Budget Resolutions

John Slinger Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I am glad to support this excellent Budget. I welcome and agree with the Chancellor’s praise for his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), whose commitment to secure economic foundations has helped to fund sustained public investment and deliver growth. It has helped the Chancellor rightly to offer breathing space now and fresh hope for the future.

I will focus on the latter, but, on breathing space, the Budget delivered, with 41,760 households in my constituency receiving the £100 household energy payment. As someone whose professional career was in the private sector, I was particularly delighted to see the two-year business rate freeze, which will benefit 336 local retail, hospitality and leisure properties in Rugby, Bulkington and the villages.

There was much in the Budget, too, on fresh hope for the future. The words of the Prime Minister are important in this context. In his Labour conference speech, he said:

“Hope comes from honesty…It comes from saying the things politicians usually avoid.”

It is what I call hard-headed hope. We need what I call the responsibility revolution: a focus on what each of us as individuals or organisations should contribute—or indeed sacrifice—rather than on what entitlements we are to receive. We older folk have a responsibility to the next generation, so my speech will focus primarily on the physical embodiment of fresh hope for the future: our young people. There can be no more important long-term issue than their interests.

In addressing a long-term challenge for those at the opposite end of the age spectrum, the Prime Minister set out in his Labour conference speech how the Government will adjust the pension triple lock, which is a bold and much-needed move. He also said that

“we will need to show the same boldness for our young people, too.”

The Budget did that in several ways. I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s announcements of the Your First Home equity loan scheme and the first-time buyer ISA. That young people are priced out of affordable housing is a national scandal.

Thousands of people in my constituency will also appreciate the much-needed 3.9% increase in the national living and minimum wage. The young entrepreneurs allowance is a vital pro-young people, pro-entrepreneurship measure. Let us encourage young people across the country to consider entrepreneurship as a viable career option.

However, we need to go much further to provide hope for the future. We need to keep going until we can truly say that our young people are equipped sufficiently to be the architects of the future rather than tenants in a world designed by the older generation and all too often shaped by their interests. I would like to see the appointment of a Minister for younger and future generations sitting in Cabinet to scrutinise existing and future policy and legislation through the lens of how it benefits the next generation. We also need an independent body to hold the Government’s feet to the fire, so how about an office for intergenerational fairness?

Last year, I coined the phrase “youth triple lock” because I wanted to focus attention on young people’s needs and the need for some rebalancing. I suggest an above-inflation increase in the student maintenance loan. The Prime Minister hinted at that in a social media post with the Chancellor when he said that student loans are

“one to come back to.”

I also suggest free bus passes and something on housing, which, as I stated earlier, was covered extensively by the Chancellor’s excellent Budget.

There remains a risk that the social contract with our young people is fraying, so let us show that our Labour Government are not slowing down but accelerating our efforts to empower young people. Our role is not just doing what will make us popular with a plurality of mainly older voters; we need to rebalance things, because investing more in our young people is in the best interests of our economy as they are the innovators, the entrepreneurs, the workers, the business owners, the public servants and much more of tomorrow. We must unleash their potential. More importantly, it is the moral thing to do; it is the fair thing to do; it is the Labour thing to do.

I commend the Budget for all its measures, and in particular those regarding young people. As ever, measures to empower young people are a down payment on the future and, as with all healthy investments, regular, judicious and generous investment pays dividends in the long run. I hope that the 10-year plan will be another opportunity to demonstrate that to the younger generation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Suella Braverman]

I am sorry, but I do not have much time. I will try to come back to the hon. Lady.

What I have described is locking our young people out of the labour market. A Reform Government would put British workers at the front of the queue for British jobs. That used to be common sense, but today it is controversial.

Moving on to apprenticeships and skills, I am afraid that this Budget is conspicuously silent on investing in skills, apprenticeships and the vocational trades. The number of apprenticeships has almost halved over the past decade, particularly among small and medium-sized businesses and for entry-level positions.

[John Slinger]

The right hon. and learned Lady, speaking about apprenticeships, has essentially said that nothing has been done. Does she acknowledge that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, in his Budget speech, specifically spoke about how

“Today’s Budget provides £100 million for a local apprenticeship service to match young people with local firms, funded from savings in welfare fraud and error”?—[Official Report, 28 October 2026; Vol. 792, c. 311.]

[Suella Braverman]

The reality is that £100 million is a small amount compared to the enormity of the challenge that we are required to face, as I said to the hon. Gentleman’s colleague, the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies). Employers are not taking on young people—that is a fact and it is borne out by the statistics. Employers are not taking on apprentices, because it has become too expensive for them. It has become heavily regulated and bureaucratic, and the training requirements are now too rigid.

Royal Mail: Performance

John Slinger Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sorcha Eastwood]

I think the hon. Lady has perfectly anticipated the next paragraph of my speech. She is absolutely right that such responses make an already bad situation even worse. If we knew that our business or organisation was already under fire—for the life of me, I cannot understand why Royal Mail simply has not sought to improve how it responds to complaints.

Indeed, some of my constituents have told me what happens whenever they try to complain. The online complaints form has gone. As already suggested by the hon. Lady, the phoneline is a generic national number and it can take up to an hour to get through. If someone does get through, they are given a complaint number and promised a reply within three days, but weeks later they are still waiting for an answer. They use the email address provided, diligently setting out the issue once more, and eventually get a reply saying that the address is no longer monitored. A complaints system that tells you nobody is listening is not a complaints system.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Lady for making such an excellent speech. Regarding the way that Royal Mail deals with complaints via email and via its website, does she agree that we as Members of the House of Commons seem to be doing a better job of identifying the problems than Royal Mail itself? Thanks to the excellent work of my brilliant team, there is a page on my website where people can plot where they live and the type of problem they have been having, which strikes me as something that Royal Mail ought to be doing itself—perhaps we should encourage it to do so.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

The hon. Member makes an excellent suggestion, and he is quite right that it should not be on Members of this House to conduct such an extensive and ongoing campaign, almost fielding the complaints, as it were. I thank him for his leadership on that.

Speaking of leadership, I now turn to the leadership of Royal Mail. I want to be fair to Royal Mail—it deserves a right of reply—but I cannot say what its leadership thinks, because its leaders will not meet me. I wonder why.

British Steel

John Slinger Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Blair McDougall]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point. The Government are very clear today that we are seeking that partnership with the private sector across the steel industry. From our side, the partnership comes with significant resources on the table, through the National Wealth Fund, to help the steel industry become more competitive, particularly on energy efficiency.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Our energy, defence and railway sectors depend on steel. Does my hon. Friend agree that steel made by British workers, in Britain, and owned by the British people, is not only in our infrastructure interest but in our national interest?

[Blair McDougall]

I could not agree more. On a day when many of us will be thinking about travelling back to our constituencies by rail for the summer, it is worth noting that 80% of the rails we will be travelling on are made by British Steel. My hon. Friend raises an important point about taking more steps to ensure, as taxpayers would expect, that when we engage in public procurement British Steel is firmly in the mix.

Business and Trade

John Slinger Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Written Corrections

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, not least because in the most recent figures, our exports in goods with the EU have fallen by 2% in the last year, whereas our exports in services have grown by 7%...

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

When I visited NDT Equipment Ltd in my constituency, the director Dan Lenton showed me the ultrasonic test calibration blocks and reference pieces that it uses and supplies to manufacturers in a wide range of sectors in the UK and abroad. This steel is not manufactured in the UK; it is imported and is high grade. I know Ministers are being flexible and talking to hon. Members. Will the Minister please consider the grade of steel that the company uses, which I believe is EN3B, and exempt it from the tariffs?

[Chris Bryant]

We have already laid out our steel trade measures, which are there to ensure that the UK has a steel industry. This is vital for our economic future. I want to make clear that 73% of all steel imports into the UK are not in scope of the measure, but I will, of course, look at this specific issue…

[Official Report, 2 July 2026; Vol. 788, c. 1022.]

Written correction submitted by the Minister for Trade, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant):

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents

John Slinger Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for the assiduous work that she has done with her Select Committee.

It is inspiring when we, as Back Benchers, can have genuine influence by bringing the concerns of our constituents to this House of Commons and directly into the minds of Ministers, and when improvements result from that. I can recall my hon. Friend the Housing Minister using his mobile phone to instruct officials from a debate—because he was hearing so many complaints from hon. Members—to call in the CEO of FirstPort.

I want to touch on a couple of examples from my constituency. One constituent, a customer of FirstPort, had their service charge increase from £980 in 2023 to £3,800 in 2026, causing them financial hardship because they had to take out a loan in order to pay the bill. Now they say that their property is unsellable. There was a clear lack of transparency, with repeated requests for service charge accounts allegedly being ignored. Another constituent reported significant concerns about FirstPort property management, highlighting that service charges increased from around £1,000 in 2021 to £3,400 in 2026 for broadly unchanged services. They, again, allege lack of transparency and more. Residents ultimately exercised their right to manage and appointed a new managing agent, which estimates comparable services at around £1,600 per year, suggesting that FirstPort’s charges were unduly high.

I pay tribute to the work of Labour for Leaseholders, and particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) and for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky). We held a mini-inquiry and gave evidence to that inquiry. I think it was clear to all hon. Members that there is a captive market and that private companies and others are exploiting people; it may be within the law, but we have seen the behaviour of these companies and we are calling it out. One has to ask why and whose interests are being served—I will simply leave that question there.

In my remaining time, I want to move on to something that started as a negative and ended up as more of a positive. Residents of Eastfield House, a block of flats in Houlton in my constituency managed by Clarion Housing, repeatedly contacted me about problems. I went out to see them. I saw one of the flats, and the various problems with maintenance and lack of transparency—frankly, it was the usual story. It was deeply concerning: I saw the anguish, the stress and the upset of these people, who are having their dignity disrespected and damaged.

I contacted Clarion, which generously attended a meeting that I held with residents a few weeks later, and is taking action. The company has already given a payment to those residents, and it has a single point of contact and an action plan. It is doing what it can to improve the situation. I pay tribute to Clarion; it has shown that things can improve.

The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 was a very good start, and I know that the Government are consulting further. This Government are intervening in failing markets, because if we do not do so, the participants in the market will continue to do the bare minimum or, worse, to exploit people.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that a proper regulator for the property management sector, far from being anti-growth, would be a pro-growth measure bringing transparency and good functioning to these incredibly opaque markets that exploit leaseholders and renters?

[John Slinger]

I entirely agree. As I was saying, the market is failing, and many of the participants in the market will continue to do the bare minimum or, at worst, exploit people. As we have heard from hon. Members, some of those companies and individuals will continue to push the limits of decency, and possibly legality, because there is no accountability. Let us make it as hard as we can for them. Let us protect and empower the people who really count: the leaseholders.

In my remaining seconds, I ask the Minister to touch on the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) about the need to look at the right-to-manage process. I suggest that the threshold should be reduced to 30% or that a deemed consent process should be brought in so that our residents can take control of poor estate management. We owe it to them; they deserve dignity in the housing that they have purchased.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Slinger Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his informed question. I, too, celebrate this important appointment and the Office for Investment is doing great work. The criteria for success that I see are how Britain can get more scale-up investment into companies, so they do not have to go elsewhere around the world to find the capital they need to grow, and how more people can start, build and scale right here in the UK. I often ask myself why the continent of Europe does not have a single trillion-dollar company. The Office for Investment, working with the Government, can start to answer that question.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

When I visited NDT Equipment Ltd in my constituency, the director Dan Lenton showed me the ultrasonic test calibration blocks and reference pieces that it uses and supplies to manufacturers in a wide range of sectors in the UK and abroad. This steel is not manufactured in the UK; it is imported and is high grade. I know Ministers are being flexible and talking to hon. Members. Will the Minister please consider the grade of steel that the company uses, which I believe is EN3B, and exempt it from the tariffs?

[The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)]

We have already laid out our steel trade measures, which are there to ensure that the UK has a steel industry. This is vital for our economic future. I want to make clear that 73% of all steel imports into the UK are not in scope of the measure, but I will, of course, look at this specific issue. If my hon. Friend would like to have a meeting with me and officials, we can make sure that that happens.

Processed Russian Oil Products: Sanctions

John Slinger Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Well, it has not been an argument that I myself have advanced, although obviously I stand by my Labour colleagues if that is the argument that they have been making—I am part of a team, after all. The point I would make in relation to drilling in the North sea is that I think it is a wrong argument to say that if we were to issue new licences today that would affect the energy prices we are facing because of the situation in the middle east. What we absolutely have to do is make sure that we deal with market instability today. It was not our choice to have this war in Iran. We have not taken part in it. We think it was a mistake to enter into it without a plan. I am very aware, from conversations I have had with many of my counterparts in the Gulf—perhaps there will be more on that later on today—that these issues are at the forefront of their minds.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Can the Minister assure me that we continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with our Ukrainian friends? Can he particularly reassure my Ukrainian constituents? One of them has written to me to say that

“one of the biggest issues facing civilians in Ukraine is the constant uncertainty—not only physical safety, but the emotional pressure of living with disrupted homes, schools, work, healthcare and family life.”

They are standing firm and I am sure that he can reassure me that we are standing firm by their side.

[Chris Bryant]

Absolutely. In Kyiv earlier this year, I was really proud to see one of the bridges, which had been blown up when the Russians were advancing in the hope of taking Kyiv immediately, that has been reconstructed with UK Export Finance support and British steel made in Glasgow—it only took five weeks to transport it out there. It was designed by British engineers, working with Turkish counterparts. I am really proud of the work we are doing on reconstruction in Ukraine. I thought it was absolutely despicable when I was there that Putin was deliberately targeting energy supplies in Kyiv, so as to freeze people into submission. That, in my mind, is a war crime.

Seasonal Work

John Slinger Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

I have spoken to a few zero-hours workers, and many of them are not happy with the Government’s policy, because it is going to make some of them unemployed.

Of course, the one thing that we do know about Labour Governments is that they know how to spend other people’s money. They have no idea how wealth is created and how the money that pays for our public services is generated in the first place, but they certainly know how to tax and spend. We have seen tax increases of £66 billion in just two Budgets, and tens of billions of pounds in additional debt. As Margaret Thatcher said,

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Hon. Members—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Hoare, your voice is carrying and I do not need to hear it.

[John Slinger]

It did not carry all the way to me.

[Mr Speaker]

It carried to me. That is why I am defending you.

[John Slinger]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Conservative Members often talk about wealth creators. Of course business people and entrepreneurs are wealth creators, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that wealth is also created by the public services and infrastructure that we need, which has to be paid for?

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Gentleman’s final words are key: how are public services paid for? The top 1% of income tax payers in this country pay 29% of all income tax. It is estimated that the Labour Government’s policies have led to 16,000 of the wealthiest people in this country leaving—equivalent to a third of a million to half a million average taxpayers. The burden, therefore, is spread on the others. Instead of demonising some of the wealthiest people, who make an incredible contribution to our public services, maybe the Government should thank them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston]

This is just noise. The hon. Lady needs to speak to businesses in her constituency—[Interruption.] The facts are the national insurance increases, the business rates increases and the additional burdens on businesses. If anybody on the Government Benches can name any major business organisation that welcomes the employment Bill—the unemployment Bill, as we call it—I would welcome them doing so now, but I do not think they can. They are anti-business: that is the point. The Conservatives are pro-business, they are anti-business. The principle is key: to be pro-business means to be pro-workers and pro-public sector, because that is how the taxes are generated. The Government have the exact different—

[John Slinger]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I won’t. I will give way in a moment to somebody behind me, but I am aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am on the final stretch.

I can only assume the Labour Government just do not understand the negative impact their tax policies are having on tourism, hospitality and leisure, because to do such harm willingly is pure economic vandalism. The Government’s lack of understanding of the private sector and how jobs are created beggars belief.

None of this would be necessary with a competent, pro-business Government. There is an alternative: a pro-business Conservative alternative that backs business, that wants the private sector to succeed, that backs entrepreneurs and wealth creators, and has policies that enable job creation and economic growth through policies such as 100% business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure. Instead, the Government have decided on an economic strategy that punishes enterprise, burdens the taxpayer, disincentivises work, increases dependency on welfare and grows the size of the public sector. That is the wrong strategy.

The Labour Government are destroying the economy. They promised change at the last election. Well, we certainly got it: slower growth, higher taxes, higher spending, more debt, more welfare and higher unemployment. Time and again, Labour has betrayed the trust of the British public and we on the Conservative Benches will not tire of holding this disastrous Labour Government to account for their utter incompetence. The country cannot afford three more years of this. Britain deserves better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Evans]

My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I bow to her experience as I know that she has run and been involved with many businesses. She speaks the truth about what businesses and risk-takers are looking at in this country. They are saying, “Why would I take that risk? Why would I take on that responsibility if there is not any reward?” I would have had more truck with the Government if they set out what they were trying to achieve over the next three or four Budgets sequentially. They could then have increased national insurance contributions, for example, as a one-off, and built around that. However, the problem is that there is a toxic concoction of measures all coming in one go.

[John Slinger]

The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech. On his point about risk, Conservative Members always look at that through the lens of the employer. There are, of course, risks—I spent most of my career in the private sector, so I have some experience of this—but does he accept that employees also take risks? When they take up a job, they need to be paid sufficiently so that they can live their lives with dignity, look after their children, and so on. Does he accept that a balance must be struck between people seeking jobs and employers providing jobs?

[Dr Evans]

The hon. Gentleman is right. As an MP, he will be an employer. No doubt, he is a good employer who offers the members of his team good terms and he cares deeply about the staff who he is looking after. However, we have taxpayer-funded jobs, but the private sector has to generate the funding to employ people, so those businesses have to take the risk and work out whether there will be a job in the first place. Worse still, because of the Government’s Budget choices, many cafés and pubs are looking to reduce the hours that they open, to reduce their staffing hours or even to close because they cannot make the numbers add up. We are seeing a cumulative effect, which is having an impact at a micro level on the likes of Twycross and at a macro level on the whole country, with every industry speaking out and saying that it is having problems.

I had hoped that the Government might listen to those ideas. The Government’s mantra has always been that their No.1 mission is growth, but all the measures that they have put in place are anti-growth. We are seeing the results of that, with inflation being higher.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

As I mentioned to the Minister when he was in his place earlier, I started my first business at the age of 19. That is what I did for 20 years, before I became an MP—I ran businesses. That is why I am so upset at some of the ways in which this Government have behaved: I understand viscerally how taking that leap takes everything somebody has. It takes their time, money, energy and social life, and it is all a risk.

For so many months—and years, in some cases—people work almost without pay, but the reward is fantastic, because they can employ people, create jobs, offer opportunities, change lives and futures, and generate their own supply chain for other small businesses to do the same. They can play a really valuable part in their local community. That is what small businesses across our communities do every single day. They are brave, resilient and dedicated, and they need to be valued, but over recent years so many of them have been suffering. The pandemic took a huge toll on them, and that was followed by the energy crisis. Now, worst of all, we have a Government who pledged to see their contribution and to help them deliver growth, but this Government are letting them down.

I feel viscerally that enterprise and entrepreneurship should be rewarded, which is why I run local schemes in my constituency. I have a competition for the best independent shop running at the moment, in line with Small Business Saturday last weekend. It is the sixth year that I have run this competition, and we get the results on Saturday—it is very hard-fought on my Facebook site. Thousands of residents are voting, and they love doing it, because they like to show how much these independent traders and little shops mean to local jobs, to our communities and to keeping our high streets vibrant and compelling.

Last year, I held a best pub competition. After another very fierce public vote, the winner was the Windsor Castle in Hardway. When I visited the pub to give its team their certificate, I saw the time, effort and pride that they put into everything they do—the programme of events, the decorations, and the hospitality they offer—just like all the other pubs that were on the longlist. I saw how much local people value their local, but the message from these pubs is stark: they are suffering.

Despite the Chancellor’s spin, the average hospitality business will see business rates rise by almost £20,000 over the next three years. The statistics have already been mentioned very effectively today by the shadow Minister, but these numbers are real lives, real jobs and real futures, and that £20,000 represents an existential threat to the margins of these businesses; it will drive them to extinction.

Combined with rising energy costs, after the Government promised to tackle overheads, and last year’s rise in national insurance, this is a perfect storm. It is having a direct impact on jobs in my Gosport constituency, particularly jobs for young people. It is also closing off traditional routes into work. As a parent, I know that a part-time Saturday seasonal job is valuable—we probably all did one. My first job was at Olivers shoe shop on Waterlooville high street. I got £10 a day, and I spent most of it on shoes, but it taught me a lot. It taught me employability skills and how to save money—actually, it did not, as I spent most of it on shoes—and it also taught me the very valuable lesson that I did not want a career in retail or selling shoes. These are all fantastic life lessons and experiences that prepare people for their future careers.

Some of those jobs are on contracts that the Labour party has such a visceral problem with, yet they offer flexibility and convenience, particularly during exam time, when young people do not necessarily want to do all those hours. There are sectors that need that flexibility, such as hospitality, leisure and events. In the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, we heard this week from people at major events, such as the London marathon, that the number of staff they need grows enormously as they get towards the event, then obviously tails off afterwards. These are the sectors that offer the most chances for young people, and they are right in the crosshairs of the Government’s punishment.

The evidence is clear, and in Gosport it could not be more tangible. The number of young people on out-of-work benefits has gone up by 31% in the last year alone. A recent article in The Daily Telegraph painted a bleak picture of the prospects for young people in my Gosport constituency; it makes for very tough reading.

[John Slinger]

Does the hon. Lady accept that more 18 to 24-year-olds are in employment than a year ago—210,000 more, according to the November labour force survey? The story of doom and gloom that she is portraying is not entirely the case.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

That may be the case, but the hon. Gentleman needs to read his data a little more accurately, because the number of young people on unemployment benefit has also gone up. I will repeat the figure: it has gone up 31% over the past year in the Gosport constituency alone. It is all very well swapping numbers across the Chamber, but these are lives, futures, and opportunities to get on a career ladder. The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of his party for what it is doing to young people in my constituency.

The law of unintended consequences is at work. If local businesses are not giving opportunities to young people, that impacts the fabric of a town, including its social fabric. I recently received an email from one of the pubs in Gosport, which said:

“I can guarantee we will not be open this time next year if things continue. The Labour government is doing nothing to help the industry, the knock-on effect to the customers, staff, us, jobless, homeless…Sadly there will be no British culture left, and that is the very sad truth of it. It’s only the Government at the moment, who are gaining and laughing all the way to the bank. The place and the building and the customers—the whole aspect of the ‘local’ pub—will be no more.”

Then there is the hair and beauty salon—another fantastic industry, worth £5 billion and as much again in social value. According to the National Hair and Beauty Federation, the Government’s tax policies are forcing businesses to make very tough decisions, such as taking on fewer staff and fewer apprentices, and incentivising staff to become self-employed, without all the protections that the Government say they want to promote. The British Hair Consortium has warned of an existential drop-off in the number of apprentices entering the sector, while a beauty parlour in Gosport recently told me that it was not optimistic at all about the health of the sector over the next year, and that it does not think the Government are supportive of such businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Antonia Bance]

I am sure the hon. Member knows me well enough by now to know that I am not going to indulge in silly games. What I will say is that this Government’s priority is to get the economy growing. It is why we are investing in infrastructure. It is why we are rebuilding our public services. It is why we have put the greatest level of investment in our public infrastructure. It is why we are investing £39 billion in house building, as I said in my intervention on the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who is no longer in his place. It is why we are rebuilding our public finances. At times, this does involve some difficult choices, and some that not everyone may always agree with, but we are making the fair and right choices: asking those with the broadest shoulders to bear the heavier load, rebuilding public services, helping with the cost of living—and, yes, clearing up the Tory mess.

We are cutting borrowing more than any other country in the G7, leading to a doubling of the headroom to £21.7 billion. We have the highest levels of public investment in four decades. We are backing entrepreneurs and fast-growing companies with tax breaks to list and to hire here in the UK. Our planning changes will back the builders. Devolution for local growth will mean that local growth spreads outside London and the south-east—something so very close to my heart and to the hearts of many in this place. We are proud to be putting up the national minimum wage so that people have more money in their pockets, because the core problem affecting the retail and hospitality industries is that people do not have money in their pockets to spend on our high streets. Getting wages going up—and they are going up faster than prices—is the way to have people with more money in their pockets.

[John Slinger]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Did she notice yesterday that the Leader of the Opposition said that she did not want the national minimum wage to increase at all? Does my hon. Friend think that indicates that there might be a cold freeze in the air?

[Antonia Bance]

My hon. Friend reads my mind, as that is the point I was just about to make. I was so sad to see the Leader of the Opposition abandon what was one of the better policies of the last Government: that there should be a fast-rising national minimum wage at all times. I agreed with the last set of Prime Ministers before this one on very little, but one thing I did agree with them on was that it was right to maintain the machinery of the Low Pay Commission—a tripartite body where unions, businesses and academics come together with Government to look at the prevailing conditions in the country. Those at the commission get out there and visit businesses of all types in all regions, including hospitality and retail, and set the national minimum wage at a level that would work for workers and for businesses. It is an approach that this Government have continued, and I am sad to see that the Leader of the Opposition intends to abandon it and to abandon low-paid workers to frozen pay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Antonia Bance]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, as I have done since the first time we worked together, more than 20 years ago.

It is interesting to hear the advocacy for welfare reform. Today we have heard a lot about the difficulties with business rates, and I will not rehearse the arguments—they have been well made by my friends on the Front Bench—about the action that this Government are taking on business rates to help the hospitality and retail sectors, but I will make this point. We have heard repeatedly from Opposition Members that they would like to abolish business rates for retail and hospitality, yet they do not have a plan to do that. To pay for it, they will somehow find £47 billion worth of “savings”. The majority of that will come through indiscriminate cutting of the welfare budget. It is not clear to me how that is a credible plan, when the annual welfare bill went up by £114 billion on their watch.

Of course, Members would not expect me to speak in a debate like this without talking about my pride in our Employment Rights Bill and our plan to make work pay. I am proud beyond words to speak for hospitality workers and for seasonal workers who will benefit from that Bill. Earlier this week, I asked colleagues in the trade union movement to run the numbers, based on Government statistics, on how many workers will benefit from the reduction of the waiting period for protection from unfair dismissal from two years to six months: 6.3 million workers will benefit from that—from protection against being unfairly dismissed, without due process, for reasons that are not good enough—and 36% of hospitality workers will benefit as well. I am so very glad that we are making rules that will benefit disproportionately the workers most likely to be exploited at work.

[John Slinger]

My hon. Friend, who continues to make an excellent speech, has referred to unfair dismissal. I think it worth putting on record that much of the debate over recent hours, days and weeks has implied that employers will not be able to dismiss people. That is simply not the case. What we are talking about here is unfair dismissal, not dismissal. This is a right that absolutely has to be at the heart of the biggest uplift in workers’ rights that any Government have introduced for a generation, or perhaps more.

[Antonia Bance]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Employers may continue to dismiss, as long as they do so for fair reasons and following a fair process, and good employers already do that.

My favourite measures in the Employment Rights Bill—this could be a very long speech, but I will bring it to a close—[Interruption.] I will! I will just say this: I am so proud of the ban on zero-hours contracts, and I suggest to my hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench that we should have a nice short reference period for that when the consultation begins. I am so proud of the plans on sick pay, and on fire and rehire. I am so proud of our enhanced parental leave, the fair pay agreement and the school support staff negotiating body.

In conclusion, I often say that my goal is for people in my constituency to be able to take the family out for a curry on Friday night and not worry about the cost. I want that for all workers, including the hospitality workers who are serving and cooking that curry, and the seasonal workers who make it such a pleasure to be on the beach at Blackpool or down in Brighton, having that curry. That is why we need a Government focused on growth, new rights for every worker in the Employment Rights Bill, and a higher national minimum wage.

Specialist Manufacturing Sector: Regional Economies

John Slinger Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. The point about smaller towns is so important, because as well as creating brilliant jobs in the smaller economy where they will make a difference, they give a sense of place and value to what we produce. People are proud of what their town produces, whether it is valves or textiles, and they think of those things as defining their town. That commitment is something that only a small town can offer, and it really makes a difference.

Businesses in this country are ready to grow, but they need support with skills, infrastructure and investment. They need to know that their order book is guaranteed for the long term. The Government have made really positive noises about encouraging skilled apprenticeships; that is welcome, but apprenticeships work only if the companies can afford to hire and train young people. We need to ensure that small and medium-sized manufacturers, which are the lifeblood of Calder Valley and other small towns, have the support that they need to take on apprenticeships without being too financially stretched.

In September, I visited the Brighouse-based training charity West Yorkshire Manufacturing Services, as part of National Manufacturing Day. It showcased a range of firms in Calder Valley to school students. I also met Stuart Billingham, who is set to become the managing director of KOSO Kent Introl next year. The company, founded in Brighouse, employs about 150 people and exports specialist valves across the world. Stuart started at 16 on a youth training scheme and has worked his way up the company to become its managing director. His journey is a brilliant example of how skills and apprenticeships can lead to as rewarding, lucrative and challenging a career, with as massive a global impact, as we are often told that universities can. It shows that those careers have progression and responsibility. I want this Government to produce 1,000 Stuarts, albeit that some of his close friends might not want that many Stuarts.

At that event, there was so much interest from young people and so much curiosity about the opportunities that a career in manufacturing could bring. That spark of curiosity must be nurtured into a flame of ambition, especially at a time when too many young people feel pressured into pursuing degrees that may not suit them or lead to secure employment.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I praise my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. On apprenticeships, I wonder whether he would care to comment on the excellent work of the Catapult centres, which are Government-funded and which work collectively between business and academia. In my constituency of Rugby, at Ansty Park, we have the Manufacturing Technology Centre, which has its own training facility. It has already trained 1,200 apprentices. That can only be a good thing for our region, and particularly for our young people who want to get on and get jobs.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

Yes, 1,200 apprenticeships is 1,200 decent jobs and 1,200 families who have pride that their son or daughter will make a real difference and make products that make it around the world. That is why this matters.

Only 14% of apprenticeships that started in the past academic year were in engineering and manufacturing, however. The Institution of Engineering and Technology has reported that engineering faces one of the largest skills shortfalls in the economy, with more than 46,000 vacancies in the sector. Similarly, the welding industry needs 35,000 more people. That is the key to growth. It represents a real opportunity to support young people into secure, well-paid work. Without it, our manufacturing sector will be in trouble.

ExxonMobil: Mossmorran

John Slinger Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

I know that the hon. Member takes a keen interest in the carbon prices for industry, and it is worth looking at the particular situation of this plant, as it exports all of its products to the EU. It receives a carbon allowance for its emissions that is slightly higher than 50%, and the reason why it does not receive a higher level of allowance is that it reflects the inefficiency of the plant. Fundamentally, the free allowances are set against a benchmark—a plant that receives 50% is one that is inefficient.

As I know the hon. Member will appreciate, given his business background, the intention behind that policy is to incentivise the owner of the plant to invest in order to reduce their carbon emissions, and then they would be able to sell the carbon credits on the open market and generate further profit for the plant. That has worked very effectively in the advanced manufacturing sector. For whatever reason, the owner of this plant chose not to invest, and it has suffered the carbon penalty as a result. The community of Fife has suffered as a result of its decision as well, and we are now in a position where a $1 billion investment cannot be sustained.

As I mentioned earlier, this company is exporting its products. It would be very difficult for it to find any way to exempt itself from carbon policies, because of course the EU has a carbon mechanism too, and that is the market into which it sells. Fundamentally, that carbon cost has to be paid, either here in the UK or to the EU. I am sure that as a good supporter of the UK and of Britain, as opposed to the EU, the hon. Member would prefer that His Majesty’s Treasury receive any taxation income, rather than sending that money to the EU.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Could my hon. Friend set out what more the Government can do to engage with multinational investors and demonstrate that, from Rugby to Fife, the UK is an attractive environment for investment under this Labour Government?

[Chris McDonald]

As I set out in my statement, we have managed to attract £250 billion of investment. That investment is coming to the UK because we have policy certainty around industry through our industrial strategy, and it is delivering jobs across the whole of the country.