallery with us today and they've asked us in their words, to, quote, hear the pain behind their letter, support an amendment to the Sentencing Act and exclude sex offenders from the early release scheme.

We can only imagine the suffering and the torment these women have experienced to be told that those who abused them over many years may now be back on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

streets long before they were supposed to be. It's not just disgusting. It's terrifying to them. Absolutely.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Absolutely. Yes. Madam Deputy Speaker, it's shameful that the Justice Secretary has refused to come to the House has refused to come to the House today, and it's ridiculous that the government has bowed to our argument and accepted our motion without telling us all victims what without telling us all victims what it plans to do. Instead, victims are left in limbo. Are we going to are left in limbo. Are we going to get emergency legislation? Are we going to get a new commencement regulations? Which offences will be excluded from the early release scheme and how is this possible? When Ministers previously said it wasn't, the Minister is about to take to his feet, but I'm afraid he has no authority and no idea what's going to happen next.

This dying government needs to be put out of its misery, and we need answers, not evasion, from the only person who can actually answer. And that's the right hon. Member for Makerfield.
16:23
Jake Richards Portrait Jake Richards MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Rother Valley, Labour)
-
-
The question is, as on the Order Paper, Minister Jake Richards. Paper, Minister Jake Richards. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Shadow Justice Secretary for his opening remarks. This is a profoundly serious matter to all members in this place, to victims across the country, and indeed, all members of the public and the victims that are in the chamber today. Confidence in our law and order systems must be maintained, and we must all therefore recognise that we, as a country face a challenge to ensure public safety, to protect victims whilst maintaining a functioning prison estate.

I have no doubt, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this is a priority for us all. To begin, it is imperative to recognise the genesis of the Sentencing Act 2026 and its implementation provisions, and ultimately, why we are here today debating these issues. Madam Deputy Speaker, On the 5th of July 2024, the Home Secretary entered her first day in office as the Justice Secretary and was presented immediately with a criminal justice system in crisis. There were fewer than 100 places left in the adult male estate a day.

One decision for her was the nature and scope of an emergency release scheme, not whether there should be one. We all remember the chaotic scenes we saw in the weeks afterwards. There were similar scenes when such last minute release schemes were implemented by the last government. Judges were told to not jail the most serious offenders due to a lack of prison places. Criminals walking away with a lack of time to provide the most robust community measures. The party opposite itself released more than 10,000 prisoners early for a series of emergency measures taken to manage the capacity crisis they created.

Those schemes were introduced at short notice. Madam Deputy Speaker, without the long term reforms necessary to put the system on a sustainable footing, but there was no option but to act in order to prevent a collapse of the criminal justice system, which would have seen sex offenders and others able to act with impunity. Madam Deputy Speaker, a prison capacity crisis is not just a problem for our prisons. It means the unravelling of the criminal justice system completely. Courts unable to hear cases, police unable to make arrests, the grinding halt of law and order in our country.

So in the aftermath, the government rightly wanted to ensure this would never happen again. The Home Secretary, then Justice Secretary, commissioned the Right Honourable David Gauke to undertake an urgent review of how we sentence offenders. Upon its conclusion, Gauke found that under the previous administration, it was only when the criminal justice system was in three days of collapse that action was taken. We recognise then that a two pronged approach was required. One was to build more prisons backed by capital investment.

That is how we have been able to embark upon the biggest prison building programme since the Victorian era, 14,000 new prison places by 2031, 3200 places already delivered two years into this government. Contrast that with just 500 extra places over 14 years under the party opposite. In the 14 years of conservative government, 23 prisons were closed, 23 prisons were closed. We would not be here having this debate if those decisions were not taken.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Gentleman is right. Prisons were closed. That might have been kept open, in my view. Has he looked at those prisons to Has he looked at those prisons to see if any of them can be brought back into quick use, because clearly that's much faster than building new prisons. As he looked to other secure facilities that might be used as prisons during might be used as prisons during Covid, Deputy Speaker, The government acted quickly. It passed laws. It put Nightingale hospitals laws.

It put Nightingale hospitals into place. Why can't we have emergency prison places rather than letting these dangerous people on our streets to do more harm?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's intervention. He's been consistent on this. We don't agree on anything, on don't agree on anything, on everything. When it comes to criminal justice matters. The government has looked at all options, whether those prisons that options, whether those prisons that were closed by the last conservative government. We've looked at what we can do to reopen them. I was struck, actually, by the Shadow Justice Secretary's welcoming of the suggestion there should be new planning reforms around how we build prisons in this around how we build prisons in this country, because every time we try and build a new prison, the conservative MPs constituency, they oppose it.

It's happened time and time again. One thing at the Dispatch Box there, MPs arguing something completely different in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. I'm grateful to the Minister. Look, there are people in the Look, there are people in the gallery today and the public out there who want to know that dangerous criminals are not going dangerous criminals are not going to be released at the start of December, at the start of September. That is what they want to hear. We don't want to hear the history. We want an answer from the Minister. want an answer from the Minister. He's heard the offer from our front bench.

In reply to my question. We are prepared to back the necessary legislation before the recess in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

order to put a stop to this. Is he prepared to take that offer, yes or no? Yes. Madam Deputy Speaker, what we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, what we will not do is put our head in the will not do is put our head in the sand, put our head in the sand, which would lead to another prison capacity crisis, which would lead capacity crisis, which would lead to another urgent, chaotic early release scheme. As we saw under the last conservative government. Time last conservative government. Time and time again, I cannot look victims in the eye and tell them that is good for them or the country, and I will not do so.

And that is why the Home Secretary, when she was Justice Secretary, let me just make some progress. I will give way to the hon. Member. I will give way to hon. Member. The Home Secretary recognised that alongside prison building, there would be need to reform sentencing and understood for this to be done above party politics. This is the principal reason why she asked Sir David Gauke, a former conservative justice secretary, to undertake an independent sentencing review. Some of the members opposite still think he's a great man.

I don't think that's a universal view on the opposition benches. Following the publication of the review, the Sentencing Act began its passage through Parliament and received royal assent on the 22nd of January this year. It was explained during its passage that many of its provisions would only come into effect in the autumn of this year. Any government would continue to assess how best to achieve sustainability in our prison system, whilst ensuring public safety and confidence in every decision we have taken as a Labour government has been based on keeping the public safe, protecting our criminal justice system and delivering justice for victims that will continue to guide all future decisions under this Prime Minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and the next Prime Minister. Now, yes, I will give way. Yes, I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. But can he not understand that there are people such as my constituent, Leanne Vaughan, whose daughter was Leanne Vaughan, whose daughter was killed by a hooligan driver? They had to wait 28 months before this hooligan driver was sentenced. He hooligan driver was sentenced. He was sentenced to 66 months in prison, was released after 21 months. People out there do not believe what the Minister is saying.

believe what the Minister is saying. It is appalling and there are people really, really heartbroken by the losses, and this government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is not meeting up to their expectations or indeed ours. Minister. I understand I meet with victims

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I understand I meet with victims all the time in my role at the Ministry of Justice. Before being elected to Parliament, I represented many victims of child sexual abuse every day in courts up and down the country. I understand the issues that victims face. Like the issues that victims face. Like his constituents. I would press the his constituents. I would press the right hon. Member that a the Sentencing Act and the provisions that we are debating today have not come into effect, so I'm very happy to speak with him outside the chamber about that individual case, of course.

But just to be aware of the context of this Sentencing Act and the provisions that have been implemented by this government. Madam Speaker, I want to deal briefly with the specific cohort of offenders that are cited in the motion. Madam Deputy Speaker, the grooming gang scandals are and remain one of the gravest betrayals of our time. We are determined to get to the truth behind years of systemic failure on the issue. I am sure the whole House joins me in paying tribute to the victims and survivors who have so bravely spoken out about their ordeal.

I spent the best part, as I said before, of my career before entering Parliament, representing just some of them. I know personally just how difficult it is for them to speak out. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister for giving way. I took part in Rupert Low's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

took part in Rupert Low's independent rape gang inquiry. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yarmouth. Part in the independent rape gang inquiry, meeting victims who had waited such a long time for justice and to see their abusers put behind bars. So what does the put behind bars. So what does the Minister have to say to those victims who received a letter to say their perpetrators are back on the street? Is it that that is a mistake? It isn't going to happen because Ministers had said those who've done the most serious of crimes, the most heinous of crimes, would not be on the street.

So can he take this opportunity to say

**** Possible New Speaker ****

those letters were a mistake? Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm not sure which letter she's referring to because none, none of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to because none, none of the letters that have been sent out by the Ministry of Justice has Referred to people already being released, but I understand the released, but I understand the concerns that she raises. We take our engagement with victims incredibly seriously. The purpose incredibly seriously. The purpose of the letter is not merely for communication. It's also so that victims can have a say in licence victims can have a say in licence conditions for when offenders are released, offenders are released.

As things stand, the Sentencing Act changes that for certain offenders and there is a process in place by which probation ensure that the community is kept safe, with robust licence measures that will continue. We've improved the powers that the probation service have. We've improved the investment in the probation service. £700 million the biggest investment in probation service for a generation. So I understand the right hon. Member's concerns, I really do, but I would gently suggest to her, this isn't a criminals that have been released from prison for a long time.

There are measures in place, and we need to make sure they're as robust as they can be dealing with. Madam Deputy Speaker, I will give way,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

yes. I thank the Minister for giving way, and I think everybody would way, and I think everybody would appreciate some clarity that when we're talking about the letters, it specifically the letters that they specifically the letters that they have received saying that the Sentencing Act is going to affect when their perpetrators are going when their perpetrators are going to be released. And the issue that has been raised by many victims is that these are blanket letters. that these are blanket letters.

They are not personalised. They do not say which perpetrator, they do not say in the letter. It says some will be managed in the community. And these victims have been so failed by our justice system at every step that when they receive a letter like that, they assume that that means that their perpetrator is not going to be managed in the community. So can he please reflect on the the impersonal date letter that gets sent sometimes by email, telling them actually what you thought was true is no longer true.

Your perpetrator may be out sooner

**** Possible New Speaker ****

than you expected. Absolutely. And I think her call

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Absolutely. And I think her call for for us all to reflect on that will be taken. And I sit next to the victims Minister, who I know will hear that, as well as the Justice Secretary himself on the. There will be further correspondence. This was not a blanket correspondence by any means. The government and indeed the The government and indeed the Probation Service want to engage with victims as much as possible to ensure that their voices are heard every step of the way.

But I'm grateful for that intervention. And yes, I will give way to the shadow Justice Secretary.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving way. We've brought this motion to way. We've brought this motion to the House today. The Labour Party has accepted that motion. It's not going to contest it. The House going to contest it. The House won't divide. So having accepted what we've put at put into that motion, can the Minister just tell motion, can the Minister just tell us what the plan is to make sure that rapists and sex offenders are that rapists and sex offenders are not going to be released starting from September? Will the government will the government bring forward emergency legislation before the summer recess? Will it bring forward new commencement regulations? Yes or no? He has our commitment of support.

If he does that, if he's not in a position to say so, because it's up to the right hon. Member for Makerfield and he doesn't yet know. He can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

just say. What's happening. Yes. Madam Deputy Speaker, as happened on numerous occasions happened on numerous occasions under Boris Johnson, under Theresa May, when there were opposition May, when there were opposition days, the government are quite within their own rights to not within their own rights to not divide on the issue. The opposition day is an opposition day. We are. What this government is doing is dealing with the prison capacity dealing with the prison capacity crisis that we inherited.

We are facing a situation where the Sentencing Act measures. If they are not implemented, we will be back where we were in July 2024, in October or November this year. Now, of course, of course, the Sentencing Act received royal assent in January and some of its measures are being implemented from September onwards. And of course, the government will always, always balance making sure we have a sustainable prison system, never going back to the crisis that we saw under the Conservatives, with public safety and with confidence in the system, and that will continue under this Prime Minister and under the next Labour Prime Minister as well.

I will give I'll give.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Greg, Minister, give me a second time. He's very generous and he was very kind. Remarks earlier about my consistency, although he also consistency, although he also mentioned our differences. And I'll explore those in greater detail in due course. For your indulgence, due course. For your indulgence, madam, I wonder if I could be helpful. This does seem to be something that goes well beyond party politics, in the sense that party politics, in the sense that we have a crisis in terms of prison numbers.

It is an occasion where we numbers. It is an occasion where we might find common cause and a way forward. That offer has been very generously made from the opposition front bench. I suspect this Minister is a rather decent man at heart. Perhaps he should take up that offer in the spirit that it's been made, and see if we can sort

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this out in a way that protects all of our constituents from harm. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's kind words. Personally, I would just gently say there is no I would just gently say there is no plan from the opposition party as to how to deal with the prison to how to deal with the prison crisis, that their amendment would have brought about later this year. There is no plan. There is no There is no plan. There is no suggestion. There is no idea of where they would put criminals that we are locking up every day.

By the end of this Parliament, there will be more criminals behind bars than ever before. Under a Labour government, we're building more prisons than since the Victorian era. There's no plan. It's very easy. It's very easy. It's very straightforward to bemoan the changes that are in the Sentencing Act, which received royal assent in January. But you have to come to Parliament, Madam Deputy Speaker, not you. The opposition have to come to Parliament with a credible plan as to capacity. I won't give way another time.

Once prisoners are released, Madam Deputy Speaker, offenders will be subject to strict licence conditions. We are adding tougher restrictions as part of the probation services toolkit for managing offenders when they leave prison. This includes restriction zones that can be used for the most serious sexual and violent offenders, pinning the offender to certain areas rather than restricting the movements of victims. We are ramping up tagging to monitor offenders in the community, with thousands more subject to 24/7 monitoring and curfews. We are already tagging at record levels and will invest a further £100 million to expand our ability to monitor even more offenders.

This is the biggest expansion of tagging in history, while on licence, offenders can be recalled immediately if they cannot be safely managed in the community. To carry out all this additional supervision, we need a probation service that is fighting fit. That's why we're increasing probation. Absolutely, yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Minister for giving way. And whilst I understand what way. And whilst I understand what the Minister is saying about the looming prison crisis, I would just wonder if he could explain to us wonder if he could explain to us how releasing a very dangerous sexual predators and grooming gang sexual predators and grooming gang members actually fits with our manifesto commitment to halve

**** Possible New Speaker ****

violence against women and girls? Well, I understand my hon. Friend's intervention. Let's be clear that many of the offenders that we are talking about have been released previously. We'll continue being released, but for the Sentencing Act, it's about what measures you put in the community to ensure that the community is safe, and that is why we are investing more than ever before in our probation service. It's why we've recruited a further 1300 probation officers this year.

We are refocusing supervision to devote more time to dangerous offenders so that we can better protect the public, and that is ultimately the choice. Madam Deputy Speaker, strict licence conditions in the community for those who've already served time in prison under changes, or, simply put, the collapse of the system altogether, leaving sex offenders and others acting with impunity. Now, Madam Deputy, I understand how distressing this can be for victims when an offender in their case is released. That's why we are taking steps, as I've already touched upon, to contact those eligible for and opted into the Victim contact scheme to let them know how these changes will affect them.

But I recognise this will not cover all victims affected. That is why, through the Victims and Courts Act 2026, we will for the first time provide a new dedicated route for all victims. To request information about an offender, we must make sure we get this right, which is why it's taking some time to implement carefully. But this is proper engagement with victims rather than the chaotic botched emergency release schemes under the last government. Madam Deputy Speaker, I will end again reflecting on the horrific grooming gang scandal which lays heavily on our national conscience.

I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way. I'm very grateful. It's fairly simple question does the Minister simple question does the Minister have a clear idea of what categories he regards as constituting dangerous offenders, and if he does, what percentage of and if he does, what percentage of the prison population is made up of these people? Because if it is these people? Because if it is something like 10 or 15 or 25%, that still means that there are 75% or more of other categories of prisoners who could and should be released before that dangerous category is even considered.

Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of course, sentencing judges always consider dangerousness or risk to the public as probation officers do. Every offender, every officers do. Every offender, every offender, every offender has a level of dangerousness, which is which is a risk assessed by which is a risk assessed by probation as and when they leave prison. That's happened for the last 50, 50 years and will continue last 50, 50 years and will continue to happen under the new Sentencing Act. In order to. Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to end again by reflecting on the horrific grooming gang scandal which lays heavily on our national conscience with the women and girls, often young girls who were systematically raped and exploited and then disbelieved by those who should have protected them.

Those who prey on children must face the full force of the law. But in order to do that, Madam Deputy Speaker, we need a prison system with enough space. The previous government left prisons on the verge of collapse. We prevented the disaster of running out of places altogether, but only just. And the breakdown of law and order. It could. Of course, now we are ensuring that we never return again to that position, building prisons at an exceptional rate and delivering landmark reforms to sentencing to ensure there is always a cell available for the most dangerous offenders and to end

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the cycle of capacity crisis. Liberal Democrat spokesperson Jess Brown Fuller. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I first pay tribute to every victim and survivor of some of the most horrific and vile crimes imaginable, including those who join us in the gallery today? They have waived their right to have waived their right to anonymity and raised their voices so that others do not have to. They're calling for greater They're calling for greater protections for victims who feel consistently failed by the justice system as it stands, and they represent a much larger and often voiceless part of our society.

Those who never came forward, those who did and then didn't receive justice at the end of it. These are the people who spend their lives scanning crowds and looking around street corners, fearful that they
16:44
Jess Brown-Fuller Portrait Jess Brown-Fuller MP (Chichester, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
will bump into their perpetrator or perpetrators again. And I commend them for their bravery and them for their bravery and determination to ensure that nobody else suffers in the way that they else suffers in the way that they have, because the abuse that they have experienced at the hands of cruel and calculating monsters never leaves them and I to share their anger and frustration that their anger and frustration that after countless reviews, reports, inquiries spanning many years and many governments, the system continues to fail them and recommendations remain unimplemented in a properly functioning justice system.

As a matter of principle. And I think this is something we all share. No victim should have to endure being told that their perpetrator is being released earlier than expected for any offence when a sentence is handed down, victims deserve the certainty of knowing where they stand and how long their perpetrator will remain behind bars. In fact, we've heard from victims just today who were reassured by the judges in their cases that their perpetrators will serve a certain length of time, only to then receive this vague letter, which we've been talking about, telling them that may no longer be the case.

And this doesn't happen in any other element of our justice system. When a government introduces a new sentence, a new crime that is not retrospective, the government have come forward with a with a really positive change in upping the level of sentence for women that are killed in their home to reflect that currently it is a lower sentence compared to those that are killed outside of their home. That is not retrospective. But actually the campaigners for that campaign have said we understand that the justice system is not retrospective.

The same should apply when it comes to sentencing after the fact, and these victims are understandably angry about the format format of the letters they've received, which were not personalised and provided no specific information about their cases. It did not provide information about when their perpetrators will be released, and also said, as I mentioned to the Minister, some will be managed in the community. This is naturally going to lead many to fear the worst, that their perpetrators will be free to roam without restriction, because why wouldn't they think that when they've been failed so many times by the system? So the vagueness and ambiguity really needs looking at, and I hope the Minister will take that away so that when the MoJ is is doing these mass communications, that it's worded in a way that doesn't feel so impersonal.

It is worth saying, and it's been said many times before, that the justice system inherited by this government left victims and society more broadly in grave peril. It risked the state convicting criminals of serious offences, but having no space in which to imprison them. A capacity crisis in our prisons would have also left victims and survivors fearful, and it clearly needed to be addressed throughout the Sentencing Bill. Now the Sentencing Act, we remained concerned about the implications for other parts of the justice system, which were already at breaking point, and their ability to absorb the additional strain, the probation system, where staff are already facing ever increasing caseloads without being appropriately resourced, has now been tasked with managing those released earlier than before, as well as those serving community sentences.

Meanwhile, the prison system itself was failing to keep hold of dangerous offenders, in some cases accidentally releasing them and losing track of them altogether. We were also concerned about the implications of the government's proposals for the early release of offenders convicted of extremely serious crimes, including those discussed today. Ministers in both houses reassured us that the most serious offenders would be exempt from these measures, which is clearly not the case, which is why the Liberal Democrats have written to the Deputy Prime Minister and the justice Secretary calling for child sexual offenders, including those convicted of offences connected to grooming gangs, to be exempt from the new early release provisions in the Sentencing Act.

The government have promised the biggest expansion in prison places since the Victorian era, and have delivered on part of that promise by increasing capacity. This new provision should now be used to ensure that child sex offenders serve the same proportion of their sentence as they did previously, giving victims the reassurance that their perpetrators will remain in prison for the period that they were led to expect. At sentencing. Madam Deputy Speaker, we spend the equivalent of just two weeks of the entire welfare bill is the entirety of the justice Budget that covers our courts, prisons and probation service.

This lack of seriousness is why the justice system, often lurching from crisis to crisis. And it is a plague on all our houses. But for the victims and for those in the gallery today, a functioning justice system is everything. It is the difference between being able to move on with their lives and being forever traumatised by a system that fails them. So I ask the Minister today, will he set out how many prisoners currently in the prison estate have been convicted of child sexual offences, including offences connected to child sexual exploitation and grooming gangs, and if there is sufficient capacity within the prison estate to exempt those offenders from the early release scheme, will he do so? And finally, what measures will this government bring forward to restore confidence among all victims, including those who never came forward to report abuse or who were afraid to do so because they feared that they would not be believed?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Because we as a whole house have to do better. Brian Lishman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Brian Lishman. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is right, firstly, to acknowledge the firstly, to acknowledge the condition of our prison estate and the issues with capacity and the the issues with capacity and the impact it all has on our overall criminal justice system. I criminal justice system. I associate myself with the Justice Minister's comments on all of that from earlier, and I want to say early on in my contribution, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am not going to get involved in a political tit for tat on who did what or who didn't do something when they were in power.

This is far too serious an issue for people, and to sink to political point scoring leaves a bad taste in my mouth and does no one any good whatsoever. People convicted of sexual abuse against an adult or child of rape, grooming,
16:50
16:50
16:51
Brian Leishman Portrait Brian Leishman MP (Alloa and Grangemouth, Labour)
-
-
early. That is not a left wing or a right wing political debate. It really is just what is just and really is just what is just and right for survivors and looking closer to home in my constituency. closer to home in my constituency. The statistics in Clackmannanshire show that it is the most dangerous place in Scotland for women and a young girl to grow up in and in my constituency. I've been fortunate enough to visit support groups, mental health organisations and volunteers, and I've heard from women and also from men who have survived rape, sexual abuse and other indescribable things to happen to them.

And they may be at home watching this debate, and people here in the gallery also will be looking at the discourse in this debate and what should be at the front of all our contributions is the welfare of survivors, because I've heard from survivors, and many tell me that they feel like an afterthought when it comes to receiving justice, and it is not right that they should live in fear and terror, that the person who committed the offence could be released early.

Survivors must matter. Above all else, convicted sex offenders should serve the entirety of their sentence, and I urge the government to adopt that and reflect on what my hon. Friend my hon. Member for Liverpool

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wavertree, said in her earlier intervention here. Sir John Hayes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sir John Hayes. Thank you. Mika D'israeli, the great Conservative Prime Minister, said Conservative Prime Minister, said justice is truth in action, and when criminal justice deviates from when criminal justice deviates from what the public see as the truth, what the public see as the truth, the faith in its delivery is undermined. People want to see the justice is done and seen to be done, and the punishments for wickedness are dealt with appropriately. Now, I do take a different view from the Minister about the character of a retributive approach to criminal justice.

I do think that retribution is an important part of satisfying a legitimate public thirst for appropriateness. That is
16:53
John Hayes Portrait Rt Hon Sir John Hayes MP (South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
-
-
to say that when something awful is done, people expect the person who done, people expect the person who has been responsible for that horror to be treated accordingly. horror to be treated accordingly. They don't take the view, which has prevailed for successive decades, affecting all kinds of governments that we should, in the first place, that we should, in the first place, treat the criminal as though suffering from an illness. The treatment approach has dominated thinking on criminal justice for most of my lifetime.

The out of turn and out of tune with popular sentiment. The truth is that crime is not an illness to be treated. It's a perverse choice by those seeking to gain from it. That might be financial or, in the case of sexual crime, about lust. And when we speak of wickedness, let's be straightforward. These kind of instincts have been endemic in humankind since we fell from the state of grace. And so we shouldn't assume that people aren't capable of the worst horrors.

All of human history shows that they are. And when that occurs, people expect those who exercise power to deal with it emphatically and without fear or favour. We need a criminal justice system that defends the innocent and punishes the guilty. And I make no apologies in making a case for punishment. People should be punished when they do awful, wicked things. And so I want to see many more people locked up for much longer. And I don't think I'm out of turn with or out of tune, as I put it earlier with my constituents, because I think they would say exactly the same.

Well, we actually have is public policy, which is taking us in the exact in exactly the opposite direction. We're seeing people sentenced and as though that sentence is meaningless, them serving half of it. What is the purpose of a judge agreeing a sentence when the victims of the crime know that the person responsible for it will only serve half the time that the judge insists is necessary for punishment to be done. Early release is going to not just affect minor criminals.

We've heard from across the chamber that it will be applied to people of all kinds and types. And when my right hon. Friend asked for clarification about numbers, answer was there none. So we don't actually know how many people of those are going to be released remarkably early. Are are likely to pose a considerable danger to my constituents and the Ministers and my right hon. Friends, I think that the least the Minister who I was not generous, I think, accurate in describing as a decent man, owes it when before this debate concludes and he can get a message sent to him from on high, by which I mean the box over there, not from God to to, to be precise, about the number of people in each of the categories that have been described today that were released early, how many convicted of manslaughter, how many child sexual offenders, how many rapists will now be on the streets as a result of this policy? Now the Ministers come to the House and said, this is a matter of practicality.

It's a matter of practicalities. There are insufficient prison places to hold all those there. We know that there are two reasons for that beyond the desire to lock people up. One is the number of foreign national offenders in our prisons. So let's have some clarity about a number of those. They've been deported when the numbers are increasing dramatically, and it isn't what the impediments are to them returning to the country of origin. And secondly, we know secondly, we know there are large numbers of prisoners on remand because the throughputs of the courts is insufficient.

How many people are on remand? How long have they been in prison, and what steps the government are going to take to improve the throughput in our court system that allows fewer of those people to be clogging up our prisons? Because we have to assume that some of them are innocent. Not everyone that's on remand is will later be found to be guilty. So there may be innocent people in prison, whereas we're going to let guilty people and we know, be guilty because they've already been sentenced free.

That seems to me to be. I seem to me to be entirely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

appropriate. I'm always happy to give way to the hon. Lady. I thank the hon. Member. For giving way. Speaking very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For giving way. Speaking very eloquently. The British people believe in a simple principle. If you do the crime, you should do the time. We in Northern Ireland, unfortunately, have witnessed the early release of prisoners and the early release of prisoners and the impact that it has on victims and the retraumatisation of victims under the Good Friday Agreement. I under the Good Friday Agreement. I agree with his point totally. When we speak about capacity, would we not all agree that the airport is where foreign nationals should be,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not the high street when it's going to retraumatize victims? I. Well, the hon. Lady, not for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. Well, the hon. Lady, not for the first time has brought both insight and character to our to our insight and character to our to our consideration. She has been consistent in raising this issue in the House. I've heard her raise it before and from her experience in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. By Northern Ireland and elsewhere. By the way, we know what the effects of early release are. Many of the people released early will go on to commit other crimes.

When looking at those figures, it really is quite shocking. Official data shows that 872 notifications of serious further offences committed by release prisoners in 2020 425, including 56 murders and 107 rapes. You know, when I, as I do from time to time, make the case for capital punishment as a sentence available, of course, for the worst possible crimes. I'm told we couldn't possibly do that because we might make mistakes. What we know, of course, is that many people who have committed murder and subsequently released and murdered again, and some of the people who are about to release will commit awful, horrible crimes.

So not only will victims be traumatised by fear, the reality of those of those crimes that are almost bound to be committed by these people, notwithstanding the efforts of the probation service, notwithstanding, the efforts of the police will be in the hands on the hands of the Minister. I don't think he wants that. I don't think he could possibly defend that to his constituents. I don't think any member of this chamber would be comfortable with the idea that a decision taken here might have that effect.

So I implore the Minister, as I did earlier, to speak to the shadow Minister, to see if the House can come together to find a solution to this problem. I know it's not straightforward. I know other governments have wrestled with it, but nonetheless, this surely stretches beyond the party divide to something which we can all. Use our endeavours and our imagination to try to. So now I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will happily give way to. Hon. Lady. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He's been very generous. Would he agree with me that this House is he agree with me that this House is at its best when we put aside party politics? As my hon. Friend referred to in his speech earlier, referred to in his speech earlier, and we do owe it to all our constituents and the country as a whole to come together and find a whole to come together and find a solution to this problem, which is not beyond the wit of man.

Within this, the scope of this house.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We are here. Hon. Lady, of course. Right. Madam Speaker, if you allow me to Madam Speaker, if you allow me to digress just for a moment, I'm often asked by constituents. I imagine other hon. Members are asked the same question. How on earth do you get on with people on the other side? And I often respond by saying, actually, I get on with the people on the other side just as well as I do with people on my own side.

When we come together to fight a battle, to take up a campaign to defend a cause which we believe is right and good, no party has a monopoly of wisdom. No government gets everything right. Governments make mistakes, parties make mistakes. And when we're big enough to acknowledge that publicly, we grow in respect. We're not diminished by it. And I think the hon. Lady has grown today by her suggestion, and I hope the Minister will grow too, when he accepts it. mum.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I think we're going to be in a bizarre situation where actually the House is going to come together. the House is going to come together. It's going to express a view, as I understand it, unopposed, about what we should be doing about this. But before we've even done that, But before we've even done that, the Minister has indicated from the despatch box that that's immaterial and not going to make a difference.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and not going to make a difference. Well, can I can I just say, before I deal with that directly, before I deal with that directly, that my hon. Friend, in championing the address of victims, has done my side of the House proud, but actually the whole house proud. He has a remarkable record of standing up for victims. He's met victims groups, he's formed a connection with them which is encouraged their trust and rightly so. And and so I always take his interventions on these subjects very seriously.

He's right. There is space here. There is an opportunity to have a mature discussion about not where we come from. That is pointless, as I think an earlier contribution made clear. But where we go to from here, and there are ways in which we could address this, which will avoid letting the most dangerous

**** Possible New Speaker ****

criminals on the streets. My friend, for giving way. If

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My friend, for giving way. If this is an issue, as we've heard of practicalities, isn't one of the areas where one assumes there could be common ground is the withdrawal of visas from those countries that of visas from those countries that will not take back their offenders.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will not take back their offenders. In order to release pressure on the need to release as many prisoners as is currently projected. Well, my right hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friend is right. I mean, the figures are stark. 1 in 8 prisoners are foreign nationals taking up valuable prison space. I look at valuable prison space. I look at the numbers earlier, 10,376 foreign national criminals in our prisons. As we stand here today, representing around 12% of the total prison population and costing total prison population and costing almost £650 million a year. So absolutely, we should address the issue. My right hon. Friend raises and look at those countries who either won't take a back offenders or who whether obstacles that might be overcome for them to do so.

So that would relieve prison space and perhaps provide a way of the government confirming that they won't be letting violent offenders trialled rumours, sexual offenders

**** Possible New Speaker ****

onto our streets. I, I. I'm sorry to have to leave at this point, but on the basis of consensus, which I think actually consensus, which I think actually exists in the House this afternoon, and particularly in the light of what the hon. Lady says. Yeah. By my reckoning, we've got five maximum six working days left maximum six working days left between now and the summer recess. And some potentially dangerous And some potentially dangerous people are likely to be released in September.

We can use the time that we've got working with the government on the basis of the offer made to get whatever is necessary onto the statute book in the short term to address this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

issue. Well, we then deal with the longer term issue, am I right? We are right.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We are right. Sorry, I'm right, and we are perfectly entitled to make that perfectly entitled to make that request of government. As my my friend has, in eloquent terms, it friend has, in eloquent terms, it does seem to me that the plan to does seem to me that the plan to release up to 6000 criminals in September needs to be stored so we can think again. And there is a good argument for removing from that list sex offenders, rapists, those guilty of manslaughter, and those involved in grooming children.

I think that's the least that could be done. I think the opportunity is is there to do it. And I think my the fact that the member as senior as my right hon. Friend, if I may say so, has made that suggestion in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

itself should carry significant, significant weight. Am I right?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Am I right? I'd be happy to for that. I'm grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Does he recall that when the government put forward its proposals, it said that the most serious and heinous crimes the most serious and heinous crimes would not be affected by that scheme? And the reason that we're in this position now is that in this position now is that statements made from the despatch box were, to put it mildly, inaccurate and in fact very serious and very heinous.

Criminals will be released in September, unless, as my right hon. Friend suggests, this scheme is paused and paused. It

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should be well. The. The Sentencing Act, as my hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Sentencing Act, as my hon. Friend will know. Facilitated early Friend will know. Facilitated early release, and we asked then, did we not, for clarity about what that not, for clarity about what that meant in the terms he described, what kind of criminals would be what kind of criminals would be released, what damage might they do? What assessment have been made of the risk of this policy? It's not as if the government weren't pressed on all of those things, but there has been remarkable, a remarkable lack of clarity.

The Prime Minister said, for example, and I quote, it is impossible to say who will be released where and when will. You can't, frankly, get less clarity than that, can you, Madam Deputy Speaker? So really, we do need now to know that more innocent people will not be put at risk. And at the very least we should do is to deal with this issue of serious sexual offenders and in particular, those responsible for abusing children.

I make no apology for for quoting a particular case. Shabbir Ahmed, the Pakistani ringleader of the Rochdale grooming gang, was freed despite warnings that he was, quote, unsafe to release into the community. The grooming gang ringleader was jailed for 22 years for 30 child rape offences and was deemed unsafe to release into community parole, documents reveal. This included his belief and I quote, that it was acceptable to sexually abuse children. That is a chilling thought and I know that decent people across this House, as well as across this country, will be shocked by it.

A woman groomed and raped as a child by a friend of her family, as appeared as appeal to the government to abandon its plans to free him nearly two years early, Jade Belgrave waived her anonymity, described the government's early release scheme as, quote, an absolute disgrace. Her case highlights how women and children are at risk from rapists and sex offenders. Freed early, she was raped aged 14. Madam Deputy Speaker, she deserves justice. If justice is truth in action, as Disraeli said, I do differ with the Minister about the purpose of criminal justice.

I do believe the treatment perspective, which has dominated for a very long time, needs to be challenged. I do believe in just retribution as the core of how we deal with the wickedness outlined earlier, but let's put all of that to one side. Those are issues of principle. There may be differences between us in respect of principle, but the Minister came here not with the advocacy of principle. He didn't say we're doing this because of some high minded view about how we should deal with crime, he said.

We're doing this because we can do nothing else because of practicalities. As he puts it, it is practicalities we're dealing with. Let us look at what can be done to fix that problem and let us do so early, so that before September we found a solution to this. And in doing so, let's broadcast a message from this House today that people need not walk in fear, because dangerous people are going to be released on their street, in their village or town and city, because Parliament has said that cannot be so.

And if we were to do that, public faith in Parliament for just this reason, if it's just for this reason alone, would be a little stronger, a little, a little restored. And it's that request I make in the Minister, because I stand by and for the people, because I was chosen by the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people to do so. Yeah. Robbie Moore, thank you, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Robbie Moore, thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think as we all contribute in this debate, we must remember who is at the heart of remember who is at the heart of this, those victims and survivors who have, let's be honest, seen who have, let's be honest, seen politicians come in and out of their lives ever since those their lives ever since those heinous crimes were first reported, since they first experienced the most darkest of moments, politicians trying to get to solutions.

But here we are today, only hearing two weeks ago that the Bradford district and Keighley would finally form part of the National Grooming Gangs inquiry. And still yet we are debating that core issue that sits at the heart of this, which is trust between those victims and those survivors and the state which continues to let them down. The state national government, of course, but local government and indeed all of those organisations that have safeguarding responsibilities. Now for decades, many of those victims and survivors have fought hard for accountability, for justice and to be heard by the state.

We have had the inquiry produced 22 solid recommendations, but neither government of previous up until the last general election and that of this government, this Labour government to date have put in place all of those recommendations. Why not? I simply ask the Minister, and that feeds into the issue of trust. I will take an intervention.
17:14
Robbie Moore Portrait Robbie Moore MP (Keighley and Ilkley, Conservative)
-
-
I'm grateful. I have a constituent who is an official, a civil servant, who worked in support of that inquiry, the inquiry, and he cannot fathom inquiry, and he cannot fathom having had emotional interviews with so many victims of the crimes that we're discussing today. He cannot fathom why governments have not yet fully implemented those recommendations. Does he share that frustration?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I absolutely do share that frustration, because the reality of frustration, because the reality of it is, if we are serious about addressing one of the biggest national scandals that this country national scandals that this country has ever faced, that you cannot have a scenario when Professor Alexis Jay produces a detailed report doing a huge amount of outreach in dealing with those individuals that have experienced individuals that have experienced child sexual abuse, produce recommendations, and then for the state to fail in its responsibilities in terms of enacting those recommendations.

And I have long called for all of those recommendations to be put in place in full. But there was a gap where gang rape of those victims and survivors that had experienced child sexual abuse had not been properly looked at. And that's where Baroness Casey did a detailed report coming back to Parliament in June of 2025, recommending that we had that national inquiry. And yet over 18 months later, we are still in a scenario that the Bradford district and Keighley had the announcement that that inquiry is going to be looking at alongside London.

But where else are those victims and survivors across the country being let down? And this is an important point, because the reality of it is if we are not delivering accountability, justice through that inquiry, that has now got three years to report back to government, we are not dealing with the crux of the issue of re-establishing trust between those that have been let down by the state and those where that trust needs to be re-established. Which brings us on to the very heart of what this issue is about, because we are now in a position where the government is considering releasing prisoners early, perpetrators early, that have carried out some of the most horrendous crimes that this country could have imagined.

Those dual nationals that have been released early, and I'm going to use an example in my constituency of Keighley, where just last year there were eight men that were convicted of carrying out gang rape, of which two of those individuals had dual nationality. And two of those individuals were sentenced from being away from court and are now living a life of freedom in Pakistan. And it's common knowledge where they're living, but escaped justice because the courts didn't have the ability or common sense to remove their passports from them during the sentence thing and during their trial.

That is a disgrace and only builds on the scenario that the state is not delivering for those victims and those survivors.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, my friend who's done a heroic job in highlighting the perennial problem in his area and beyond it, the reticence to beyond it, the reticence to acknowledge that the grooming gangs were run by largely men of were run by largely men of Pakistani origin is exacerbated when those very people, once caught when those very people, once caught and convicted, are released early. The lack of faith that was bound to come from that reluctance is now going to be exaggerated, doubled

**** Possible New Speaker ****

when these people are let out of prison where they ought to stay, probably forever. And I absolutely agree with my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend, because it brings me on to a point that I will brings me on to a point that I will read in a moment or two some of the absolute feelings and frustrations from those many victims and from those many victims and survivors that have a huge level of anxiety and fear that their perpetrators will be released early, perpetrators will be released early, because the reality of it is the sentencing that is getting given out to those perpetrators is nowhere near long enough.

Many of those victims and survivors are having to serve sentences concurrently, and it was the exact case of those perpetrators that had carried out gang rape in my constituency of Keighley decades ago, where awarded sentences to be served concurrently, and I had to challenge the attorney general to call those cases in under the undue leniency scheme so that those sentences could be longer. And I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend, that this should be life. Those that carry out these heinous crimes should not face weak sentences of up to six years, eight years, sometimes much less than that.

It should be life. And then for these victims and survivors to receive a very standardized letter, not personalized at all, to give them a level of fear that their perpetrators may be released onto the streets early, is a shame of this government. And I've read those letters. And for the first paragraph to open up and say these changes have been introduced with the aim of improving the effectiveness of sentencing and better managing offenders in the community.

What a load of absolute cold, heart cold heartedness and an absolute outrage from the government in terms of releasing that narrative to those victims and survivors. And I want to understand from the Minister who on earth signed those letters off that has gone out to all of those perpetrators and those survivors deeply worried about those perpetrators. And, Madam Deputy Speaker, if it isn't too much to trouble this House, I'm going to take some time to read out how those victims and survivors are feeling, and they are up in the gallery right now, and I was lucky enough to meet with them early today, and I would like to put on record my absolute admiration for both Amy Chaudry and David Greenwood from.

Who have worked with many of those victims and survivors for over decades from Rotherham, Rochdale, from Telford, from across the wider Bradford district. In making sure that justice is delivered now, Sarah Wilson was just 11 years old when her exploitation began in Rotherham. She was a little girl forced to undergo a virginity test and on the same day her innocence was stolen from her four years. For years she was raped and trafficked up and down the country by countless men.

She fought long and hard for 11 years for the little girl that she once was, and over two years she endured three criminal trials under Operation Stovewood. Those trials have now resulted in 125 years of justice against seven men. But how does that make Sarah feel? And I quote, she feels that her hard work fighting for that little girl I used to be has been thrown back in my face like it was all for nothing. And it seems like that has been a huge slap on the wrist.

And the fact that they are allowed out to re-offend. I am scared that in a couple of years I could potentially see some of my perpetrators back on the same streets they abused me on, and I'm scared of the repercussions that these men will finally be free to walk our streets. This is just the wording of Sarah on the back of receiving one of these letters, and I will continue to read these out, because I think it's important that the Minister, the government and the Justice Secretary understand the anxiety that this has caused.

Now, Erin, not her real name, was exposed to child sexual exploitation in the Kirklees area between the age of 12 and 21. Now she was the subject of abuse by older Asian Pakistani men, many of whom were notorious criminals involved in drugs. A number of the perpetrators are now serving lengthy sentences after Aaron assisted the police in recent operations. But how does this make her feel on the back of receiving one of these letters from this government? And I quote, I'm writing in Devastation and fear regarding the government's plan for the early release of prisoners.

I am a survivor of severe long term abuse. I've spent years of my life bravely fighting through the legal system to bring the men who harmed me to trial. The justice system had already failed me by giving them prison sentences that were far too short, that in the time that I spent spent fighting them in court, and before that, the systems that were meant to protect me, including social services and the police, failed me for far too long. And now I feel that I'm being punished and terrified all over again.

Hearing that men abused me are likely to be released early has completely broken my sense of safety. My family and I still receive threats against me from these men and their families to this day. Early release would be a disaster, and I hope the Minister is going to respond to each and every one of these points that I ring read out Fiona Goddard, a name that is very familiar to this house, and Fiona first contacted me when I got elected back in December of 2019, reaching out in the hope that here we may have somebody that is willing to fight their corner.

And Fiona, I have huge amounts of admiration for. But at the age of 13, she was taken into care by Bradford Council. She was initially placed at Edgefield Children's Home. It was here that she was first exposed to child sexual exploitation. She continued to go missing on a regular basis. Fiona became victim to a campaign, a campaign of rape and sexual assault. Over the preceding five years. She believes up to 100 men were involved following a criminal trial in 2019, Operation Dales Way.

Nine men were convicted of crimes relating to the sexual exploitation. Now, how does Fiona feel as a result of receiving these letters, that perpetrators under this government could be released early? Since finding out that some of my abusers, and I quote, may be released from prison, my mental and physical health has deteriorated significantly. I no longer feel able to keep myself and my family safe. I have been trying to raise money so that I can move out of the area, because the thought of them being released back on the streets is terrifying.

I always knew that these men would be released one day, but I believed I had more time to rebuild my life and prepare myself for a life of proper decency and reality. After those convictions, finding out that they may be released early has completely set me back. I've barely left the house. I feel constantly anxious, frightened and unsafe. I can barely sleep and when I do, I do not feel rested. This news has affected me so deeply that my physical health has also suffered, resulting in hospital admissions.

This has been a result of these letters being released by this government. Who signed these letters off? I ask the Minister, Jessica was exposed to child sexual abuse from the age of 12 in Batley, Dewsbury. She was sexually abused by over 50 men in this period. Jessica was introduced to other men between the ages of 12 and 16 by a girl known to the police, who was older than her. In 2022, as part of Operation Tori, her perpetrators were finally convicted.

But how did it make Jessica feel as a result of receiving one of these letters from the government? It's made her feel worthless, and I quote, it's made her feel worthless all over again. And just life and sorry. And my safety do not. It feels like my safety does not matter at all. These people are going to be released back into the town and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

community where I live. For my Safety, I feel I will have to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Safety, I feel I will have to move. I've always known that one day they would be released, but I did not think that it would come did not think that it would come this soon. Now these changes have come in. I probably thought that I come in. I probably thought that I will have to move early, and it's just so unfair that they're not even going to serve the sentences even going to serve the sentences that they were handed to them. When I've known that the sentences that were given were far too short in the first place.

When I received the letter, I just started crying. I'm now only two years out of court, and my case took eight years to get to court. They may that they might not even serve those eight years as a result of the reassessment taking place by this government. I can't believe two years after court, I might now have to go through the trauma of these perpetrators being released early. It's soul crushing. And then there's Carly. Carly was 12. She became involved with a group of Asian men who sexually abused and exploited her.

Her abuse continued throughout 2004 to 2011, and as part of Operation Tennessee, Carly gave evidence at the trial in late 2018 and secured convictions against three of these men and her feeling as a result of receiving one of these letters is extremely disappointed, and I quote, I'm extremely disappointed that my perpetrators and abusers will only be receiving 33% of their sentences, so that they are going to potentially be released as early as September. It's just another kick in the teeth.

They have taken just what little justice they were handed to them away from me, and that has feeling making me feel incredibly disappointed. We cannot let people out who have abused children for years and decades onto the streets. How on earth is this safe? She says it is not safe for our children, and it is not safe for the next generation of children. They are just releasing them back onto the streets for them to commit further offences. With a probation system that is clearly both broken.

And there's three more that I'm going to read out, and I won't apologize for doing so, because these girls have faced the most horrendous of crime against them. Jade. She was the victim of rape aged 14, and was waved and waved at an amenity to describe the government's early release scheme as being an absolute disgrace that put women and children at risk from scores of rapists and sex offenders freed prematurely. She said the two rapes left her with a life sentence when the rapist who groomed her will just get a slap on the wrist.

Recalling the moment she read and digested the content of the letter, she said I felt sick. To be honest, I felt like my rapist was being protected again, protected by the state. It's an absolute disgrace. They can make victims feel back to being unheard and vulnerable. They fear the fear has come back because they know that they are going to be let out much sooner than had they been originally been. Their sentences being awarded to them personally other than murder.

I think these are some of the most crime, worst crimes, and they should get the most severe sentences. It's put such a fire in my belly because it scares me so much that over so many perpetrators, paedophiles are likely to get out and released early, which scares me for my children's future because when they're back on the streets as a result of this government, they're back on the streets for good. Angela was first raped by her stepfather when she was just eight years old.

She tried to tell people but was ignored by school support staff and social services. The abuse continued and until she was 15 and refused to go home from school until the police got involved. She suffers from long term PTSD and hearing loss in both ears from repeated head trauma. Her response as receiving this letter. It took three years for me to get justice, and I was let down repeatedly by adults who should, never should, who should have been protecting me.

My abuser was sentenced to a minimum of ten years in prison, for which he has only served six. The email I received and it was an email, not even a letter that came out from the government or from the Department of Justice was, for all intents and purposes, the government just saying they do not care about the safety of women and children. I feel completely let down and made to feel like my safety and that of other victims isn't valued. The decision is an insult to the women and children who have had to endure such violence.

We deserve justice. I deserve to have time to put my life together without fear. I should be enjoying my degree and being in my 20s, having normal stresses of a young woman. Instead, I am now having to fight for myself all over again. This decision is so obviously wrong that it amazes me it was even a discussion in the first place. It undermines everything we as victims went through. And finally, Charlotte, from the age of eight years old until I was 13, she says she was raped and beaten by my older brother.

In February of 2025, she was arrested and charged. Sorry. He was arrested and charged with 20 sexual offences. In June of 2025, he pleaded guilty to nine out of the 20 charges and received a sentence of five years. Just five years. He was charged with. And and in an email of his sentence from the judge, it shows that the reductions he got to his sentence for different factors, such as his age and admitting part of what he did.

At no point was there an increase for my age and pain. With her being so young. His sentence went down from 21 years to just five, when he was supposed to serve two thirds. My children are just starting to get happy. They're happy. Mum back after spending so long scared and broken, my life was ruined. At just eight, I've spent 21 years living in fear and embarrassment and questioning why me? Five years was not long enough. And with him being able to walk free after just a year and a half, when ill spent, will, will spend, will be hugely detrimental to the rest of her life.

And she is now, unfortunately needing medication just to be able to function. So I say to the government, I've read out the exact words of many of those victims and survivors that have received these letters, and there will be many, many more across the country. So why on earth will the government not use the remaining time that it has in this place up until the recess period, to bring out emergency legislation to counteract the recommendations that are included within the Sentencing Act of 2026, to put a stop to this issue and reassure those many victims and survivors that are sat up in the public gallery right now and indeed across

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the country, that those perpetrators will not be released early. Did my.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Did my. Friend give way? I will give way. I'm very. Grateful to my hon. Friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. And can I thank him for yet another powerful contribution on this issue. He is an incredibly powerful advocate for the victims of these heinous crimes, and I pay of these heinous crimes, and I pay tribute to the victims and survivors. But can I thank him for his work on this? And as he is rightly saying. As my right hon. Friend has said, there is time now. There is a lot of consensus across the House today in terms of something can be done to stop these people being released early, to actually save the survivors and the victims.

He's articulated the impacts on their physical and their mental health and their safety. Does he agree with me? The government should listen to the voices of the House and other

**** Possible New Speaker ****

survivors and act now. Again, I absolutely agree with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Again, I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, because the reality of this situation is this is not or of this situation is this is not or should not be a political one. This is this. This is the difference between right and wrong. And that's between right and wrong. And that's where I have never understood why those in positions of responsibility, be it a national level or a local level, have stood in the way and actually tried to stop justice accountability from coming forward.

And we've unfortunately all seen it in our own local areas. I've seen it in my own area in West Yorkshire, where, as a matter of fact, the previous leader of Bradford Council blocked the fact of trying to get a inquiry into the Bradford district. The mayor of West Yorkshire literally did not want a inquiry to focus on West Yorkshire. Now they all changed their minds on the back of the KC review being released in 2024, quite rightly and now are advocating for complete justice and accountability to follow through, quite rightly.

But the point being, people in positions of responsibility should not be dragged to the position of advocating the difference between right and wrong, which is why I plead to the government. I plead to the Minister to do the right thing, which I'm sure she could do right now. In summing up in today's debate, to give the reassurance to those victims and survivors that actually this letter that was sent out was wrong, that it should not have been signed off, that it should not have created the huge levels of anxiety, fear, and huge levels of concern that those victims and survivors have now faced.

So I simply say to the Minister to do the right thing when she sums up at the despatch box. And this just brings me back to the initial point that I said right at the start of my contribution, that this is about trust, because the reality of it is many of us have fought hard to get that national inquiry. Many of us have fought hard to get the attention onto our local areas. But if victims and survivors feel that the trust of the state is not on their side, why on earth will they come forward and contribute to the national Grooming gangs inquiry when they feel that their perpetrators are going to be released early? So with the statutory inquiry into child sexual exploitation beginning imminently, it is vital that it is not undermined by victims being failed to speak out against their abusers for fear of unduly, unduly lenient sentences or reduced sentences, or indeed their perpetrators being released early because the reality of it is for cases like Fiona's, there are direct consequences of the decisions taken by this government and the justice secretary, because they cannot seriously think that the best way to manage resources is to allow dangerous rapists and abusers back onto the streets before justice is being served.

So I have a few questions to finally conclude to the Minister. What is the Minister doing to provide that reassurance to those victims and survivors that have rightly raised their concerns? How is the Minister categorising dangerous offenders? This has been raised by many in this House so far, but yet so far the government have not been able to answer these calls. How many of these rapists, paedophiles, those that have carried out some of the most heinous crimes are going to be released? And will the Minister confirm to Sarah, Aaron, Fiona, Jessica, Carly, Jade, Angela, Charlotte and the many other victims and survivors who have received these letters that their perpetrators will not be released as a result of the government sending out these ridiculous, cold hearted letters.
17:41
James Wild Portrait James Wild MP (North West Norfolk, Conservative)
-
-
James Wong. Deputy Speaker, and it's a privilege to follow my hon. Friend who's given an incredibly powerful speech, giving voice to the victims and the horrific abuse and the impact that it has had on them. And it's a he's been consistent in this House. He's led on this issue, and his words should carry incredible weight. And today we are debating what should be an uncontroversial motion to exclude from the government's automatic early release scheme. Anyone convicted of a serious offence against a child or an adult, including rape, or anyone convicted of attempted conspiracy or incitement to commit such offences.

By any definition, those are some of the most serious crimes, and I find it very difficult to understand how anyone would oppose the common sense position that sex offenders should not benefit from the government's early release scheme, but sadly, it's been necessary to bring forward this motion because previously, Labour members and Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords voted down our amendments to the Sentencing Act to do precisely that to prevent the early release of such offenders. And now it seems that today there will not be a vote and the motion will simply be accepted.

That is very welcome if it reflects a shift in policy. But it wasn't clear from the Minister who opened the debate whether he did accept the shift in policy, or whether he was simply making a tactical retreat on a vote that the government knew that they would lose because he repeatedly set out the rationale for these changes, as he had done earlier on the media today. But the urgency here is clear. Thousands of victims have received letters. My friends have spoken about the dreadful impact and the offensive nature of those letters to victims, telling them that in September, the first wave of criminals will be released.

Others will not yet have been informed, and the Minister once again failed to give basic figures on the number of sex offenders who will be released under these provisions. Surely he must know it's his job to know, and he should be honest and upfront with the House. And we could already picture the unedifying scenes of bottles of champagne that will be open at the prison gates when these offenders are released. Meanwhile, the survivors of their crimes will, as they've told every member of this House.

In a letter the shadow Justice Secretary referred to, they will be feeling scared, heartbroken, struggling and angry that their perpetrators are not facing justice. And then the Minister once again rolled out the aunt Sally argument that without these measures, the justice system would have fallen over. But it's now two years since the general election, two years in which the government has chosen to let people out early rather than take action on prison places. There are 16,000 people on remand in our prisons, yet the government is failing to ensure that our courts are used to the maximum capacity.

Today, for example, 14% of the Crown courts in our country are not sitting. Where is the commissioning of emergency prison capacity? Where is the greater deployment of rapid deployment cells? The previous government rolled out, including HMP Norwich in my county. Where is the urgency? This should be a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

national priority, a good way to my friend. I'm grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree with for giving way. Does he agree with me that in tackling the Crown Court backlog, the government was far too backlog, the government was far too slow in uncapping the maximum number of sitting days for Crown Court judges and in addition, the Court judges and in addition, the government is wasting a great deal of time and effort in trying to of time and effort in trying to curtail the right to jury trials, which will have no appreciable effect on the Crown Court backlog and is in fact wasting parliamentary time civil service time for a reform that we know the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

right hon. Member for Makerfield will most probably junk. I completely agree with my hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We had the Lady Chief Justice appearing before parliamentary committees, telling MPs that she could have more MPs that she could have more sitting days if only the government would produce. I think it was around £20 million of funding, a around £20 million of funding, a fairly minimal amount in the scheme of the one point £3,000,000,000 trillion that the government spends trillion that the government spends every year to increase those sitting days, rather than go down the route of removing people's right to jury trials in certain cases.

And the places that are coming online in prisons are those commissioned by the last government. And yes, I accept we should have commissioned more, but we've heard that the Minister has confirmed in his own parliamentary answers that no new prisons have been planned or approved since the general election. No new prisons have been planned by this government. Politics is about choices and Ministers have chosen early release, softer sentencing rather than ensuring public protection and punishment. And that is despite government Ministers saying that the most serious and violent offenders would be excluded from this change.

Anyone who has listened to the testimonies, my hon. Friend has shared with the House, could not consider that they do not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

represent the most serious and violent offenders. I give way to my. Was making a powerful speech and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Was making a powerful speech and I'm grateful for him giving way. It would be straightforward for the would be straightforward for the government to issue a statement. A written statement would do. Actually, on the back of today's Actually, on the back of today's debate, simply excluding the kind of offenders that have been highlighted by a variety of hon. Members, but in particular, my hon. Friend from Keighley. I think the Minister might confirm, when she winds up, that it is the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government's intention to issue a statement, and we can then move on. Thanks, Bob. Well, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I. Agree with my right hon. Friend that it looked like Labour MPs were set to be whipped against this motion to stop the early release of sex offenders who committed crimes sex offenders who committed crimes against children. And when I was first elected to this House, I had to explain to my whip and to the Minister in post then that I would not be supporting a measure to bring forward an early release scheme for offenders. I expect many of my newly elected colleagues did the same, and that measure was then withdrawn.

And so, whilst MPs may not be whipped to vote against today, and there seems to be common cause from members opposite in the chamber, we've heard nothing from the Minister who opened and spoke, but failed to address. What are the next steps? There might be some grounds for optimism. The right hon. Member for Makerfield apparently is looking how to tighten the scheme to exclude such offenders. But if this change is going to happen, then the legislation needs to come forward now. And we know that the new Prime Minister will not be imposed until we have risen for the summer recess tomorrow and Thursday.

We have general debates in this House. The motion calls on the government. The motion, which it looks like will pass without division, calls on the government to bring forward legislation immediately. So if the government is going to accept the motion, then what is its plan? Is it going to bring forward those commencement regulations to delay implementation? As my right hon. Friend set out earlier, is it going to bring forward emergency legislation tomorrow or Thursday or next week? We have had no response from the Minister in his opening, which I found deeply disappointing, and I think those who were in the gallery earlier and those victims across the country deserve answers today on what the government is going to do.

So by passing this motion today, we can begin the process to prevent those guilty of rape or grooming from being released early. We can provide reassurance to victims that we put their interests first, and we can show that public protection is our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

priority. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Scottish Government famously

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Scottish Government famously takes no lessons from anyone, but perhaps in sentencing we might learn something from them because learn something from them because they are in the grip of soft touch justice fever. And there is a warning over Scotland over rapists warning over Scotland over rapists and sex offenders for rapists. There will be set free. More than two years early, under the latest two years early, under the latest expansion of that soft touch justice approach, as they too fail
17:50
John Cooper Portrait John Cooper MP (Dumfries and Galloway, Conservative)
-
-
to grip a prison places crisis. The average jail time served by people who are guilty of rape will be reduced by more than two years in reduced by more than two years in four months, as a result of SNP proposals to automatically release proposals to automatically release long term prisoners after only two thirds of their sentence. Rape Crisis Scotland chief executive Crisis Scotland chief executive Olivia Taylor said organisations like ours have fought hard to maintain the exemption of rape and maintain the exemption of rape and sexual offenders from early release schemes, both to ensure the safety of survivors and to maintain overall confidence in the justice system.

What a searing indictment from someone who has seen the aftermath of one of the most awful crimes that can be committed the violation of a person's body, which leave physical scars and lifelong mental scars? Madam Deputy Speaker, I have visited Prison Dumfries, where the SNP's former chief executive Peter Murrell, estranged husband of ex First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, is beginning a five years and three month sentence for embezzling £400,000 from his party and it is suspected, from the public purse.

I do not envy him. Despite headlines about this jail being cushy, the staff there struggle with a lack of resources in a Victorian era prison ill suited to the modern world. Governor Andrew Hunsdon made it quite clear to me that the loss of liberty is a genuine and serious punishment in itself, and that is the core point of justice. Loss of liberty is what serious criminals rightly face. The public know this simple truth the legislatures legislators should not be lily livered about it, but politicians.

Salami slicing sentences is a betrayal. It's a betrayal, first and foremost of victims. It signals that, well, yes, you've suffered, but we politicians are awfully fixated on prison numbers. It is a betrayal of the police who work so diligently and so hard to bring criminals to justice. It is a betrayal of the courts themselves, tying the hands of those who pass sentence, effectively neutering them. And it is a betrayal of the public too, because justice delayed is justice denied.

And so too is justice watered down. Today we televise sentencing hearings while simultaneously pulling the wool over the public's eyes. Because what may sound like a hefty sentence is automatically subject to a craven rolling back or to early release. I am all for rehabilitation. I am all for helping people who have served prison time getting back into society. But we must all be about the victims. And I know our constituents want custodial sentences to be real, not illusions. The public know that custodial sentences are about punishment, not revenge.

They know, too, the deterrent effect. Legislators too queasy to accept that that should get out of the way. A well regulated and just society must have prisons, no matter how many so-called progressive politicians would will them away. Prison works. We should use it and sentences

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should be served in full. Yes, sir. Gavin Williamson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, sir. Gavin Williamson. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Often, when we are in the position Often, when we are in the position as members of Parliament, we go around our constituencies. We talk around our constituencies. We talk to many of our constituents across the political spectrum. And the the political spectrum. And the thing I always say is that actually the people that come to this House, not that we don't get things wrong, not that we don't disagree, but actually the people who come to this House are doing so because they want to make a difference.

They want to make a real difference to people's lives. They want to make an impact. And while we may
17:53
Gavin Williamson Portrait Rt Hon Sir Gavin Williamson MP (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge, Conservative)
-
-
sometimes disagree about how this is to be achieved, there is good is to be achieved, there is good intentions right across the political spectrum. I think when we are faced with a situation that we are faced with a situation that we are faced with today, it becomes so much more important that we do not much more important that we do not act in a party political manner, but we act in a way that is in the best interest for those who have been hurt the most.

As we have all witnessed, and every single one of our constituents has. Every single one of us have seen constituents who have been impacted by this. 7000 letters going out, informing them that those people that had done them harm are going to be released early. I can't put myself into the mindset as to how crushing that must be, and this isn't something that we have to sit idly by and just accept. It's something that we can genuinely change.

The statistics have already been covered by so many, but there is something so fundamentally wrong on something so fundamentally wrong on this. When 62% of rapists and 83% of child groomers are going to be let off early. This isn't about party politics. This is just about good judgement and doing the right thing. And I appreciate that the Minister has been sent out by her absentee boss in order to make the arguments. And I know, and we've all been in it when we've had ministerial office have been sent out to sometimes make arguments that we don't feel comfortable with, or not necessarily happily making.

But I urge the Minister to not actually just ignore the victims, not just ignore the people that have been impacted by this legislation that has been passed, but to take action, and the Minister can utter mild and inconsequential words at the despatch box. But what it means to victims is that they are going to spend not just another day, not just another week, but actually multiple weeks, not knowing what is going to happen. And it's actually the week upon, week upon week as we go into summer recess without clarity on this going on, that will be eroding their confidence, be making them worry about what is happening to the person that has done them so much harm.

So I would urge the Minister to do what is right by the victims as against what is right by her absentee boss.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hon. Friend for giving way. There are times in this place where a combination of popular sentiment and the power of argument become overwhelming, and I've seen it happen. Whoever's been in government. And at that point, it's important for governments to change tack. Governments grow, as I said earlier, when they do so, it seems earlier, when they do so, it seems to me that in the short debate we've had, those two things have been articulated beyond doubt.

So I wonder if my friend will echo those calls made earlier to implore the government to take a step back,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

think again, and act quickly. My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. You have a moment of what I believe is cross-party unity, because behind cross-party unity, because behind the Minister, well, not just on the backbenches of the Labour Party. I believe that they do not want the government to go down this course on this side of the House. We do not want the government to go down this course. We want to actually make sure that there is a solution that actually supports and protects victims.

But people that Ministers themselves said would be protected but haven't been protected as a result of the actions of a sentencing act. So it is important to act. As has already been pointed out, there is acres of legislative time and opportunities. It's not as if the general debates that are pencilled in as worthy, as important and as valuable as they are, could not be moved in order to be able to facilitate the legislation and the vote in this House, in order to get this corrected.

So I would say to the Ministers, do not sit there passively acting as a shield for their absentee Secretary of State that does not seem to care or does not seem to be interested in the victims that are being impacted by his legislation, not our legislation, but his legislation. So action is required. And by actually sitting there and not taking the action that is required, you're as guilty. The Ministers will be as guilty as the Secretary of State himself is for bringing such flawed legislation onto the floor of this House in the first place.

So do not sit by as victims suffer. Do not sit by as people worry and stress and fear for what is going to happen for them over the weeks and weeks ahead, as the Labour Party goes through its own internal trauma and doesn't provide a clear and direct way as to how they will help these victims. I implore the Minister to be bold and to act and to show some leadership which has been completely absent

**** Possible New Speaker ****

department. Yes. I call the shadow Minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. I call the shadow Minister for wind ups and it is Doctor Kieran Mullan. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a pleasure to close this crucial opposition day debate, and I want to thank all the members who've taken part for their thoughtful contributions. Before I say anything else, I want to acknowledge the people that I met, acknowledge the people that I met, along with other MPs on a cross-party basis earlier today and who were in the public gallery Jade, Charlotte, Jessica, Sarah, Erin, Carly, Angela and someone else who hasn't been mentioned today. Isabel, whose daughter took her own life when she saw a.

Under the ordinary early release schemes, the perpetrator of her crimes released early. Can I particularly thank the
18:01
Kieran Mullan Portrait Dr Kieran Mullan MP (Bexhill and Battle, Conservative)
-
-
Member for Keighley and Ilkley for reading all of their words out and letting everybody hear exactly what they've said. That was really powerful, and for acknowledging that there will be very many other that there will be very many other people who watched at home who weren't here today. People like Fiona Goddard, who was actually one of the first people to speak out of the first people to speak out after receiving her letter. They are often talked about as victims, and they are victims, but they aren't just victims.

Being victims doesn't define them. They are people with voices, with voices that they want us to hear. And they came to this debate because they want answers, at the very least from the government, and they want MPs to support them in making different decisions, decisions that put them and their experiences and their welfare first. I want to say to them directly, we hear you, and I hope that by the end of this debate that the government has followed suit and hears them, hears them, too.

When the Minister responds, I hope we finally get some answers for some of the basic questions that we've been asking. This government has had eight months, eight months to answer some basic questions. When are people being let out and what offences have they been? Have they committed? Those are basic things that we still don't know. Instead, the government has had to write to thousands of victims, not with answers and information, but with just enough to make each of them worry deeply about what might happen, about whether their perpetrator will be released early without knowing if they will or when.

That is actually made things much, much worse. And victim support. Who support victims of thousands of victims every year. That they had a number of questions, that they thought it was important for the Minister to respond to, which I would like to to to raise now. They want to know how people who are not eligible for the victim contact scheme, or who have chose not to sign up to it. How are they able to access information? They'll be hearing these stories, reading these things in the press, in the Commons.

Who can they approach to find out answers to these questions? Does the government know what proportion of victims have been reached and informed about possible changes in their case, or the victim contact scheme set up to actually contact? How many people are raising it with them? Asking questions? What questions are they being asked? What are the themes that are emerging, and what extra support is the government offering to help victims back into support services that they will have lost their entitlement to be part of because of the time that's elapsed since their offences? But, Madam Deputy Speaker, the government has not been honest with the public about this policy from the very beginning, nor had they been honest with MPs, not just once, not on a minor point of detail, but on three very important questions that matter most to every victim who's received one of these letters.

The first promise was that this was what the government described and still describes as an earned progression model. That framing was designed to reassure, if release must be earned through demonstrated rehabilitation. Surely the truly dangerous cannot simply walk out. This is what the public were told. But that is not what the Sentencing Act does. Did I do not need my members to take my word for it? The House of Commons Library briefing note on the bill said in black and white release under these provisions, is automatic unless the prisoner actively disqualifies themselves through serious misbehaviour in custody.

It's not earned release in any way, shape or form. It's automatic release, and that is a fundamentally different proposition. And Ministers knew that, and they knew the difference when they chose the language that they did. I said this at the Committee stage on the floor of the House, and I said it at consideration of Lords amendments in January, and the government had had every opportunity to correct that, and they've chosen not to. The second promise was that the most serious offenders would not be included.

The Lord Chancellor said it. The Ministers repeated it throughout the passage of the bill, and I asked directly at Committee stage where the Labour MPs voting against our amendment to exclude certain offenders, would be able to say to the survivors of child sex abuse that they had supported a government who wanted to classify thousands of child sex offences as not being among the most serious offences, and again, no satisfactory answer from the Minister at the time and repeatedly during the UCU and during the debate today, the Ministers failed to explain how a government that says that their release scheme excludes the most serious offenders is including people guilty of offences like rape, the rape of children and child grooming and that is for them to justify.

And to make matters worse, the government has actually now changed the wording they use months and months after passing the bill. They now say it's only the most dangerous offenders getting out. This is hardly any more of a justification. Do we really think that these offenders aren't also dangerous? But another example of the sort of manipulation this government has undertaken on this issue. That wording relates to the true exclusions, which are of those on extended determinate sentences, which are for sentences that the perpetrators, the judge feels are particularly dangerous.

But I told the government during the bill's passage that that did not exclude serious offenders, and they didn't listen. Now they're using the right wording. They're technically closer to being correct, but still deeply wrong in every way that matters. And the third promise, the third way in which they ram these changes through the house, was to pretend they were a short term fix to a short term prison capacity crisis. And it is not. There is no sunset clause in the Sentencing Act. This is not emergency legislation.

This is a permanent change to the law. And when this act was passed, it didn't set an end date. It didn't say once 14,000 new prison places are built, these provisions will lapse. It was a permanent and profound change to our sentencing laws that will be in place regardless of how many prison places are available, and victims and MPs and the public deserve to know that three promises. Three fundamental misrepresentations of what they were doing and the implications of the act.

Three questions the government didn't have an answer for when the bill passed and still don't have answers for now. And yet we were just weeks away from these releases starting in September, and we still don't know how many criminals are being released and what offences they have committed. And I have been asking the government this for months. My Freedom of Information request in March and April 2026 were refused my oral questions in March and May were deflected. I tabled a name day question after the commencement order was laid in June.

The deadline was missed and only was with the intervention of the speaker that we got a response, but it wasn't an answer. It didn't give us the figures and what

**** Possible New Speaker ****

honourable. I. I thank my hon. Friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and my hon. Friend had a very important UQ here in the a very important UQ here in the chamber, and the speaker himself asked that Ministers respond to Members of Parliament when they Members of Parliament when they made requests for information about their constituencies. I followed their constituencies. I followed the speaker's guidance and tabled those questions to the Minister. I named a questions. None of those have been answered, and it has been quite a number of days since that passed.

So would my hon. Friend agree with me that actually the Minister should try and address some of these points and answer

**** Possible New Speaker ****

these questions as quickly as possible. Then the speaker could not have been clear about the reasonable expectations of members of this expectations of members of this House in relation to the earlier release of serious sexual offenders and others into their constituency. and others into their constituency. And actually, what did the Minister say during the UCU? He said the numbers were in the impact assessment. He repeated it twice assessment. He repeated it twice and he was absolutely wrong. I've read the impact assessment.

Every member who's read it will confirm member who's read it will confirm it does contain a breakdown of the offenders and their crimes. As we asked. What it contains is a description of a qualitative process, an internal discussion between departmental officials to arrive at a broad estimate of the effect on overall prison population. There is no table showing how many rapists. There is, no table showing how many child groomers are going to be released. And the reason why we know this isn't just an omission is that the prisons Minister himself, Lord Timpson, said on channel four news last week.

And I quote him directly, it's impossible for us to say who will be released where and when. Impossible. His words, not ours. He was asked again and again, but could not answer. The Minister at the despatch box told Parliament the numbers were available to us. All the prisons Minister in the other place and on channel four, said it wasn't possible to provide these numbers. Only one of them is right. So what's the truth? And I think they actually don't know. I think the Ministry of Justice did not model the eligible cohort by offence type.

Before passing this legislation. They pulled a lever of this magnitude affecting potentially thousands of the most serious offenders in our prisons and their victims. And they didn't even know what sort of vile criminals they would be letting out of prison early on. I think that is a disgrace. They stood at this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

despatch box. Yeah. Wait, does he not recognise that we're in this ridiculous scenario we're in this ridiculous scenario where after a huge long fight, we now have a independent inquiry focusing on Bradford and Keighley focusing on Bradford and Keighley for the National Grooming Gangs inquiry? But yet, as that process inquiry? But yet, as that process starts, we'll be in exactly the same scenario of potentially perpetrators that undertook some of perpetrators that undertook some of those most heinous crimes being released.

And they're early, and therefore they're being a risk that those victims and survivors are then less willing to come forward to give evidence and contribute as part of that grooming gangs inquiry that's taking place across the Bradford district. Does that not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

concern him? Yes. And I can tell the member it isn't just a risk, it's a reality. isn't just a risk, it's a reality. A number of the victims that we met with earlier said that they were speaking to people who wanted to come forward and speak and come forward and speak and contribute to the inquiry, but they saw what was happening to those people who had spoken up, who had people who had spoken up, who had had an offender sent to prison, seeing now that that offender is going to be released even earlier and are asking why? Why would I and are asking why? Why would I risk that? Why would I risk that knowing that these people are being let out even earlier than they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

otherwise would have been? By coincidence? Last night,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By coincidence? Last night, channel three, BBC rebroadcast the channel three, BBC rebroadcast the three part series about the online three part series about the online predator Alexander McCartney, who was caught when a victim reported was caught when a victim reported him. It turned out that he had groomed online 3500 victims around the world and in one case in America, caused a 12 year old girl to shoot herself dead, even though he knew that she was threatening to do that.

And the programme ended with the chilling statistic that out of 3500 victims, only four had actually reported him to the authorities. And it was one of those reports that led to the end of this terrible campaign. And what do the people think who saw that series back in 2024, when it revealed then that he'd been sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 20 years? If it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now appears that he might be out in only a fraction of that time. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. The the only comfort I can give is that there are some exclusions to the release. And so if you're on to the release. And so if you're on a life sentence on a minimum term, it doesn't happen earlier or as I've said, on an extended determinate sentence. But what we determinate sentence. But what we do know is that more than 90% of the offenders sent to prison every year for child grooming are on a standard, determinate sentence and standard, determinate sentence and will be eligible.

And so the government is, quite rightly highlighted the challenges around conviction rates. And I accept the criticisms that the government have made around the reduction in conviction rates. It's incredibly important issue, but people don't go to court for the sake of it. It's not just done for the hell of it. They go to court and want a conviction so that a sentence is passed. That's appropriate punishment. And so you're taking away their motivation to speak up in the first place when you undermine the outcome at the same time.

And let me be specific about what the assurance is of serious offenders being excluded actually means in practice to a victim. We've talked all about earlier about Fiona Goddard as a survivor of rape, sexual assault and child grooming, whose abusers were sentenced to between 16 and 20 years and 2019. I want again to pay tribute to her courage. Fiona received a letter from MPs telling her that people who abused her may be released early. She talked to the press, she went to the media and a journalist raised her case with the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Justice officially on a on a quote that was read out on GMB when Fiona was appearing, said that the most serious offenders would be excluded.

So telling a journalist in writing. So it was broadcast to the nation with this victim listening in, that Fiona's abusers were not serious enough to be protected and excluded from this scheme. Survivors are here, were here today in the gallery, because letters landed through their doors telling them exactly the same thing. When the Minister gets up and says people are excluded if there are serious offenders, that means every single victim who receives one of those letters, the Minister is saying those aren't serious offences.

They're not serious offences, they're not heinous crimes. They're included. And that is absolutely appalling. And thousands of people have received those letters. And I would say to every Labour member that this is not a partisan observation. The Member for Birmingham Yardley, stood up during the urgent question and said there should be more exemptions, and that she and I and other members should work together on this. The Member for Liverpool Wavertree has spoken today in contributing in the debate, and apologies for the pronunciation, but the Member for Alloa and Grange Mouth has also spoken.

And let's be clear this is a government with hundreds of MPs and not a single Labour MP has come in this chamber today to defend the government's policy and position, and I think that is absolutely extraordinary and tells you what, what what we need to know. But it seems the government just want to keep their fingers in the ears and pretend this isn't happening. And I want to be clear about what's actually happened under this government. At the same time as Labour has released over 60,000 criminals, early prison capacity has actually fallen under their watch.

So we have roughly 500 less prison places for a government that seeks to attack our record continually on prison building, and I accept the criticism, and we should have built more prison places. But what's actually happened in their year in office has gone down. Like so many issues, police numbers, whatever it might be. Things have got worse under this government teaching numbers, etc. etc. we have more than 10,000 foreign national offenders in our prisons right now, representing around 12% of the population, costing hundreds of million pounds a year.

The government could have moved faster on deportation, freed up those places. And as I said, I'm clear about our failings in government, and I'm happy to say again, we did build more than 14,000 prison places, but we closed too many prisons that were not fit for purpose. And that has created challenges in the system. But as I've also said, and the Member for South Holland and Deepings talked about, and members on both sides have said for a long time now the failings on the prioritisation of our justice system go back many, many decades over many political parties.

And I don't say this now to make a political point, but just to demonstrate these things are are long term when Labour will ask for an office they introduced in the first place, the existing automatic release pathway for all offenders, they introduced that and at the same time, prison capacity. Even having done that, was so tight that they released 80,000 prisoners earlier when they were last in office. So when they were last in office, they made use of early release schemes because they failed to build enough prison places to keep the people in prison upon.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Parole is age old. Parole was based on merit. People were based on merit. People were considered for parole if they were felt to be worthy of it. This is felt to be worthy of it. This is entirely different. This is about an automatic process, regardless of an automatic process, regardless of merit, and it flies in the face of both popular sentiment that I've

**** Possible New Speaker ****

both popular sentiment that I've said, but also natural justice. Yes. Doctor. As I said, that's the existing system that we inherited of automatic release. We did actually, during our time in office, seek to raise the time served before automatic release of two thirds for some of the more serious offences. But again, I recognise there are challenges in the the prison population. And again, I'm raising Labour's record to make it quite clear that these issues have been challenges for multiple decades over multiple, well, two different parties in the Lib Dems when we were in coalition, which is why we have gone as far as we possibly can with our motion today to support the government in finding a route forward.

That's the absolute minimum that we could ask them to achieve, because I don't want any serious offenders let out of prison before their time again and again in the meeting with victims earlier, they tell us how appalling it is to hear a sentence in the court, knowing in the vast majority of cases, prisoners will never, ever serve that. And I wish we were in a position where people could serve even longer than the sentences that we currently give out to people, but we all know we're not in a position to make those promises.

But our amendment to the Sentencing Act was broad. Our amendment for the Sensing act said that any serious criminals, violent criminals, for example, people that kill by dangerous driving, people that commit manslaughter, people that commit commit child neglect and cruelty. We wanted all of them excluded from these early release schemes, and the government has insisted that that's not possible. And the Labour and Liberal Democrats defeated us on that amendment. We're not even asking that today. We're not even asking that. Madam Deputy Speaker, our motion purely calls on the government to just exempt those convicted of sexual offences against an adult or a child.

That's all we're asking today. And of course, the challenge the government has, the argument has to make is it says it's absolutely necessary to keep these particular people in prison, but they don't even know how many of those people they're going to be letting out. So how can they possibly tell us, for example, if there are 500 rapists that are going to be released? They don't know that to tell us, well, I'm sorry, we really need those 500 extra places. We don't have the capacity because they don't know and didn't know when they passed the legislation.

And the incoming Prime Minister, the Member for Makerfield, is reportedly exploring how to tighten the scheme for child sex offenders, and we welcome that. But I want the House to understand the timeline because it is closing. The commencement order was laid on the 8th of June, and may I say, without a ministerial statement, without a Dear Colleague letter, without responding to any of the questions from the shadow Justice team. And we understand, but we don't know. We understand from reporting that the first 700 offenders will be released in September on the 2nd of September, and then a similar number each month for the following nine months.

We understand it could be between 5 and 7000 offenders, but we don't know because again, the government won't tell us. But the House rises for recess at the end of next week. Any new Prime Minister will be in Downing Street shortly after, and we return in September. By the time Parliament reassembles, the first criminals will be about to be released. In fact, the very first Prime Ministers questions the Member for Makerfield will take will be on the day that these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

prison. You've been warned. This government, the Lord Chancellor, these Ministers, have had every opportunity to act differently. They could have excluded serious offenders. They could have made a statement when the commencement order was laid. They could have answered our questions, answered our FOI, and they chose not to every turn. And I say this with complete sincerity. say this with complete sincerity. Members on all sides of this House, we know, agree that a single sexual offender released earlier than offender released earlier than their sentence demands is one too many.

And there are Labour members in this chamber who we know agree. And actually 40 of them abstained when this legislation came to a vote. Originally, they did not go into the lobby and say that they believed it was right to let rapists and child sex offenders out early. They all had doubts, and some of them have spoken in this very debate because of that. But we are now descended into farce because we've been told that the government won't oppose the motion that we expect it to go through.

But the Minister got up and made clear, as far as he was concerned, that doesn't matter a jot. Things carry on as normal. So we have Parliament expressing its will today, that the expectation should be that the government should respond to Parliament's will, and the Minister has already made clear his intention as the Minister responsible not to give a monkeys and so a vote in favour of this motion today to say that Parliament believes rapists and child sex offenders should not be released earlier, and the victims deserve better than eight months of evasion and a commencement order laid without a word of notice to Parliament.

A vote in favour would send a clear message that this House has come together to support victims and to finish. I want to return to those victims that I met with earlier. It was a privilege to meet them and they asked us. They asked us as MPs of all different parties, is what they were doing worth it? Was it worth it? Was coming here today worth it? Giving up their privacy, reliving their trauma, fighting for the conviction in the first place. And I've told them it was worth it.

It did make a difference because I told them the government is not going to vote against the motion today. They've won. They've got this over the line. And so we're going to make sure that is absolutely the case, because whatever failings of my party or the party opposite on the issues of justice going back very many decades, and the Minister told me earlier, when I was frustrated yet again by his inability to answer basic questions, to calm down, the Minister wanted me to calm down.

Well, I won't calm down, because whatever our failings and whatever their failings before us in their time in office, victims of rape and child sexual abuse do not deserve to pay the price of political failure over many, many decades. And we will carry on making sure this government is held to account. And its MPs on both sides of the House do not let down and betray the victims of some of the worst possible offences that we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

see in our justice system. With the misleading efforts by the government to pull the wool the government to pull the wool over their eyes, the wall has not been pulled over their eyes. The wall has not been pulled over the wall has not been pulled over the eyes of MPs on both sides of this House. And it's time that the government came clean about what it was doing and listened to this was doing and listened to this House, because what this House says is, no, we don't want these people released.

The House will vote and tell the government that, and it's incumbent on them and incumbent on the incoming Prime Minister to listen to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I call the Minister, Minister Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker. I am grateful to all honourable and right hon. Members who have contributed to this debate. As contributed to this debate. As Minister for victims and tackling violence against women and girls, I would like to start by paying would like to start by paying tribute to the victims and survivors of the grooming gangs survivors of the grooming gangs scandal, who has so bravely spoken about their ordeal, and some of whom who have been in the public gallery today. Women and girls who were systematically raped and exploited and abused, often over many months, in some cases over years.

And we have heard members
18:23
Catherine Atkinson Portrait Catherine Atkinson MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Derby North, Labour)
-
-
raise some horrific cases and we've raise some horrific cases and we've heard some powerful testimony. The authorities that should have protected them and pursued justice protected them and pursued justice on their behalf failed in those duties. And through Baroness Anne Longfields independent inquiry into grooming gangs, we must now get to grooming gangs, we must now get to the truth of what happened, because for far, far too long we saw a failure to act. And I welcome the hon.

Member for Keely and Ilkley's call for the implementation of recommendations and recommendations that we have seen over many inquiries, over many investigations, including in the Independent Inquiry on Child Sexual Abuse, which had a two year investigation on child sexual exploitation by organised networks, was nearly 200 pages. I read it and I pay tribute to the victims who gave evidence to that inquiry and to so many other investigations. And, as Baroness Longfield has made clear, there have already been more than 800 previous recommendations by previous inquiries, investigations and reviews.

I spent seven years doing public inquiry work and it is absolutely essential that we listen when recommendations are made. But that is what this government is doing. It has already been taking action to implement recommendations, and it accepted all the recommendations of Baroness Casey under this government. Prosecutions and convictions for child sexual abuse are now at their highest levels, and the government has also made grooming an aggravating factor in sentencing, so that the impact of these crimes is recognised in sentencing.

But we must ensure that there is always enough space in prisons. It does not keep a single victim safe. If we have nowhere to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

lock up offenders, I will give way. Doctor Kieran Whelan. Really easy question. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Really easy question. The Minister is talking about the grooming gang perpetrators and the and the like. How many of them are and the like. How many of them are going to be released as a result of this policy? How many spaces are they taking up that you need to free up?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

free up? Just before the Minister responds? I know it's a very sensitive debate, but no, you and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

yours, Minister Catherine Atkinson. Well, there is no specific offence on grooming gangs. What is absolutely clear as as this government has been clear, what we will ensure is that there will always be prison cells for when people are convicted and sentenced to custody. The conservative government is committed to delivering 2000 additional prison places by the mid 2020s. They added. Just. I will give one.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Minister for giving way. The Minister has stated from way. The Minister has stated from the despatch box that the victims have been failed, and I would absolutely concur with that absolutely concur with that statement, Madam Deputy Speaker. She has also mentioned that there is record numbers of convictions, but would the Minister agree with me that if we release these abhorrent individuals who have committed the most heinous crimes against women and girls in our society, we will see those numbers fall again because victims will not come forward and all the victims not being failed again, if we release these perpetrators, and I would ask the Minister, in fact, I would implore the Minister to listen to the debate this afternoon and please come forward with emergency legislation.

Or, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, come

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forward with a written statement tomorrow. Minister Catherine. Atkinson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I have listened very carefully to this debate, and I carefully to this debate, and I will always listen to victims, but I also want to ensure that I can I also want to ensure that I can look victims in the eyes and know that when we see offenders convicted, there are prison cells for when they are sentenced to custody. And that is where we were left by the last government in real difficulty, because they.

I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way. I thank the Minister for giving way. I seek a point of clarification. She said that the clarification. She said that the government have added grooming as an aggravating factor. Can she an aggravating factor. Can she clarify then, that every person now sentenced to an offence related to sentenced to an offence related to grooming gang scandals would now get an extended determinate sentence because the aggravating sentence because the aggravating factor would be added? Or are they still eligible for standard determinate sentences?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. Atkinson It. Adds to the seriousness of the offence. It is considered an aggravating feature when it comes aggravating feature when it comes to sentencing. Obviously, the sentences will be determined by sentences will be determined by judges, as is absolutely right in ensuring we maintain a rule of the rule of law, but it is an aggravating feature. It is an aggravating aspect as opposed to binding. The final sentence that a binding. The final sentence that a judge would give.

So they will always be mitigating and aggravating considerations for the judge. This has been made a clear aggravating feature, but I would be very happy to meet with my hon. Friend in future if that's what she would find useful on this point. The. In adding just 482 prison places, that was 34 per year during their time in office. If they hadn't closed 23 prisons, we wouldn't be where we are now. Prisons like HMP Holloway, they hadn't that hadn't been sold off to build flats.

We would have more capacity in comparison. Madam Deputy Speaker, the last Labour Government added 27,830 places to prison capacity, and this Labour government is embarking on the largest prison building programme since the Victorian era and has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

already delivered over 3000. I will give way. And.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And. I don't expect the Minister to know, but I would appreciate if she could update the House after after the debate as to what the process, what the progress is with HMP what the progress is with HMP Dartmoor, which was closed in 2024 and is suggested to be closed for three years, that could open up three years, that could open up capacity of an additional 400 spaces, and we wouldn't need to build a new prison to do that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will ensure that the Minister, the relevant Minister, who was sat next to me, writes to the hon. Lady. I'm going to make some progress. The members opposite have, many times in this debate talked about how we got here. But Madam Deputy Speaker, they have not been honest Speaker, they have not been honest about how we got here in. Mr. speaker, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I can know, I'm going to make some progress.

I did work experience with the police as a teenager back when this country had a Labour government that was recruiting thousands of additional police officers, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is clear that the Minister isn't giving way just now. She may choose to do so in a moment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Continue. I trained to be a barrister and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I trained to be a barrister and spent my first years in practice at inside the profession 14 years of conservative led governments that dismantled it bit by bit and piece by piece, cases delayed for years, courts shuttered, offenders released with nowhere safe for probation to send them. And that is not a coincidence, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a choice repeated by successive governments for 14 years. I'm going to continue to make some progress.

I will give way shortly. I want to finish this point because it is absolutely essential that we do know where we started, and that was when we saw the cutting of 20,000 police officers from our streets. It took a decade to claw back what, in a few years, austerity destroyed. They closed 295 courts and tribunals, including 162 magistrates courts, which was half the entire magistrates estate, and they part privatised probation. In a reckless experiment that every serious review called irredeemably flawed and which cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds simply to unwind it and bring it back into public hands.

And that is on top of the 23 prisons that they closed. That is the record. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is their record, not ours. So when the hon. Members opposite ask why we have had to act, I would ask them to reflect on what 14 years of neglect actually built a prison system running at 99% capacity. At one point, it was fewer than 100 places from total collapse. And let's be honest about what that would have meant.

If prisons run out of space. Courts cannot sentence anyone to custody. If courts cannot sentence to custody, they cannot function. If the system cannot function, police officers have nowhere to take the people that they arrest. It is not hyperbole, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is the total breakdown of law and order, and that is not in any

**** Possible New Speaker ****

victim's interest, however serious their case. For that to happen, I will give way. Doctor Kira Mullin.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Doctor Kira Mullin. I've tried to have a fair hand with the victims that attended Parliament today. I invited every MP. I facilitated Labour MPs to MP. I facilitated Labour MPs to meet with Liberal Democrat MPs. What I say today is universal. One of the things that they infuriated of the things that they infuriated them about the UCU last week was the Minister talking all about our record. These are people who explain to us in the meeting that they had voted Labour in the past.

They voted for all different parties in the past. They recognised those lots of issues, but they didn't want to see again and again when they've come to Parliament to ask about what happens to them right now, is a Minister getting up and attacking us? And so I'd say to the Minister,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

don't fall into the same trap. For Catherine Atkinson. Excellent.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Excellent. Madam Deputy Speaker, no one in government takes decisions about release from custody lightly. These decisions affect public confidence, victims, communities and those victims, communities and those responsible for managing offenders in the community. And that is why, in the community. And that is why, at every stage, our overriding priority has been clear protecting the public while ensuring that the criminal justice system remains

**** Possible New Speaker ****

able to function effectively. We'll give you a chance to pick

**** Possible New Speaker ****

up your lives. But I also want to be absolutely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But I also want to be absolutely clear that release does not mean freedom. We are delivering tougher freedom. We are delivering tougher punishment outside prison, ramping up tagging to monitor offenders in up tagging to monitor offenders in the community to record levels with thousands more subject to 24 over seven tracking curfews, strict licence conditions and exclusion zones, with offenders sent straight back to prison if they break the rules. These offenders don't just walk out of prison gates and disappear.

Where offenders can go, who they can see and what they can do is tightly controlled, and many remain under intensive supervision and monitoring right up until the end of their sentence. We are increasing probation and community punishment funding by up to £700 million. We have recruited 1300 additional probation officers this year, and I would like to contrast this with the party opposite. Not only, for their part, privatisation of the probation, but also in the way that they treated it.

But I do want to. Madam Deputy Speaker.
18:37
18:38
Catherine Atkinson Portrait Catherine Atkinson MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Derby North, Labour)
-
-
>> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. What I would like to pay tribute to is the work of our prison officers and our probation officers, many of whom do some of the hardest jobs in public life, and the right hon. Member for South Holland and the Deepings talked about the need to speed up criminal justice and the numbers on remand and the need to reduce reoffending. And that is what this government is doing. He also raised foreign national offenders, which this government is deporting more of than ever before.

We also heard the right on the hon. Member for North, West and Norfolk, who criticised the time taken to lift the cap on sitting days when it was the Conservatives who capped sitting days in the first place, and the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway repeated the famous quote that justice delayed is justice denied. Madam Speaker, that is absolutely right. And it is that that this government is taking action on. A number. I won't give way.

A number of hon. Members have spoken passionately about victims, and rightly so. We understand that these issues will be difficult and upsetting for many victims and their families, and victims must remain at the heart of our justice system. The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester, talked about wanting to never see early releases earlier than would be expected, but we have seen emergency release after emergency release for years and we are taking action to stop that happening going forward.

10,000 we saw under the Conservatives, and it is right that we communicate openly with victims who have opted in to the victim contact scheme. That is why victims engaged with the Victim Contact Scheme continue to receive information about an offender's release and have the opportunity, quite rightly, to make representations about licence conditions. I won't, including exclusion zones and non-contact requirement where appropriate. All other victims will also have a clear route to request information that they need to plan for an offender's release, with the new dedicated helpline, and we do need to contrast this with the chaotic approach that we saw under the party opposite, victims were told only days before their offenders were let out and in some cases, not told at all.

No government wants to make these choices, but we are. We are transparent, supporting victims and ensuring that they are properly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

informed throughout. Point of order. I beg to move that the question be now put.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. The question is the question. The question is the question. Be now put as many that say I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. Contrary. No, no.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Behave yourself. As may I say I. I. I've got no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is, as on the Order Paper as many of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary. No. contrary. No.
18:41
18:56
Nick Timothy Portrait Points of Order Nick Timothy MP (West Suffolk, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. If I could take your advice, I If I could take your advice, I listened very carefully to the minister's opening and closing the debate today. And the position appears to be that while the government whips feel that this is a proposition that cannot be defended, the Ministers in the Ministry of Justice think that this proposition must be defended. And in fact, the Ministers, in effect, said that regardless of the result of this vote and regardless of the will of the House being expressed, the policy would continue regardless.

Could you give me your advice? Could you give me your advice on whether this contempt for the will of the House is in keeping

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with the business and the rules of this place, and also the ministerial code? The.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Member has most definitely put his point on the record, but it is not a matter for record, but it is not a matter for the chair. The table office can advise him further, and no doubt the Treasury frontbenchers have the Treasury frontbenchers have taken note as well. I will continue with the rest of the business. If the frontbenchers wish to shuffle over, they should do so now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Right? Well done.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh well, I can tell you. Is it the thing to be done, or shall I continue? Shadow Ministers shall I continue? Shadow Ministers want to remove themselves. They should do so. Right. I now come to should do so. Right. I now come to motion number three on electricity. Minister. To move. I beg to move. The question is, as on the order The question is, as on the order papers may not say I. I country. No. The ayes have it, the ayes have it.

I now come to petitions. Petition. Brian Lishman.
18:58
18:59
19:00
19:02
19:03
19:03
Mary Kelly Foy Portrait Adjournment: Regulation of proprietors of independent schools Mary Kelly Foy MP (City of Durham, Labour)
-
-
Founded in 1884, the local institution spent 142 years institution spent 142 years providing an outstanding educational environment rooted in educational environment rooted in our local community. Indeed, in 2024 it was named Independent Secondary School of the year for Secondary School of the year for the North East by the Sunday Times. In fact, in early 2026, the school was still issuing marketing material and advertising pupil enrolment opportunities. Pupil enrolment was still being offered as recently as the beginning of June.

Parents had parted with significant sums of money to secure places at the school. Yet only a few weeks later, what seemed to be an assured future in new hands has fallen apart. Members may ask what went wrong in 2024. The school was acquired by GE GE as part of its proposed expansion into the UK independent school sector. The stated mission of this company was to operate independent schools and promote international education opportunities, as Durham High School has found out to its cost.

However, the reality has been very different. Following the acquisition of the school formerly operating as Durham High School for girls, the parent company incorporated a new UK company, Durham Education Limited, to run the school under the umbrella of GE GE. At a meeting on the 27th of June 25, designed to allow parents to understand more about GE, GE attendees were told they would be investment in the school for at least five years to help make it financially viable, and one of the first acts from the parent company was to mandate a shift to co-education.

From September 25th, claiming it would increase the student role and secure the future of the school. This was resisted by some families as there was no consultation and GE actively silenced parent feedback. And so the school became Durham High School. But having demanded this shift from school, promised investment to fully install male changing facilities did not materialise. Gigi also seemingly blocked the senior leadership team's efforts to make it work. In one specific instance, the school's leadership proposed a coeducational integration plan requiring only £3,000 of investment from the parent company GE.

GE flatly refused. This starved the school of minimal resources while setting a benchmark designed for failure. And this is not an isolated incident. It's a clear pattern. Across the country. We saw warning signs when GE acquired and closed Malvern Saint James, but in that case there was at least some notice. Durham and another GE owned school in Wales Rhythm School have been I will I will give way have they've been afforded no such courtesy. I will give way.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. As she's mentioned in school, in my constituency is also school, in my constituency is also owned by Galaxy Global Education. And as of last week, with the abrupt closure of the school abrupt closure of the school thought to be one of the oldest, if not the oldest independent school in the UK. Parents were left in the UK. Parents were left bewildered, having pre-paid for the next term. Staff were left without any employment rights discussions any employment rights discussions or proper redundancy processes, and most importantly, students were left devastated and not knowing about their future.

Does she agree with me that this is a real important call? Now for more transparency and actually be able to hold hold these organisations to account in any organization that proposes to educate our young

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people. Mary Kay Foy. I thank you for your intervention, and I completely intervention, and I completely agree with you the way that this company has acted towards pupils company has acted towards pupils and parents and staff is outrageous, and the least that they could do would be to provide some clarity to, would be to provide some clarity to, to and support going forward. And of course, I will be asking the of course, I will be asking the Minister further in my speech about some lessons that can be learned

**** Possible New Speaker ****

going forward. I will give way. Madam Deputy Speaker, first of all, can I commend the hon. Lady for City of Durham for for bringing this forward? She's brought the attention of this House and the attention of the Minister. Something is incredibly important Something is incredibly important and I commend her for it. The takeover of any school with little or no discussions with the staff, or no discussions with the staff, with the principals, with the board of governors, let there be no contact with the parents, and certainly no talk or discussions certainly no talk or discussions with those who have an input into the school.

Does the hon. Lady share my concern? And I believe that she does that they outside influences from outside of this country who have bought or or allegedly have bought the the school for whatever nefarious process may be. The only way it can be stopped is for this government and for our Minister to bring in legislation that ensures that this cannot happen over the heads of local people in a school with historical and importance for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and again, agree. I agree with him. It seems that this agree with him. It seems that this company overseas company had no intention of educating our children in the UK, and of course, in the UK, and of course, legislation should be strengthened or put in place to stop this or put in place to stop this happening again. So their actions is as though g, g, e actually saw the fallout of their decision to inform Malvern in advance, and attempted to hide from any further scrutiny by giving the other schools zero notice.

It is abhorrent and when I contacted the directors of GGE to demand answers, they were at pains to point out to me that they've done all they can to support staff and families. They even alluded to the government's introduction of VAT on independent school fees. This is nonsense. Since VAT changes were announced. Durham High School's roll only dipped from 288 to 281, a net loss of just seven pupils. The school has a physical capacity for 650 pupils, and has a financial break even point of roughly 350, and as a senior staff member, said in their parting message whatever you read, this isn't a VAT story.

It isn't a falling rolls or unstoppable decline story. The truth is deeper and more complex, and eventually the truth will out. It seems clear that there was never any genuine effort by GGE to make this school a success. Speaking to union representatives at the school, I'm told that repeated requests to even see a basic plan as to how the company would secure the future of the school were rebuffed. So what do we know about GGE? Very little seems to be the answer.

It was only incorporated in the UK in April 2025, and I understand it's not yet been possible to assess its level of available cash. Debt levels, profitability or inter-company lending and the structure of the company seems equally opaque, it being spread across several companies, school operating companies and overseas interests. One of these ultimately beneficial owners traces back to the Cayman Islands with no transparency at that point. And what does seem clear, though, is that one person holds a significant amount of power, and until closure was the person with overall control of the school.

Shang Chin Gao, a Chinese national, holds roughly 75% of the shares of G, g e, and as I understand it, the school has had no contact with this person. The House may note that this individual is also linked to two other businesses, Shine Space Management Limited and Galaxy Capital Retail Estate Real Estate, the latter of which was incorporated only two years before the purchase of Durham High School. And all of this background leads us to the crux of the situation.

Over 280 children have been left stranded without a school staff left without jobs. Young women who sat their public exams this summer may not even be able to collect their results in the school where they studied. Local suppliers have been left facing significant losses due due to unpaid invoices and, crucially, children with additional needs who thrived in this intimate environment have been thrown into limbo. They must now search for alternative specialist provision, potentially miles away from home or face being absorbed into mainstream settings.

But our local secondary state schools that provide top class education and often win prestigious awards such as Saint Leonards, Durham, Johnston and Belmont are all just about full. There isn't enough capacity to easily absorb these pupils. So as well as throwing these families into crisis, Jga has also heaped pressure on the local authority and I would ask the Minister to liaise with Durham County Council to ensure the admissions team is appropriately supported. The conduct of GGE in the final days, weeks, months of the school's operation, I believe, reveals the true nature of this business.

As the company ran down the school, the financial team at the school carefully managed their remaining funds to ensure they could pay staff salaries for June. This was despite GGE blocking the school paying suppliers. Yet days before payroll was due, an unexpected invoice was received from GGE that would have wiped out those payments entirely. GGE required a massive bill to be paid that same day. Thankfully, the school business manager prioritized the livelihoods of their hard working staff, paid the wages and ignored the demand.

But in a final blow to devastated staff, I heard just yesterday that the administrators administrators informed them that they can't claim unpaid salaries for July and August, despite already carrying out their work for that academic year. Now, a cynical mind would look at how Durham Education Limited was put into administration and conclude that it benefits a parent company to position itself as a major debtor upon any future scale sale, especially when the ultimate ownership of the land itself is in doubt.

Despite assurances from G. E, this entire debacle bears the hallmarks of a land grab in Durham, the prime real estate on which farewell hall sits is estimated to be worth around £10 million. And this brings me to the core question what can the government do to stop predatory overseas companies from asset stripping our educational institutions and treating our children's future as real estate speculation? Schools like Durham High served as a safety valve for the local authority's overstretched school place allocations, and despite this, entire families have been thrown to the wolves.

So an overseas corporate entity can access prime land on the edge of historic city centre. Section 1 to 8 of the Education and Skills Act 2008, rightly gives the Secretary of State for education the power to bar unsuitable individuals from managing independent schools. But thanks to the opaque structure of business, the business and the fact that G. G e has been able to rapidly churn through directors of companies House, shuffling responsibilities and moving their statutory administrative offices to anonymous London addresses, it would seem oversight on such businesses is patchy.

So how can we ensure in the future that what has happened in Durham, Malvern and Ryton doesn't happen elsewhere? To be clear, my key asks of the Minister today are as follows. Will the Minister help? Families in Durham, Ruthin and Malvern get clarity into what steps were taken by the department, Estyn and Ofsted to ensure the suitability of GGE? Will the Minister commit to reviewing the governance structure of all the affected schools? Will the Minister advise if an independent investigation could be called into JJ's management

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Durham, Malvern and Ruthin to establish exactly what happened. And can the Minister advise me on And can the Minister advise me on efforts that either the government or local authority or the school community can take to preserve the community can take to preserve the Durham High School site for educational use, rather than allow educational use, rather than allow a historic education asset to disappear? And will the Minister take steps to close corporate take steps to close corporate loopholes and ensure proper regulation is in place for foreign investors in the UK schools? We need robust legal mechanisms within the DfE to prevent foreign capital from severing historic school properties, their educational purposes.

We need statutory protection that stop predatory owners from transferring freeholds out of educational charities into private, for profit shell companies. Madam Deputy Speaker, what happened in Durham High School is not simply going to go away. My constituents may be down, but they are certainly not out. They are driven by a desire for justice, and while they understand it may be too late for their beloved school, they wish for no other family or hard working member of school staff to have to go through the pain and uncertainty that they themselves have felt.

Last Friday, my team joined families, pupils, staff and trade unionists outside the school gates for a final act of solidarity. The compassion, mutual respect and dignity that was on display is something that G, g e would do well to learn from, and I'm sure all of us across this House might agree that no matter the nature of the establishment, the education of our children is a public good, not a real estate portfolio. What happens to Durham and Malvern cannot be allowed to happen again.

And I'll close with the words of Mrs. Middleton, acting head for the school's final weeks, who has been highly commended for the compassion and dedication that she shown to the entire school community during this most horrendous of circumstances. On the final day we came together. Of course, there was sadness, there were tears, but there was also laughter, celebration, joy, and a deep sense of knowing one another. The hardest words I have had to say over these past few weeks were, it's time to go.

No one moved, so I left the stage and Mrs. Rochester and I walked the children out. Senior leaders had planned to stand outside, greet parents and clap the children out. All the staff joined us and for over an hour we clapped, talked, cried, hugged and clapped again. In that hour there was no complaining, no anger, just togetherness. A community to the very end. Thank you.
19:20
Olivia Bailey Portrait Olivia Bailey MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Education) (Equalities) (Reading West and Mid Berkshire, Labour)
-
-
Minister. >> If you're ready, Minister Bailey. >> Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I really Deputy Speaker, and I really sincerely thank my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Durham for calling this debate for her calling this debate for her excellent speech and her very important advocacy on this crucial topic. And may I join her in commending Mrs. Middleton for her compassion and leadership. And she's painted a very powerful image of the staff clapping the pupils out, and must have been a very sad day.

I'd also like to thank all members who have contributed on this important topic this evening. The subject of this debate, as I know through my colleagues recent ministerial correspondence and her speech this evening, has rightly drawn much attention and I am really incredibly sorry to hear of the closure of Durham High School, which is clearly a much loved local school, and particularly sorry to hear of how suddenly this news was communicated and the significant disruption this will cause to children's education when schools are closed in the state sector.

We, of course, make every effort to minimise disruption, and this is something I would expect equally of leaders in the independent sector, and it's clearly very concerning that this has not happened in this case. As private businesses, private schools are responsible for ensuring ensuring their long term viability and are free to make their own business decisions. But whilst the government does not play a role in the decision to close a private school, in this case, as with any closure, I can assure her that we are working closely with the local authority to ensure places are available in local, state funded schools for any child who requires one, and I happy to keep her up to date with this.

I was very shocked to hear from my hon. Friend about the apparent nature in which the owners of the school have behaved, including towards senior leaders, families and pupils. This is not the way we would all expect a reasonable and responsible owner to act while managing the closure of a business, especially one which affects children and families. On my hon. Friend's points on the nature of how the owner of Durham High School has acted. I know she has raised this directly with the Insolvency Service and colleagues at the Department for Business and Trade.

Whilst we understand that the owner is not currently in administration, there are robust protocols that will be followed. If an administrator does end up being appointed. This process would include considering the conduct of the company's directors and an assessment of whether further review or investigation is warranted, where evidence of misconduct is identified and enforcement action is in the public interest, the Insolvency Service will, of course, take appropriate action. On the wider issues, my hon. Friend raises in relation to how the owner has conducted business at Durham High School and within school and Malvern and other private schools.

I know this has been raised through the relevant channels at the Department for Business and Trade and on all cases where there is potential malpractice. My colleagues at DBE will take the necessary action on the topic of this debate around our statutory powers in relation to independent schools. Madam Deputy Speaker, the Department does have a robust system in place around how proprietors are registered and regulated. The proprietor is the person or persons legally responsible for the running of the school. They are responsible for ensuring all the independent school standards are met, including areas such as safeguarding health and safety and quality of education.

When a new private school wants to register as 105 did successfully in 2025, they must set out how they will meet the independent school standards, and the Secretary of State carries out a number of safer recruitment checks on the proprietor of any proposed new school. These important, wide ranging checks include an identity check, an enhanced DBS check, a check to ensure the proprietor is not barred from working in regulated activity with children is not the subject of a prohibition from management order and has the right to work in the UK.

The Secretary of State also has powers to prohibit a person from the management of a private school. Any such prohibition prevents a person being a proprietor of a private school, and any change of proprietor is considered a material change, and therefore the Secretary of State carries out the same suitability checks I have already set out. Recognising the importance of the proprietor role, this government has recently taken powers via the Children Wellbeing and Schools Act, to allow the Secretary of State in regulations to create a fit and proper person test for proprietors of private schools.

We are currently considering what might fall under this test, and this debate is a timely and useful, as timely and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

useful as we make these way. I thank the Minister for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving way. In light of what we've heard this evening, does she agree with me that the case of Galaxy Global Education warrants the government to consider whether the Department for Education might consider for Education might consider recording information about the ownership, as well as who is running the schools, but the ownership of independent schools ownership of independent schools sectors? And will she agree to meet with myself and other affected MPs alongside colleagues in ET to make sure in cases where we do have issues of widespread foreign ownership and also business malpractice, that we can get together and eradicate that from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our independent schools sector. Minister. Olivia Bailey. I'm very grateful to my hon. Friend and grateful to her for her Friend and grateful to her for her advocacy on this topic out of this chamber as well. I am extremely concerned to hear of the the concerned to hear of the the practice that we've that's been accounted for this evening. I'm very happy to meet with her, with very happy to meet with her, with my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham and any other affected members with a relevant Minister members with a relevant Minister from the Department for Business and Trade to talk about these wider issues, and I will come on to the specific point she makes around recording of ownership shortly in my speech.

So when it comes Madam Deputy Speaker to ownership details of private businesses, these are available at companies House. And if a charity. As around half of all private schools are. The Charity Commission will hold additional information. But to my hon. Friend's point I have asked officials for advice on ways that we could consider recording the ownership of private schools to understand better who is potentially making any profit, or who is taking relevant business decisions in relation to them. I will also add to reassure my hon.

Friends that we keep our registration and regulation regime under continuous review. In closing this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the strong views expressed by hon. Members. Once again, thank my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Durham for bringing it to the attention of the House. Whenever a school closes, it's a really sad and challenging time for both parents and children, and my thoughts really are with all of the families affected by the closures in my hon.

Friend's constituencies, I want to assure the House that the safety and quality of education provision for all children in this country is something that I take incredibly seriously. Whether a child is at a private school or a state school. When it comes to how we register and regulate our private schools, I have taken on board the points raised across the House today and will continue to work towards making sure our system is as robust as it can be to ensure all children receive the fantastic

**** Possible New Speaker ****

education they deserve. OK. The question is that this House do now adjourn as many of that opinion say I. I the ayes have it.
11:00
None Portrait Oral questions: Energy Security and Net Zero
-

This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page