Young People and Work: Milburn Interim Report

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Westminster Hall

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

Good morning, Ms McVey; it is a pleasure to have you in the Chair. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) for introducing the debate.

The Milburn review gets a lot right. It is right to say that the NEET rate is so high because of decades of structural dysfunction in education, health, welfare and employment support. It is right to say that poverty shapes early childhood and is a contributing factor to how children grow up. It is also right to say that care-experienced young people are particularly at risk of disengagement. Clearly, a reason for that is that support and stability fall away when they are most needed.

The fact that 84% of NEET young people surveyed want to find a job, education or training shows that young people do have a desire for work, contrary to the stereotyping by some politicians and some in the media. Crucially, the report highlights that there are fewer entry-level roles and apprenticeships available—their number is down over 40% in the last decade. The Government must take an early-interventionist approach, provide intensive employment support and work with organisations and charities with comprehensive experience in this area.

However, the Milburn report is weak on the role of incentives in the social security system. It suggests that the system’s design encourages young people to claim and remain on health-related benefits, rather than participate in work and training. That narrow framing is wrong and does not take into account individuals with complex needs having to negotiate a difficult system. Claiming the UC health element of personal independent payment is no easy process. The Government must end the degrading manner of the system and correct the fact that people are often wrongly denied support as a result. For so many, the act of claiming is an undignified and demeaning endurance test. That is a stain on the state. Reform of the system is needed, but it must be achieved with care, compassion and investment.

Manufacturing Skills

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing this debate.

We hardly make anything any more. For decades, Scotland has been the victim of industrial vandalism, with our manufacturing base hammered. Last year Petroineos—in other words, the billionaire Sir Jim Ratcliffe and the Chinese Government—ended a century of oil refining at Grangemouth. Ultimately, private capital and a foreign Government decided that 435 jobs were to be lost on site, along with 2,822 in the wider supply chain, removing a positive destination for local young people. Over £400 million per annum was lost from Scotland’s national economy, and Scotland’s fuel security was weakened.

In my time in this place, I have been critical of both the Scottish and UK Governments. I stand by that criticism, but the truth is that the SNP Scottish Government knew about the closure for three years and did absolutely nothing to stop it. I will not allow anyone in the SNP to rewrite history on that—although I do not need to, because as everyone can see, SNP Members could not be bothered to attend the debate this morning. They are taking their passion for abstentionism and lack of participation in this place to a new level.

This year, there is yet more industrial devastation as Alexander Dennis’s Canadian owners, NFI, stop bus manufacturing in Scotland, with 115 job losses. That is another piece of Scotland’s manufacturing base deemed disposable by international capital. And yet again the SNP Scottish Government have abandoned workers. Some 334 zero-emission buses were to be built through the ScotZEB3 scheme. Alexander Dennis was awarded 123; the Chinese company Yutong was awarded 166. The truth is that in Scottish politics it was the working class that propelled the SNP into generational power, and the SNP has rewarded communities with buses from Beijing. There are redundancies at Ferguson Marine. We are seeing the creation and promotion of the Tory idea of freeports, which means international tax havens for private capital to extract resources and wealth from Scotland. Make no mistake: the SNP is comfortable with all of that.

With manufacturing, we are on the cusp of a green industrial revolution. We have an opportunity with renewables. But what have the SNP Scottish Government done to create new manufacturing jobs in that sector? They have had off-the-record meetings with corporations looking to get involved in Scotland’s renewable industry. The end result is a green investment portfolio worth £3 billion of green assets that were to be bought by private firms. That is money that the Scottish Government could have ploughed into manufacturing skills and job creation, transforming communities. Instead of building a Scottish manufacturing base that would create worker and community prosperity, the SNP went for outsourcing, privatisation and the continuation of pandering to foreign capital. The SNP are capitalists to their very core.

I do not hold the desire for independence against the SNP or anyone that identifies as a Scottish nationalist—not in the slightest. Indeed, I respect their view. The reason I have no time for the Scottish National party is that it has decimated Scottish manufacturing and waged war on the Scottish working class.

--- Later in debate ---

[Saqib Bhatti]

I reject the framing of the question. [Laughter.] No one finds youth unemployment funny. Many business owners talk to me about what happens when a young apprentice is interviewed. They say that if they have a 25-year-old with experience versus an 18-year-old with no experience, that hinders the prospects of hiring them. That is the reality. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is a conscientious MP, so I encourage him to pose that question to his small business owners in the way I framed it.

[Brian Leishman]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Saqib Bhatti]

No, I am going to carry on. When met with reality, the Government’s plans in this space fall far too short. The Government have made lots of noise about recruiting targets. I just noticed that the Government announced 40,000 new construction placements every single year. Will the Minister confirm whether that is the same or a different version of the announcement made in a Government press release in August 2025, which mentioned

“40,000 future builders, bricklayers, electricians, carpenters and plumbers”?

Government by press release is one thing but recycling old press releases is something else. Those apprentices deserve better.

There has also been no mention of the impact of the Government’s fiscal policies. Just as we were having this debate, I saw a headline saying job vacancies are at their lowest in 12 years. There are 176,000 fewer jobs now than when Labour took office.

Members have mentioned the Education Secretary’s ambition to close off academic options and offer more vocational options for the 14-to-16 age group. I am deeply sceptical of that policy, and the Opposition are calling for an evidence-based approach. When a previous Labour Government introduced similar reforms, fewer children from poorer backgrounds ended up going into academic subjects. They were funnelled into vocational work. We believe that plenty of people who would have been able to get into higher-quality jobs were funnelled off at a lower age, so we are deeply sceptical. The policy announcement is welcome, but we are yet to see significant detail. Many of the headteachers I spoke to last week asked how their teachers will be trained to deliver vocational subjects and where the funding will come from.

We are incredibly proud of the reforms instituted by the previous Conservative Government, which have meant that England’s education delivery is among the best and most resilient in the world, according to the programme for international student assessment rankings. When I meet people from the advanced manufacturing sector, they laud the fact that a knowledge-rich curriculum has helped young people to gain critical and analytical skills, including in numeracy. We are really worried that some of the Education Secretary’s announcements will undermine opportunities for young people.

The criticism comes not just from the Opposition. Jon White, the chief financial officer at building materials firm Huws Gray, has said that employers are struggling with a lack of incentives to hire younger people. He pointed to the Government’s narrowing of the gap in respect of the national minimum wage, which I have alluded to, and said that they should change the rules in respect of how employers can spend the apprenticeship levy. I hope the Minister can shed a bit of light on some of the questions around the apprenticeship levy.

Making it easier for employers to hire young people is really important, which is why we have pledged to halve employer national insurance for young people aged 21 to 24, to help them get to into work. We have also offered more incentives to small businesses to take on young people. Small businesses are often lauded as the lifeblood of the UK economy and the high street, and they, not big businesses, are the greatest employers of young people across the country. We believe our approach will free up the business sector and manufacturing to employ more young people; I would welcome the Minister’s response.

Pensions Triple Lock

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

It is right that we do not wait until April 2030 before trying to improve the system. Extra money is going into the social care system as a result of decisions made by this Government. We also need to do more to support the social care workforce through the fair pay agreement that this Government have promised. We will certainly not wait until April 2030 before improving the system. This announcement gives a long-term plan, which makes it different from many of the previous reviews and reports that have been issued. It identifies a sustainable and growing source of funding to pay for the national care service that the Prime Minister set out in his conference speech.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State says that a range of options has been put forward, but what about taxing the wealth of multimillionaires and billionaires? Funding social care should come from taxing them instead of reducing pensioner security. There are 2 million pensioners in the UK living in poverty, and that is even with the triple lock. Why will the Government not tax the wealthiest to pay for social care instead?

[Pat McFadden]

Since we came into office, we have changed the system of non-doms and the taxation regime for the wealthiest in society. More broadly, tax is a matter for the Chancellor and he has to weigh all these things up. The way that we are doing this is fair. It is a new settlement for pensioners that ensures a rising basic state pension, but also tackles the long-running issue of social care. It is a new settlement not just for pensioners but for their families, who often are worried about what will happen to their elderly relatives as they approach their final years.

Oral Answers to Questions

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Lady for her question, and I agree that more youth apprenticeship starts are desirable. She may not know this, but we are introducing a hiring incentive of £2,000 for a small business that takes on a young apprentice, and if that young person has been out of work and on universal credit for six months or more, that incentive goes up to £5,000. We are helping small businesses to do exactly what she has called for.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

2. What steps he is taking to help support women born in the 1950s who have been affected by state pension changes.

[The Minister for Pensions (Torsten Bell)]

We want all pensioners, including women born in the 1950s, to have the comfortable retirements they deserve. That is why we are delivering on our twin priorities for pensioners: raising the state pension, and rescuing the NHS. We are also delivering the largest ever pension credit take-up campaign, which is particularly important for low-income pensioners, a disproportionate number of whom are women.

[Brian Leishman]

More than 3.5 million WASPI women were affected by the change to the state pension age. Time is of the essence, because another WASPI woman dies every 13 minutes on average, without receiving fairness or justice. The Prime Minister personally assured the WASPI campaigners during the Makerfield by-election that he would meet them to discuss potential routes to redress. Can the Minister confirm what actions the Department is taking to support the Prime Minister in those discussions? Crucially, when will the meeting happen?

[Torsten Bell]

The Prime Minister and I opposed the 2011 acceleration of the state pension age by the coalition Government of the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, in particular because it gave some women as little as five years’ notice of changes to their state pension age. Those same women have faced disadvantage in the workplace and very uneven burdens of caring responsibilities. I have recently written to WASPI representatives to set out the Government’s position. With legal proceedings ongoing, further comment is not appropriate, but I continue to hear from and to speak to women affected by the accelerated increases in the state pension age.

Sovereign Grant Bill

Brian Leishman Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 14th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

My sense of patriotism does not come from a flag, an anthem or the royal family. Instead, my patriotism comes from things like our national health service; movements such as that of the Levellers, who were committed to popular sovereignty, extended suffrage, equality and religious tolerance; and how Britain stood up to and defeated the evil of fascism, both abroad during the second world war and at home in places like Cable Street, where Jewish residents, Irish dockers, trade unionists, socialists and others united to stop the British Union of Fascists movement from marching through Jewish neighbourhoods. That is the sort of patriotism I love.

I have the utmost respect for any citizen who believes that the royal family is a fundamental part of British life. I have no issues with that opinion; people are entitled to it, but it is simply not one that I share. There were many reasons why I joined the Labour party. One was to change—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is expecting this, but it is important that he focuses his remarks on the Sovereign Grant Bill, and not wider issues to do with the monarchy, patriotism or why he joined the Labour party.

[Brian Leishman]

I will just put a red pen—a very dark red pen, obviously—through some of the comments that I wished to make. I will accelerate my remarks. It is clear that we are a nation of persistent inequality. I fully appreciate that the role of the royal family is way down the list of pressing issues that my Government have to deal with, but when looking at the intense suffering that millions of people are experiencing, I cannot help but feel that the sovereign grant money could and should be directed elsewhere, and not to a family worth an estimated £21 billion.

Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

I will speak in support of amendments 1 and 2, tabled by my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). One of the most basic principles of any successful society is that those who work hard are able to reap the rewards, yet under this Government, millions of families are being squeezed by high tax rates, rising prices and increasing energy bills. They are not working any less hard, but many of them are ending up with less money at the end of the month, every month. That is less money to spend on day-to-day essentials, and less money to save for a house, a holiday, a birthday present or a school trip for their children.

Those are the real-life consequences of this Government’s decisions. Many of those families see their money taken by the Government and wasted, or spent on those who choose not to work. A recent study suggested that once the cap is lifted, a family with three children in which both parents work would need to earn £71,000 to match the income of a three-child family in which neither parent works. How can it be right that one couple can wake up early every day, go to work and perhaps even take extra hours at their job, and end up with the same amount of money as their neighbours who do not work at all? It is their money that will pay for those who do not work. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor know that, but they are choosing to lift the two-child cap anyway. That is a disgraceful way to treat millions of people across the country who are doing everything they are supposed to do and are being punished for it.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

There are pockets of Grangemouth with the deepest poverty in Scotland. Tonight in Clackmannanshire, 29% of children will go to bed living in destitution. Hunger and hardship are becoming more common. That is why I support the new clause tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell).

It is obvious that four decades of de-industrialisation and the economic and social consequences that followed have been devastating for communities like mine. Of course, I understand that we cannot reverse 40 years of decline in 19 months, but we must be bolder than we have been so far, because delay will be lethal.

Let us forget talk of stability. After 14 years of austerity, a global pandemic that exaggerated the inequality that austerity created, and a cost of living crisis that is making people poorer, stability just will not cut it. It is transformation we need. Truthfully, there is plenty of money in society; the problem is: who holds it? Through solutions like an annual wealth tax on the very wealthiest in society—those with assets of over £10 million—and the redistribution of that wealth into public services, education and health, we will improve people’s living standards and effectively tackle the scourge of poverty. Doing that will mean making very different political choices. Our Labour Government must meaningfully shift the dial on poverty in my constituency and across the entire country. We have to make those choices because, frankly, no one else will. There is no doubt that lifting the two-child cap will help many families in my communities, but we cannot stop there, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) said.

Sadly, Labour Governments do not come round all that often. We have the chance to be a Labour Government who will transform Britain into a fairer, more equal place, which is what my communities, and others like them all over the country, so desperately need. Tonight, I urge the Government to do much, much more. I urge them to think of previous Labour Governments’ records on lifting people out of poverty, and the words of a previous Labour Prime Minister: we are a moral crusade or we are nothing. It is about time that we acted on those words.

Oral Answers to Questions

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

I warmly commend my hon. Friend and the company she mentions. One of the apprenticeship reforms that we have announced is fully funding apprenticeships for SMEs for under-25s. That will help companies such as the one she mentions, and many more besides.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

The Injury Time campaign wants to classify brain injuries in football, such as dementia, as an industrial injury. The campaign wants former players to receive Government support and benefits and wants an increase in funding for research. Will the relevant Minister meet me and PFA Scotland to discuss this important topic?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend.

Welfare Spending

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Ind)]

Although I currently sit as an independent MP, I am still a proud member of the Labour party. Instead of preoccupying myself with the stances, opinions and views of other parties, which I have absolutely no control over whatsoever, all I care about is where Labour is and what Labour does.

I wholeheartedly agree with any Labour party member whenever they say that our party’s mission and reason for being is to lift people out of poverty—after all, that is one of the main reasons why I joined. In 2024, 411 Labour Members were elected to provide change. It was an effective campaign message, but 16 months on, we still have the wicked and cruel two-child benefit cap. There have been promises that the Government are looking at lifting that cap and will do so when the fiscal situation allows and improves, but ultimately, it still has not been done.

I regularly hear Members on my side of the House shouting “14 years!” and pointing the finger. I understand the roleplaying and game-playing that is involved, and with respect to all Members, everyone knows that the Conservative Government—in my opinion, certainly—was a cruel shambles for the past 14 years, one that punched down on the most vulnerable people in society. However, they are out; we are in. We are a Labour Government, but it is things like retaining the two-child benefit cap that we are being judged on. [Interruption.] I am happy to take an intervention—no?

If Members think I am wrong or making life awkward, what I say to colleagues is, “Have a look at the polls. Listen to what people are saying.” What I hear from people on the doorstep and when I am out campaigning is anger at things like the two-child benefit cap, winter fuel, the treatment of the WASPI women, and welfare cuts. When will the leadership appreciate that the people impacted by those things are our people—our class? Instead of chasing disaffected Tory right-wing votes, what about looking after our core vote?

The bottom line is that we must do more to lift people out of poverty and improve living standards. To not do so is a poverty of ambition. We are the Labour party, and we are in government; go and govern by real Labour party values.

Welfare Spending

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

Pessimism is understandable when brutality is overpowering. Just over a year ago, the British public tried to shake off that pessimism and emerge from the brutal reality of life in Britain after 14 years of relentless cuts that have torn apart the social safety net of our country. It is little wonder that people felt so pessimistic.

The motion on welfare before us is the continuation of the austerity that has contributed to Britain becoming an incredibly unequal society. In 2010, 30,000 people needed an emergency food parcel; now, that figure is over 3 million and rising. Nearly 80% of people who are reliant on food banks are in work. While the very richest have received tax breaks and enjoyed seeing their wealth grow at eye-watering rates, we have seen the creation of a new stratum of society: the in-work poor. It is telling of the politics of this country that despite being the sixth largest economy in the world, we have people in full-time employment who are reliant on the generosity of others to survive. That is pure political failure. Morally, it is just not right.

Having a child is a blessing, and not a blessing that everyone receives. The two-child cap is an inherently cruel policy that punishes the least advantaged. The idea that a third, fourth or fifth child is worth less than the first two is beyond wicked.

[Stuart Anderson]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. The Government have not yet set out their policy on the two-child limit. If they decide not to scrap it, will he support that policy?

[Brian Leishman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, which I will come on to. He has clearly had advance sight of my speech.

The Government should of course lift the two-child cap immediately, and it was wrong of them not to make that a part of the King’s Speech.

The wording in the motion referring to a “benefits culture” is both lazy and classist, not to mention demonstrating the ignorance—wilful or otherwise—of the Conservatives about the struggles experienced by millions in this country. However, I expect that from some in the Conservative party. I agree that the welfare system is broken and that it needs changed, but the changes it needs are not to be found in this motion or in what the Government put before the House last week. Like thousands of my fellow party members, I do not expect that from the Labour party. Last week’s vote was a stain on a great party that should be defending and fighting for the people that this motion seeks to belittle.

Improving living standards should be the priority of this Government and every Government, and we are not doing nearly enough—not yet. A year into this Government, what people need is not MPs creating a living standards coalition group; they need them voting in this place to improve living standards, not writing letters about improving living standards. After last week’s vote, which came too late for disabled people, I urge MPs to wake up before making the same mistake again.

I urge the Government to resist going down the road of pitting old people against children or children against striking workers, or any of that nonsense. Leave that division and nastiness to other parties that seek to divide and conquer and create inequality.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) for bringing forward this debate, and for her contribution, which was excellent, as usual. It was quite the sight yesterday to see female parliamentarians don green, white and purple sashes in commemoration of 97 years since women won the vote. It seems unthinkable that women were denied political representation; but then again, women have been the victims of inequality for centuries. The pension inequality that women born in the 1950s suffer from shows that the political battle may have somewhat changed, but prejudice and unfairness still exist.

Some colleagues may feel somewhat uncomfortable with what I am about to say, but I believe that it needs to be said. Someone who supports campaigns on WASPI, nuclear test victims or the Hillsborough law while in opposition should, when they find themselves in a Front- Bench role in Government, do everything they can to deliver justice, as they said they would while holding a placard or a banner. Support and solidarity for people like the WASPI women is not transactional; solidarity is not a campaigning tool. I have campaigned for justice for WASPI women, and that is why I co-sponsored the ten-minute rule Bill for compensation in January.

For years, Governments have refused to deliver justice to WASPI women. That is wrong. Not delivering that justice seems like one of those “tough decisions” that politicians have to take, but the truth is that this was a choice, and it always seems to be working-class people who are on the wrong end of these choices. A Labour Government should make different choices, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford. Like many, I believe that the Labour party is the vehicle for social, political and economic change. A year ago tomorrow, people voted for change—a change from austerity and its social consequences, and from a Government who denied fairness to victims of many scandals and injustices.

I want to mention the ladies from the Falkirk WASPI branch. We met in my constituency office. We sat; they spoke; and I listened to their legitimate anger about the Secretary of State’s announcement last December. Their hurt today is as palpable as it was when we met in the new year. I urge the Government to do the right thing.