Budget Resolutions

Suella Braverman Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

This Budget might be described as the “John Lennon Budget”—it expects us to imagine a better future. Actually, the Chancellor’s performance was more like a better Lennon lyric:

“Life is what happens to you

While you’re busy making other plans”,

because this Budget was long on platitudinous plans and short on decisive delivery. Leaving aside the self-evident exponential crisis of welfare spending—I say self-evident, but perhaps I should explain that benefits are due to hit £431 billion—there are three macroeconomic weaknesses in the Budget, which I will seek briefly to highlight.

The Prime Minister may say that he has to wait for the Milburn and Timms reviews, but while he is doing so and those plans are being hatched, 13.5% of all young people in the UK were not in education, employment or training in January to March this year. One million people aged 16 to 24 are without a job, training or education. To echo the comments of the hon. Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg), this is a waste of talent on a scale that is a national scandal. The Budget represented a wasted opportunity to address those issues and, in particular, to build the skills that might enable those people to gain a necessary job. The failure to address that may become the defining characteristic of this Administration.

These are not new problems. I was the Skills Minister, as some people in the Chamber will know. I was well aware of the root causes of NEETs and how we might address them. We managed to reduce the number that we inherited in 2010 by almost 300,000 by 2015, and I was also able also to build up the number of apprenticeships to the greatest number in modern times: over 500,000. Since then, that number has dwindled. It is only by equipping people with skills that have economic value—skills that allow them to the best they can be—that we can also sustain an economy which is desperate for those skills.

What successive Governments have done instead is to import labour. Every time we import labour and every time we make it easier to do so, we displace the investment in our own workforce, both in the young people I described and in the existing workers who need to be reskilled or upskilled. The myth was perpetuated, largely by the Treasury—

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

I am always happy to give way to my right hon. and learned Friend.

[Suella Braverman]

My right hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. Does he share my disappointment and dismay with this fact—that, for every young Brit who is hired today, 27 young foreign workers are hired? Young people are being locked out of the labour market because of mass immigration.

[Sir John Hayes]

My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. Young people are being forced to compete with those foreign workers for a scarce number of jobs. The only people who support that policy are dim-witted bourgeoise liberals and hard-hearted plutocrats, because both of them glory in the idea of foreign labour. That foreign labour is edging Britons out of jobs and, by so doing, weakening our economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)]

One million—that is the number of young people who are not in education, employment or training. Youth unemployment stands at 14%. That is a scandal and a crisis. Far from giving young people hope, this Budget throws them under a bus, frankly, because it is fundamentally unfair. We are losing a generation.

This Budget is unfair to the 16-year-old who has finished their GCSEs and wants to start working, but who faces zero opportunities to find an apprenticeship or learn a skill. It is unfair and offers no hope to the 21-year-old who has done the right thing and studied for a degree, but who has come out with a qualification that is not opening any doors and has instead saddled them with crippling debt and directed them to the welfare office to claim out-of-work benefits.

This Budget is also unfair to the British taxpayer, who currently lays out £22 billion a year in student loan payments. That is a taxpayer who will see hundreds of billions of pounds never repaid; a taxpayer who faces chronic shortages in our labour market, particularly in the NHS, construction and hospitality. We have a lost generation, and this Budget does nothing for our young people.

[Sir John Hayes]

My right hon. and learned Friend will know that we need to recalibrate our economy around the highest level of skills. Too many young people are directed into academic education—I use “academic” in the broadest sense—only to find themselves jobless, and too few have the opportunity to learn something vocational, technical or practical that would give them the chance to get a job and not take on huge debts.

[Suella Braverman]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is exactly the point that I am about to make.

How did we get to this youth unemployment crisis? For the past 30 years, starting with Tony Blair, we have sold one promise to young people: that they need to get a degree, regardless of what it is or where it is from, and they will be set up for life. However, for so many young people today, that has been exposed as a lie. We have 700,000 graduates currently unemployed, some 400,000 of whom are claiming welfare. Average graduate debt stands at £50,000, average graduate salaries are falling, and graduate hiring is disappearing.

For many of those young people, it is not so much that they have taken out a student loan; they have been saddled with a life sentence. It is no wonder they cannot start saving, buy a house, get married or think of starting a family. They are being crippled by the system, and this Budget does nothing to support them.

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

One aspect of the Budget that will make a huge difference to young people in my area is the £2.5 billion investment in a partnership with Rolls-Royce. That is great for civil and military aviation and will be used to create a lot of jobs for young people in my constituency. Does the right hon. and learned Lady welcome that measure, or would she rather we had not done it?

[Suella Braverman]

I am afraid that is just a drop in the ocean compared with the enormity of the challenge we face. I will come on to skills and apprenticeships in one minute, but I will dwell on how we got to this great university scam, as I call it.

We have some of the best universities in the country, and I will always defend them, but our universities are failing many of our young people and offering awful value for money. Some of the courses are not worth the paper they are written on. Is it really right that vice-chancellors are earning huge salaries but offering awful job prospects? Do some of them really deserve their £200,000 or £300,000 salaries when their institutions are offering job prospects for only 40% of their graduates? No. Do we really need courses in politics, sexuality and gender, with a vice-chancellor on more than £200,000? No. That is all while we have gaps in our NHS, construction and hospitality. That is why a Reform Government would deal with this issue. We would reduce the student loan budget by 20% and invest the billions saved into helping our country. We would train up British doctors and nurses and scrap the arbitrary cap on medical training places.

Let me say a word about immigration, because it has been a big factor. Many universities have got fat on foreign students. I am afraid that I have to say it: the last Conservative Government opened the floodgates to international students. It is something that I started to reverse when I was Home Secretary. As a result, universities have been selling immigration, not education. As a consequence—as I said earlier—for every young Brit who is employed in this country, 27 young foreign workers are also employed.

[Daisy Cooper]

Will the right hon. and learned Member give way?

[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.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Can the right hon. and learned Lady remind us of what her Government did, and what she did when she was in government, to increase apprenticeships?

[Suella Braverman]

The hon. Lady is on a weak point there, because it was the last Conservative Government who started the apprenticeship movement, and apprenticeships peaked at around 600,000 in 2016. I was very pleased to champion apprenticeships in my constituency, and thousands of young people in Fareham and Waterlooville have taken them up, but that number has been halved—we are now at about 300,000 apprentices.

A Reform UK Government would introduce an apprenticeship wage credit. We would pay small and medium-sized enterprises 30% of an apprentice’s salary to help them with the cost of taking on a new person, investing in our future and in young people. I want to live in a country where a young person is able to enjoy opportunities to prosper, work hard and thrive in their life, regardless of where they come from, what their parents did or the kind of school they went to.

I am afraid that this Budget offers precious little to our young people and zero hope to the next generation, and is a real disappointment for our young people, who are crying out for hope and opportunity. That is why I will be voting against it tonight.

Employment Rights Bill

Suella Braverman Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Con)]

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is trying to get through his speech, and I very much respect the position he has taken, but I have to fundamentally disagree. We Opposition Members have been accused of scaremongering and of misinformation, but what does the hon. Gentleman say to the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Chamber of Commerce and the Confederation of British Industry, all of which have said that because of the Bill and the regulations it will impose, employers will be letting go of staff, and that there will be a damaging consequence to employment and jobs? Does he think that that is misinformation and scaremongering, or is that just expert voices urging caution about the Bill?

[Euan Stainbank]

To address the point about substantial issues facing businesses, I acknowledge that is the case at the moment. We are not talking about energy costs or business rates, but I have a local business improvement district on my high street and I am well aware that it is talking about the costs that are put on business.

This Bill is a fundamental rebalancing in favour of workers, and frankly that would have to happen, irrespective of economic conditions. We need it to get people to believe that work pays again, because sadly much of my generation have not had that perception of work for too long. They may have seen other avenues—easier, passive income that does not come from hard graft, and from learning skills that are needed at a fundamental level.

The problem is that the entry point to work for many young people has been casualised and is insecure, and often it does not seem as though there are any prospects. I believe the Bill will change that perception substantially. To go back to doorstep conversations, this was one of the pledges in our manifesto that got young people engaged and thinking about how politics could fundamentally change their life and their experience in the workplace.

Turning to Lords amendment 1, I want to Members to put themselves in the mind of somebody experiencing a zero-hours contract for the first time. The hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) made some reasonable points about the right to request, rather than the right to have a contract that reflects hours, but in my experience of who zero-hours contracts are meant for in society, they are extensively given to the younger generation at the entry point of their career. There is a fundamental flaw in the concept of a right to request. Someone may be in their first job behind the till at Argos, or at a pie kiosk, or at a hotel bar or a restaurant—I do not have to imagine it; this is essentially my CV, prior to entering politics, all done in the last 10 years. At age 18, people do not necessary know their rights beyond what their mum and dad tell them, and this is a point I have heard addressed by several Members.

Imagine a person who, after years of zero-hours contracts, reliance on casualised working and low pay, is in an industry that is still adapting to the Bill’s provisions. They ask for a contract that reflects their hours, rather than what they would be entitled to under the Bill if we reject the amendment. How likely would they be to press the issue with their employer in this market? How likely is it that somebody will bang their fist on the table and say, “I want the contract that I can request, rather than the one I am entitled to”? People often want to make a career in the retail and hospitality fields, but how likely are they to do so if they cannot get the hours they are entitled to, or foresee their income for the coming year? They can get a contract that reflects the shift that they are putting in.

The problem with the amendment is that it shifts the power dynamic ever so slightly back to the employer, when the legislation quite rightly tips the balance in favour of the worker—the working people who have endured the acute impacts of a pandemic. I lost my job and my ability to privately rent, and I had to move back home, aged 20, in a cost of living crisis.

Businesses in Rural Areas

Suella Braverman Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone). We have had many great contributions from across the Chamber. Given the number, I will not seek to name all the Members who spoke; I will just pick three at random who I thought were particularly good: my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool), my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox).

It is a privilege to speak on a subject that is close to the hearts and livelihoods of so many of my own constituents in my rural constituency of Mid Buckinghamshire. I pay tribute to the immense contribution that rural businesses make to the United Kingdom. Whether they be in farming, tourism, food production, forestry, hospitality or manufacturing, or our rural innovators, these enterprises are not simply economic units; they are custodians of heritage, engines of local employment and lifelines for communities that could otherwise be left behind.

Some of the challenges have been picked up through the course of the debate. We will start with communications. It was a Conservative Government who introduced the shared rural network in 2020, which was a £1 billion joint programme, at that point, with mobile operators to attempt to eliminate the so-called notspots in rural coverage. Many of those spots were found in my constituency and some still are, such in as the village of Cuddington. The initiative is transforming how farmers, tourism operators and remote workers do business, but it is clear from the debate, and indeed my own experience, that there is still some way to go. As others have said, if we cannot solve the communications challenges in the digital age, that will hold everyone back.

A thriving rural economy also depends on a fair tax system, which is why successive Conservative Chancellors took steps to freeze fuel duty—a vital measure for those who live miles from the nearest market, school or supplier. It is why we increased the VAT threshold for small businesses and championed business rates relief for village shops and pubs, demonstrating their community value as well as their commercial one. We also froze alcohol duty, offering a crucial boost to rural pubs, breweries, cider producers and vineyards, which are often vital employers and social hubs in rural areas. These measures reflect a Conservative belief in letting enterprise breathe, rather than smothering it under tax and bureaucracy.

We also need to combat rural crime far more harshly—another area in which I speak with some experience from this place. What began as my private Member’s Bill grew into the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023. Once the Government finally introduce the secondary legislation required for it, it will protect farming businesses from agricultural machinery thefts.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Con)]

On that point, I recollect a visit I made in 2023 to one of the fantastic farms in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I pay tribute to his doughty and indefatigable campaigning to create that new offence, which protects farmers from rural theft and is an important change to the law.

Does my hon. Friend agree that illegal encampments are also blighting our rural communities? In Denmead and parts of Southwick and Fareham, we have had real challenges with illegal encampments. The last Conservative Administration introduced more police powers to move on some of the groups that cause a nuisance, destruction and intimidation, and sometimes engage in illegal activity. Of course, we respect the rights of minorities, but does he agree that a lot more awareness needs to be raised among the police and communities so that we can combat the scourge of illegal encampments more successfully?

[Greg Smith]

I remember my right hon. Friend visiting the farm. It was in my constituency at the time, but the boundary changes actually took it away from me. Preventing the theft of machinery from not just farms but all rural businesses, which suffer so badly when equipment theft takes place, is a critical measure that we have to get right.

I take the important point that my right hon. Friend makes around illegal encampments. Any illegal development needs to be clamped down on in whatever form it takes. I pay tribute to Thames Valley police’s rural crime taskforce for some of its work on that. It would be good if the Minister could work with Home Office colleagues to extend that work across the whole country, and push the Minister for Policing, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), to introduce the statutory instruments that would bring the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act into full force.

Let us turn to the direction of travel on rural business under this Government, which gives me real concern. First, as others have mentioned, the increase in national insurance contributions and changes to the NICs thresholds place a disproportionate burden on rural employers, many of whom already operate on the tightest of margins. For a rural farm employing five seasonal workers, or a family-run dairy business with a handful of long-serving staff, these extra costs are not abstract; they are the difference between hiring and firing.

The sharp rise in the national living wage is hitting rural sectors, with seasonal and low-margin employment—especially farming, food processing and rural tourism—hit particularly hard. These sectors do not have the luxury of passing on costs to consumers in the same way that some of the big urban retail or tech companies do. They face fixed contracts and price pressures from supermarkets, and this change risks hollowing out jobs that were previously viable.

Compounding that is the change to business property relief, which will strip tax protections from many family-run rural enterprises such as holiday accommodation and equestrian centres, undermining succession planning and deterring future investment in those rural businesses. Labour has targeted the very dynamism that it claims to support.

Labour’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill poses a serious threat to rural enterprise. By relaxing environmental safeguards and expanding compulsory purchase powers—removing hope value protections from prime farmland—the Bill risks allowing developers and central authorities to override local rural businesses and agricultural land. The removal of green belt-like protections from the mythical grey belt areas also paves the way for large-scale development in what were previously safe rural areas. Rural entrepreneurs now face heightened uncertainty over their long-term investments and succession plans. Farmers, holiday let providers and small rural manufacturers alike may wake up to find their economic foundations undermined by top-down planning interventions.

The Employment Rights Bill threatens significant administrative, legal and recruitment costs for rural businesses, which are estimated at up to £5 billion across the economy and are disproportionately heavier for small rural businesses, jeopardising their ability to hire flexibly or offer seasonal work.

But perhaps the most damaging of all is Labour’s recent change to agricultural property relief: the family farm tax. This is not simply a tweak to inheritance policy; it is a direct assault on the ability of farming families to pass on their land and their livelihoods from one generation to the next. An estimated 40,000 farming jobs will be lost under Labour’s plans to force all farmers to stop farming on up to 20% of their land.

The Government’s estimate of 27% of farms being impacted is based on outdated APR claims data from 2021-22 that does not reflect rising land values or the full economic picture of commercial family farms. Nearly 40% of farms rely on a combination of APR and BPR to mitigate inheritance tax liabilities. The £1 million threshold applies to both combined, making it far more restrictive than the Government’s modelling suggests. In my constituency, this is already causing disinvestment. I have spoken with farmers who are now deferring expansion, shelving plans for tourism ventures and, in some cases, considering breaking up long-held estates that have supported jobs and communities for generations.

Farm shops have, after years of successful trading, made the difficult decision to close. On rural high streets, costs have risen 15%. At Rumsey’s Handmade Chocolates in Wendover in my constituency, this is already leading to job losses and reduced hours for the staff they have been able to retain. The Pink and Lily pub in Lacey Green shut in February, just seven years after it first opened.

Rural Britain does not ask for favours, but it does demand fairness. It wants policies that reflect the unique challenges of doing business across distances, in smaller labour markets and with greater exposure to the weather, the global economy and regulatory interference. That is why the Opposition will continue to champion low tax, light-touch regulation and a level playing field for rural enterprise. The future of the rural economy cannot be sustained on sentiment alone; it must be underpinned by policy that understands the realities of rural life. On that test, thus far, Labour is failing.