What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 11,987 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
I am really sorry to hear about the situation that Mr Welch and his sister find themselves in following the death of their mother last year. Our reforms to the leasehold system will make service charges more transparent and easier to challenge. I assure my hon. Friend that work is under way in the Department to better understand the market around poor resale values. I would be happy to meet her to discuss that.
I know that the mayor is consulting on that mayoral development corporation, so I will not prejudice that consultation by giving my view on it. In general, however, the Government absolutely support the use of mayoral development corporations and locally led development corporations as a means to masterplan, assemble land and regenerate areas.
The hon. Gentleman has been campaigning on this issue for a long time. I recognise his concerns and am more than happy to meet him. He should have had that confirmation already, but I give it to him now on the Floor of the House.
Due to my quasi-judicial role in the planning system, I cannot comment on the detail of the emerging plan, and I am afraid I cannot meet my hon. Friend to discuss it. The plan, the sites included in it and the proposed main modifications have been subject to several rounds of consultations throughout the examination process. It is for the independent inspectors to consider the responses to the consultations and set out next steps.
What I will do for the right hon. Gentleman is go away and review whether further guidance for the Planning Inspectorate in this particular area would be helpful.
My hon. Friend may have heard my answer to a previous question in which I set out how we have strengthened the national planning policy framework in this area. I am more than happy to discuss with her particular policy areas where her council may think more powers are required.
As the hon. Member may be aware, we are looking through that legislation to introduce caps on administration and permission fees. That may help some of her affected residents, but I would be grateful if she could write to me and set out in more detail how this issue is affecting her constituents.
That particular reform was commenced only on Saturday. We have already committed to review it after a two-year period, and that is what we will do.
Would the hon. Lady write to me with some further details, to illustrate the precise problem she is trying to get at?
I welcome the positives in the Chancellor’s Budget, some of which include the freeze on fuel duty, increases in the minimum and national living wage and the small business rate relief threshold for retail, hospitality and leisure properties. There is also the fact that almost 56,000 households in my constituency will benefit from the £100 payment for properties in council tax bands A to D. However, I must advise the Chancellor that there will not be good growth in NE6 and NE28 postcodes unless Ministers pull every lever at their disposal to support industry on the Tyne. The overhead electric cables are a constraint on investment, as they prevent the movement of large structures used in the offshore energy sector. News that the project to underground the cables is now effectively paused will push the 2034 completion date even further into the future. International yards are already capitalising on our offshore wind leasing rounds. Fixed-bottom assets are increasing in size and investment in floating offshore wind, which will see integrated units towed to sea, is set to overtake fixed-bottom by the early 2030s. My constituency has the skills and infrastructure to sit at the forefront of the UK’s green future. It is home to a cluster of offshore supply chain firms and an expanding energy skills academy, and it is less than 100 nautical miles from the world’s largest offshore wind farm. Ofgem, National Grid and Ministers must act decisively, so that Tyneside can seize the opportunities that the green transition offers.
In rural Cumbria, those without a car struggle to access education and jobs, which is why families on the lowest incomes prioritise car ownership. However, our councils lost out on significant financial support because funding formulas used car ownership as a determinant of income. Will the Secretary of State carry out a review of this approach, and perhaps ask whether civil servants who are privileged enough to travel to work on one of the world’s finest public transport systems are giving us duff advice?
I thank the Home Secretary for her leadership on this issue. In the Lake district, due to housing shortages, there is a long-established policy of social housing being subject to local occupancy restrictions; only those with a local link—for example, local employment—are eligible for housing. Looking beyond the Home Office, does she agree that her Cabinet colleagues—not least those responsible for the fairness of housing policy—also have the power and a responsibility to reduce immigration pull factors?
When I ask people in my constituency how they feel about the economy, they tell me that their bills are too high and their rent or mortgage take too much of their pay. I am glad that the Budget takes some first steps to address those issues.<span id="638" class="column-number" data-column-number="638"></span> Four years ago, the Conservatives, led by Liz, crashed the economy and sent mortgages and bills soaring. Before that, they spent more than a decade cutting our armed forces and public services—they left us poorly defended in every sense. The Chancellor’s Budget makes a good start in addressing those problems. The immediate help for 20 million households towards their energy bills this winter is a welcome relief. The changes to business rates will have a huge impact on businesses in my constituency. On devolution, I can only hope that Lancashire will have a mayor by 2028 to share in the proposals that were announced. I urge Reform-led Lancashire county council to grab this amazing opportunity for Lancashire. We have been left behind for too long. The council needs to stop infighting and start fighting for Lancashire instead. I want to come back to how much further we need to go to rebuild Britain. The Prime Minister rightly identified the deindustrialisation of Britain as one of the reasons places such as Blackpool North and Fleetwood have not shared in the proceeds of growth as much as they should have done. He is right that a change of policy is required, but right now Britain is deindustrialising faster than any of our neighbours. Domestic manufacturing capacity is an essential source of our national security. British manufacturers face the highest electricity prices in Europe. I know many Labour colleagues have asked the Chancellor to look at the merits of extending the British industrial competitiveness scheme to all manufacturing firms. I hope the Front-Bench team look carefully again at the proposals and sit down with the TUC and others to discuss how that could be implemented. This Budget offers practical help with people’s bills this winter. The 10-year plan and the spending review must do the same for their jobs.
<Question HRSContentId="{57BDEB4C-D06D-497C-89C2-14E80FA64BF5}">T6. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{5E16B557-DFE8-4852-BE4B-76F7D1F9602D}"></QuestionText>The Riveira hotel is an iconic building overlooking Weymouth, but its current Saudi Arabia-based owners have let it fall into woeful disrepair. What was once a thriving hotel is now turning into an eyesore. While Dorset council is doing its utmost to convene a reasonable sale, we can and must do more. Will the Minister meet with us to explore every option, including compulsory purchase as a backstop, to bring this hotel back into local hands?</Question>
This Budget contains a series of practical measures that will make a real difference to families across Amber Valley. While some may dismiss individual announcements as small measures, it is their combined effect that matters. Taken together, they provide genuine breathing space for thousands of people across Amber Valley. They include: expanded childcare and free breakfast clubs for families; support for households worried about energy bills; and measures to help people with transport costs for work and leisure.
I do agree with my hon. Friend. It is very important that there is breathing space right across the country, just like growth in every postcode. The Budget is only one part of a much wider programme of reform. The high streets strategy, the modern service framework for dementia and frailty, reforming social care, bringing decision making closer to our communities through devolution, and of course our 10-year plan, will all be transformative for my constituents. I want to turn to another matter addressed by the Budget, which echoes the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett). It is a big issue in our local community. It is extremely personal to me and to hundreds of people in my constituency. I am proud to be a former coalminer’s daughter, and I am proud to be a Labour MP with a Government committed to finally delivering justice for mineworkers, because—let us face it—only a Labour Government will do so. Since Labour came into office in 2024, we have seen real progress on this topic. The MPS investment reserve has been transferred to scheme members, increasing annual pensions by around £29 per week. Last week the <span id="665" class="column-number" data-column-number="665"></span>Chancellor announced that every penny of the surplus from the MPS will remain with the members rather than being split with the Government and the standstill rule has been abolished. Those are important improvements, but as the Chancellor himself said last week, the job is not done. My dad suffers from emphysema, white fingers and damaged knees from years of working at the coalface, and now also late-stage dementia. When I learned that a final settlement for MPS members would not be reached in this Budget, I made it clear to Ministers what that means. It means there is a very real possibility that my dad will not live to see the justice he deserves. That is not unique to our family. Around 19 former miners die every single day. That means that since the Budget, 85 miners will already have passed away without seeing this issue resolved. Let us be clear: this is not Government money, and this is not taxpayers’ money; this is the miners’ money. The Chancellor committed to ensuring the full transfer of the guarantor’s fund and I welcome that completely, but we cannot wait any longer. We cannot wait until a new fiscal event. We must finish the job and we must do it now.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I would like to declare an interest: a family member of mine is employed by Smartphone Free Childhood. I speak today not just as a politician, but as a parent. My children are not yet old enough to be on social media, but my wake-up call came when my then seven-year-old daughter put a smartphone at the top of her Christmas list. I am fearful about what is to come for my kids, and I want the Government to be fully on my side as my family navigates the teenage years. I support the Government’s decision to ban social media for under-16s, and I urge them to move quickly to clarify the details and implement the ban, starting by bringing forward the regulations. The reality is that for years we have been allowing social media companies to access and influence our children unchecked. If we were talking about anything other than social media companies, whether that is toy manufacturers or pharmaceuticals, we would have put <span id="273WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="273WH"></span>the precautions and protections in place already. We have not, and while the causality can be hard to prove, it cannot be pure coincidence that this period of growing screen and social media use has coincided with the rapid decline in young people’s mental health and wellbeing, poor sleeping patterns, poor school attendance, increasing rates of self-harm and eating disorders, as other hon. Members have mentioned. We have been putting children into an online environment that overwhelms their still-developing brain functions—as Jonathan Haidt has set out very powerfully—and the harms are clear. I fully respect the views of those petitioners who say that there are benefits to young people being able to access social media, including the 430 people in my constituency who have signed this petition. However, I think that the view of these petitioners does not contradict a ban of the kind that the Government are taking forward. It is a ban on platforms built to encourage addiction, such as through infinite scrolling or streaks. It is also a ban on strangers being able to access our children and cause harm. It is not the end of children being able to communicate with family and friends or seek out community or help if they need it. It is the start of them being able to do that safely. Why is this the right way forward? I will briefly share three thoughts. First, I think this sets a new norm, and that is so important. Parents feel trapped in a no-win situation, where they either allow social media and risk harming their child, or refuse it and risk their child feeling socially excluded. Many young people reach early adulthood and wish that they had never had the excess or pressure of social media, but by then it is too late. Young people will say that to me, and they say, “Please do not stop us communicating with our friends, but please help me manage this addiction that I have to live with.” The age limit of 16 removes those pressures and creates a new shared norm that childhood does not need to be lived on and through social media. Secondly, a ban is inclusive and equalising, because the reality is that not all parents have the knowledge, time or capacity to manage all the parental controls. I notice a pattern whereby it is often the parents with a bit more time, income or freedom who make active decisions to keep their children off social media. But that is tough for parents, and a ban for under-16s removes that burden from individual families—from the parents and the young people. It ensures that all children have the same protections, regardless of their background or family situation. Thirdly, this ban is so important because it gives us the clarity to start thinking about alternatives. We have been stuck in this debate for a long time. If children are simply not allowed social media and that is decided, what might their childhoods look like? The science shows that executive brain function develops through practice in the real world—through play, face-to-face interaction, sustained attention and unstructured time. What policy interventions will encourage children to spend more time outside? How do we create environments where they can play without structure and without the performance that social media requires? What do the best practice online learning tools look like if some of those addictive design features are removed? There are <span id="274WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="274WH"></span>so many vital policy questions that we are freed up to address, once the rules on social media access for our children are clear. I will make a final point on one aspect of the ban that is particularly important to me. Last year, I had a serious and harrowing case in my constituency where a 12-year-old boy was groomed by an AI chatbot. It encouraged him to leave school, turn against his parents, run away from home, engage in a highly sexualised dialogue, and even suggested that the boy and the chatbot might meet in the afterlife. This should never, ever have happened, and no other 12-year-old should be exposed to harm in this way. I pushed hard on this at the time, and I was very grateful to the then Secretary of State for taking note and for including AI romantic companion bots in the ban. However, I continue to urge ambition and clarity as that aspect of the ban is taken forward. We may find that just regulating romantic companion bots is not enough, as others have said, including my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan). The social media ban is not about some sort of rose-tinted return to childhoods of the past; it is about giving children the right protections in our digital age. It is about allowing them to benefit from the very best of the online world, educating them about it for adulthood but doing so in an age-appropriate way, and setting them up to be safe, happy and successful, both online and offline.
We continue to have acute workforce pressures in social care in Scotland, which often leaves people stranded in hospital when they are fit to go home. What conversations has the Home Secretary had with the Scottish Government about the need for robust workforce planning, which has been absent for so long, to ensure that existing skills gaps are not exacerbated by these changes?
The real tests of this Budget are the families who notice every extra penny at the petrol station, every increase in the energy bill, and the pounds adding to the price of the weekly shop. The war in Iran carries a price tag for the globe, and that is clear at the petrol pump and in our energy bills. For motorists, and for more than 3,500 workers in transport and logistics in my constituency, the price at the pump matters. I therefore welcome the continued freeze in the fuel duty cut until July 2027, a measure that I have called for throughout the year. I also welcome the end to standing charges for gas, and the £100 payment to those in council tax bands A to D. That will make the thought of bills during the upcoming winter that bit less stressful. If the Scottish Government do the same, more than 119,000 households in the West Lothian and Falkirk council areas will benefit. That money must be passed on. Our constituents cannot afford for it to disappear into the black hole created by the Scottish National party’s mismanagement of Scotland’s finances. These measures mean real reductions in bills, shifting the brunt of levies and standing charges away from the consumer just as the worst hits.
I will continue my speech, so that others can get in.<span id="656" class="column-number" data-column-number="656"></span> I am mindful that many people have high energy usage owing to health conditions and disabilities, so I would be grateful if the Minister outlined the support that those with health vulnerabilities will receive. I am also aware that many businesses continue to struggle with the high level of energy costs, especially manufacturers in energy-intensive sectors, so I would have liked to have seen an expansion of eligibility for the British industrial competitiveness scheme, and I hope the Chancellor will consider that. I also hope that the Scottish Government will take a leaf out of the Chancellor’s book, and replicate the cuts in business rates to give our high street businesses a boost. The Budget delivers a further £600 million for Scotland, amounting to over £18 billion more since Labour was elected in July 2024. I am calling on the Scottish Government to use that £600 million extra and invest in the services on which my constituents rely and which they use day in, day out. While we cannot predict every shock that comes from overseas, we can choose how we respond to them. We choose to protect families at the petrol pump and in their energy bills, and we choose to back British workers, British businesses and British manufacturing. That is what this Budget is about: giving my constituents greater security today, while building a stronger and more resilient economy for tomorrow.
For decades, Liverpool has lived with the consequences of Thatcher’s sell-off of council housing and the large-scale stock transfer of properties leaving too many families without secure and genuinely affordable homes. Mayor Steve Rotheram’s North Docks mayoral development corporation set out a bold vision, with strong public backing. Will the Minister back the work of the MDC to support large-scale council house building in order to reverse the legacy of the past and tackle the housing crisis?
I thank the hon. Member for securing this really important debate. I recently visited Bodylines, a salon and spa in the middle of Sittingbourne, which is run by Liza—with a z, not an s, just to confuse everyone—who made this point very strongly. Bodylines is a great salon that has been there for about 40 years—it is a well-embedded business in the town—and she used to offer lots of training places, but now she simply cannot because she is out-competed by venues that rent chairs by the hour to the pseudo self-employed.<span id="694" class="column-number" data-column-number="694"></span> Liza told me how that is a real threat to the future of the industry. My mother trained as a hairdresser in the ’60s before becoming a social worker. As the hon. Member said, these roles are vital for getting people into a whole range of employment opportunities, but without businesses that can support them, they will be gone forever. The pseudo self-employed roles will not persist, either. The biggest thing Liza raised with me was how much money from VAT the Government are losing. Those other venues are not charging VAT and the responsible self-employed are not paying it, so we are losing money in that way as well. This is something that, on every front, we have to change.
It has been interesting to listen to all the points that the Minister made about the potential negatives of a mandatory registration scheme, and the things that might not work. In terms of evidence, I would offer the fact that about 100 years ago, in the early 20th century, nursing was not a registered profession. <span id="700" class="column-number" data-column-number="700"></span>All those arguments are very familiar, and although people as notable as Florence Nightingale were opposed to nursing registration, it was seen as essential. A lot of the challenges that the Minister has identified were overcome—we would not conceive of nursing not being registered now, and I think that is true for other intimate professions such as beauty and hair.
I welcome the principle of earned settlement, whereby contribution to our society is rewarded, and it is right that we reward our care workers. In our schools, our teachers need the support of their assistants. Will the Home Secretary say what support there will be for our teaching assistants?
I welcome the change for care workers, but may I ask more about those whose five years have not worked out, for one reason or another? The Home Secretary says there will be another five-year route, but I met a care worker the other day who has injured her back because her employer did not respect health and safety rules, and she now cannot do that job. She has a master’s degree in financial management and is a specialist in AI. She knows that she has to work as a care worker, but will she really have to start again once her back has healed?
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) on securing the debate, and I thank her for the constructive and determined way in which she has championed this issue in the House and through her presentation Bill. I also recognise her close work with her constituent Mike Taylor, whom she mentioned this evening, and whose business is an accredited outstanding provider of barbering apprenticeships. I pay tribute to him, and to the hairdressers and barbers whose experiences the hon. Member has shared with the House this evening. I was brought up around this industry. My mum was a hairdresser—I am very lucky that I can still persuade her to do my hair today—so I recognise how important it is to be a voice in Parliament for hair and beauty, which is an absolute powerhouse of an industry. I am proud to be the Minister responsible for personal care. Hair and beauty does not just make a significant £28 billion contribution to the economy and provide almost 600,000 jobs; it is also about the salon on the high street that brings people into town, as the hon. Member said. It supports our local communities, helping them to thrive. For many women, it often starts as a passion, a set of professional skills and the ambition to build something of their own, and that can grow into a successful business, creating employment and opportunities for others. With more than 85% of businesses in our sector owned by women, hair and beauty is a powerful example of female entrepreneurship, independence and resilience. Behind every salon is a story of hard work, skill, creativity and determination. I recognise the significance of our industry, which is made up mainly of women, and I thank them for all the support that they give to women across the country. The hon. Member mentioned that, when we get our hair done, they are often our therapists, and we walk out feeling amazing.<span id="697" class="column-number" data-column-number="697"></span> Let me turn to where we agree. The harms that the hon. Member described are real. Customers should feel safe and protected in a salon chair, and good employers should not be undercut by those who cheat and do not play by the same rules. Young people need a route into the profession, and criminals should not be hiding behind barber shopfronts on our high streets. The question before the House is not whether those problems matter—of course they do—but whether a mandatory register is the right way to fix them. I will take a number of her arguments in turn, explain where I would like to hear more evidence about what would work instead, and explain what we are prioritising. It is first worth being clear about what a register is. As the hon. Member mentioned, the Hairdressers (Registration) Act 1964 already provides for a register of qualified hairdressers and barbers. Making it mandatory would record that an individual holds a qualification. Although that would improve visibility, it would not inspect a salon, check who owns a business or where its money comes from, or decide whether somebody is genuinely self-employed. It would not create a single new apprenticeship place. That matters, because each of the harms that she and many other hon. Members have discussed comes from something other than a missing qualification. On consumer safety, I want to highlight two examples: ringworm and chemical burns, because these are distressing and I do not want to dismiss them for a moment. Ringworm comes from poor hygiene and infection control. A qualified stylist working with unclean equipment poses the same risk as an unqualified one. Chemical burns come from the unsafe use of hazardous products. Every salon—whoever works in it—is already legally required to control these risks under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the associated regulations, such as the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002. Local authorities already have the powers to enforce health and safety legislation and are responsible for managing hygiene standards in businesses. Where there is evidence that risks are not being properly managed, local authorities can intervene and take appropriate enforcement action to ensure that employers and customers are protected. A register would not send anyone through the door to check, but enforcement does, and where the evidence has shown serious risks of harm, the Government have acted. Last month we launched a consultation proposing that high-risk cosmetic procedures should be carried out only by qualified, regulated healthcare professionals, with providers registered with the Care Quality Commission and criminal penalties for breaches. We have also committed to a licensing scheme for lower-risk cosmetic procedures and have acted because there was strong evidence showing a scale of harm. So far we have not seen comparable evidence for hairdressing, but if the hon. Member has cases—she has raised some tonight—I want my officials to see them. The hon. Member is right that bogus self-employment, too, is unacceptable. Self-employment, as she mentioned, is a legitimate and long-standing part of the sector, and many workers value that flexibility in their way of working. But no employer should deny the basic rights of people by calling them self-employed when they are <span id="698" class="column-number" data-column-number="698"></span>not. Here, too, it is not clear how a register might help. A fully qualified registered barber could still be falsely self-employed. What will make a difference is fixing the employment status framework itself. We have published a consultation on targeted reforms, including a proposal of worker status and stronger enforcement. These proposals are designed with workers like those in hairdressing in mind. Alongside that, the important work of the Fair Work Agency now brings together employment rights enforcement into one place with a dedicated hidden economy team. I know that Fair Work Agency officials have met the sector. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will investigate where people have been misclassified for tax purposes and take action to recover the tax and national insurance owed. I am of course happy to keep the hon. Member updated on the employment status consultation and to discuss it further with her. The hon. Member spoke powerfully about apprenticeships. I will not pretend that the recent figures that she alluded to and that decline we have seen in apprenticeship starts is comforting—it is not. As she mentioned, hairdressing businesses play such an important role in employment and training opportunities, particularly for young people. That is why it is important to strengthen the sector’s skills pipeline for those opportunities for social mobility and career progression. The challenge that employers describe is the cost and capacity to take on and train a young person. It is not clear how a register that requires qualifications may help, and we are mindful of the costs for small businesses that do the training, which she referred to.
I thank the hon. Member for sharing those examples from the representatives she meets. We are keen to engage with those and understand the impact. I have given my reflections on those concerns today, but it adds to my wider point that we want to hear that evidence and pick that up. That is why our focus in the meantime has been on helping those employers directly on apprenticeships, whether that is the £2,000 hiring payment for smaller employers taking on 16 to 24-year-old apprentices, a £3,000 youth jobs grant, no employer national insurance for apprentices under 25, or fully funded apprenticeship training for eligible under-25s. Those measures are important for driving up apprenticeships across the country. In particular, we are working with the sector on assessment reforms so that hair and beauty apprenticeships are rigorous, proportionate and trusted by employers. On money laundering, serious and organised crime damages our high streets and undermines honest businesses. I thank the hon. Member and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) for raising that issue, as tackling it is a priority for the Government. A criminal front can employ a registered barber as easily as anyone <span id="699" class="column-number" data-column-number="699"></span>else, and a register with reflections on who owns a business, where the money comes from and whether that could even lend a business respectability that it does not deserve, is a key consideration. My hon. Friend mentioned Operation Machinize, which since March 2025 has been led by the National Crime Agency. That has seen over 3,000 suspect high-street premises visited, and nearly 1,000 people arrested. We are building on that with a £30 million crackdown on cash-intensive businesses, including barber shops. That also includes £20 million for law enforcement, £6 million for trading standards, and a new cross-Government high street organised crime unit.
I know that my hon. Friend is working closely with colleagues across Government on this issue, and I thank him for his continued campaigning and advocacy. We must double the maximum duration of closure orders so that criminal businesses cannot simply reopen while investigations continue.
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I hope that he and other colleagues hear that we want the same things. We want customers to be safe, workers to get the rights they are entitled to, young people to have a route into this brilliant profession, and criminals to have nowhere to hide on our high streets. As colleagues will have heard, I am not yet persuaded that a mandatory register would deliver those things, but I am open to evidence and I thank hon. Members for their offers this evening. I am also persuaded that enforcement, employment reform and direct support for employers will deliver. As the Barbers and Hairdressers (Registration) Bill is before the House, it would not be right for me to comment on its specific provisions this evening, but if the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole has evidence of harms that existing powers are not reaching, I would like my officials to look closely at that. I thank her for securing this debate, and all colleagues for their contributions and for championing a sector that matters so much to our communities. <em>Question put and agreed to.</em>
With an immediate three-minute time limit, I call James MacCleary.
Order. Members have been very disciplined with interventions, but they may wish to note that several Members have absented themselves from the Chamber without any notice.
<Question HRSContentId="{53B43989-6B20-41CC-A0CA-76FCEC9B44D5}">T8. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{7C16F4A4-268C-4555-A30C-88572226DEE2}"></QuestionText>This summer’s wildfires showed us how incredible but stretched our firefighters are. Their ability to prepare for and confront fires and floods will match the ferocity <span id="574" class="column-number" data-column-number="574"></span>of what they face only if we in this House do our part. Following the Budget and ahead of the spending review, will the Department make strong representations to the Treasury so that wildfire risk can be taken into account when fire and rescue budgets are set?</Question>
The Home Secretary is absolutely right to talk about the British people’s sense of fairness; I heard about exactly that on the doorstep in Cannock Chase just this weekend. Not only did the Conservatives let millions into Britain over just a few years, but they left indefinite leave to remain at five years, regardless of someone’s contribution. Does the Home Secretary agree that these changes will introduce fairness, and that those who want to settle here will have to make a fair and positive contribution?
In this third day of the Budget debate, I worry about repeating what has already been said, so I will focus on two issues of particular importance to my communities in Cannock Chase. Before I do so, briefly, I welcome the cost of living support in this Budget—£100 back on council tax, VAT kept off electricity bills for longer, standing charges taken off gas and the continuation of the fuel duty freeze. Those measures will not solve every financial pressure, but they will provide welcome relief at a time when it is needed most. Let me turn to my beautiful home county of Staffordshire, which, thanks to this Government, will soon be able to catch up with the likes of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire with the announcement of a mayoral strategic authority. That is a massive opportunity, particularly for our towns, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) always says, must be at the heart of the national growth and renewal that this Government stand for. Our big cities have done well, but it is the turn of the towns, and having those powers and the funding that comes with devolution gives us the tools we need to turn our potential into reality. Perhaps surprisingly to many, our towns have, on average, more than twice the proportion of their workforce employed in manufacturing as our cities, at around 9% compared with 4%, yet employment growth over the past decade has been almost twice as high in cities, at 10.7%, compared with just 5.4% in our towns. We cannot seriously talk about rebalancing our economy while allowing that gap to persist, but that requires investment and, crucially, proper transport connections. For too many people, particularly young people and those without access to a car, getting to work, college or an apprenticeship remains unnecessarily difficult. That is where devolution matters, because a mayoral authority with meaningful powers over transport, skills and economic development gives Staffordshire the opportunity to join those things up and be the masters of our own destiny. I hope that it will also bring some much-needed stability to our county’s leadership. Since last May, Staffordshire county council has had not one, not two, not three, but four leaders, courtesy of the chaos of Reform UK. Staffordshire needs a little less political musical chairs and a lot more long-term focus on the priorities of our communities.<span id="680" class="column-number" data-column-number="680"></span> Let me turn to the second issue: the mineworkers’ pension scheme. As the proud representative of nearly 1,000 MPS members, I will always raise my voice in support of those who risked their lives to power our nation. Alongside them and my fellow coalfield Labour MPs, we pressed the Government to release the £1.2 billion guarantor’s fund, end the standstill mechanism and ensure that all future surpluses go to those who earned that money in the first place. The MPS investment reserve was returned to members by this Labour Government two years ago, and the Chancellor’s decision in this Budget to end surplus sharing and the standstill are major steps forward. However, we are deeply disappointed that the Budget did not include the transfer of the guarantor’s fund—a measure that would have put money back into the pockets of our retired miners. There was a clear expectation that this would be done, finally righting the wrongs of the past 32 years. I welcome the Chancellor saying from the Dispatch Box that it will be done, but we must never forget that this money came from the graft of our miners —it is their deferred wages, and it belongs in their bank accounts. With 100 MPS members passing away every week, we must move as quickly as possible, and we certainly cannot wait for next year’s Budget. This Budget brought forward support with the cost of living, and it is allowing Staffordshire to take control of its own destiny. I wish it had sealed full justice for our MPS members, but we are now so close to ending their fight, and they can count me as an ally right until the very end.
For my constituents and those across the country, life is hard, and it has not shown signs of getting easier. The previous Government were the first in decades to preside over a fall in the standard of living and, with Trump’s war in the middle east, things are unlikely to get better as quickly as we would like. That is why I welcome the support being provided to households facing higher <span id="671" class="column-number" data-column-number="671"></span>energy costs. For many families, an extra £100 will not transform their circumstances overnight—no one is pretending otherwise—but every pound matters, and that support matters, too. In Calderdale, almost nine out of 10 houses are expected to be eligible for the £100 household energy payment. That means that the overwhelming majority of my constituents will receive direct support this winter. For many people, the support will ease some of the pressures on their household budgets at exactly the moment they need that the most. I welcome the expansion of the warm home discount, too. By widening eligibility, the Government have almost doubled the number of households in the scheme to 6 million. That means millions more families receiving £150 off their energy bills this winter. Too often, those on the lowest incomes have faced what is known as the poverty premium, made famous by Terry Pratchett with his “Captain Vimes’s Boots” theory of economics: the less money you have, the more things cost. We see that in our insurance costs, in the costs of credit and, importantly, in the cost of fuel. That is why ending standing charges will make a difference, as those who use less energy will pay less. Helping those households is not simply about fairness; it is also good economics as the money from these measures will not sit unused, stored thousands of miles away in the Cayman Islands, but be spent in local communities on local high streets, helping local people. People will use it to pay bills, buy essentials and support local businesses, which will contribute to their high streets. The same principle applies to our businesses across Calder Valley. Business owners are ambitious to innovate, are determined to succeed and want it to be easier to invest, grow and create jobs. Whether because of energy costs, red tape or being locked out of Government contracts, for many of them the main concern has been staying afloat, not growing or taking on new people. That is why I welcome some of the changes to business rates announced in the Budget. Raising the threshold for small business rate relief for retail, hospitality and leisure from £12,000 to £18,000 means that 70,000 additional businesses will pay no business rates at all. In Calder Valley, that will make a huge difference to our collection of independent shops, cafés and pubs. Speaking of pubs, I am proud to see support for Britain’s small independent breweries. Calder Valley is home to fantastic independent breweries including Eagles Crag and Vocation. I am proud to have made a significant contribution to them over the years, but finding room to grow has not been easy. The support announced in the Budget will be welcomed across the brewing sector. While some Budgets look worse as time goes on—the famous omnishambles Budget and the Liz Truss Budget among them—this is one that will look better, with its help for small businesses and support for households. This Budget backs working people. This Budget backs British industry. It backs communities in Calder Valley, and I am proud to back it.
My hon. Friend has always been cool.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair this afternoon, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for his opening speech and the petitioners for bringing this important issue forward. There are a range of views on this debate, and it is so important that we listen to the young people who want us to look in detail at what the impact might be on them. It is absolutely right that we look at the concerns raised by all the young people, adults, teachers, parents and families on the impact of social media on children’s wellbeing, mental health and development. It is important that we recognise that they are genuine concerns shared by many. I was rather looking forward to saying that I am the youngest Member in the room, but that claim has been stolen by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling). However, I am one of the few MPs who grew up with social media. Like many of my friends, I accessed social media before the age of 13. I have seen at first hand how rapidly evolving platforms have given rise to harmful content, misinformation and addiction, affecting adults as well as young people. The vast majority of colleagues in this place can remember a time before social media. Today’s generation of young people have not had that benefit. They have grown up with it, with their lives intertwined with the digital world. Parents, teachers and young people have every right to be angry. When children are exposed to harmful content, online bullying, unrealistic expectations, addictive platform design and material that damages their mental health, it is no wonder that people feel we have not <span id="275WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="275WH"></span>acted quickly enough in this place. I remember being a young person at school desperate for the Government to do more, and they did not. Parents are right to demand action. Parliament has a responsibility to respond. The question is not about whether we should act—of course we should. It is about what will be most effective, and it is so important that we get this right. Earlier this year, I held a series of roundtables with secondary school pupils across Hertford and Stortford to hear directly from them about their experiences online. Many described social media as a source of anxiety. Others spoke about exposure to graphic content and misinformation—online pressures that previous generations simply did not have to navigate. The conversations I had with young people also highlighted that social media is not simply a straightforward source of risk. It can be a vital source of information, connection and support. Indeed, I first became politically engaged through the online world because, after the referendum in 2016, I was encouraged to join a protest to lower the voting age to 16, and I stood outside here with other young people calling for the voting age to be lowered. I would not have been there, and I would not be here had I not come across that through the online world. Many of the young people I spoke to shared similar experiences and stressed that, too often, this debate overlooks the positive role that social media can play. When safe and well regulated, it can help to combat isolation and foster meaningful connections, particularly for those in semi-rural communities like mine. It can provide a lifeline for young people who are LGBTQ+, neurodiverse, or living with a mental health condition, helping them to understand their identity and access peer support networks. Many of those young people will be on long waiting lists for traditional services. Those online communities provide an essential source of support in the interim, and I worry that a blanket ban could risk pulling the rug out from under those young people and removing the safety net altogether. One of the strongest messages I heard from young people was that they actually want us to do something to tackle online harms. Those young people were not white-knuckled, clinging on to their phones. They were telling us about their experience and that they want us to act. That should mean looking seriously at stronger age assurance, tougher regulation of harmful content, greater transparency around algorithms, meaningful parental controls and restrictions on deliberately addictive features. What it should mean is that we take the fight to the social media companies. I am, as of recently, 27 years old, and I have been waiting for this for a long time; young people today should not have to wait as long as I have. I am cautious about the idea of a blanket ban. It is important that, whatever we do, we get it right. We must ask ourselves what happens next. If mainstream platforms become unavailable, how confident are we that young people will simply stop using online services altogether? Do we risk pushing them towards smaller, less-regulated platforms, where safeguards are weaker and oversight is more difficult? We should recognise the role that those platforms now play in civic and democratic engagement. For many young people, social media is a gateway to current affairs, public debate and political participation. This is about not just learning about <span id="276WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="276WH"></span>politics from the online world, but engaging with it from the online world and holding politicians like us to account. While protecting children from harm, which I absolutely agree must be the priority, we need to be careful not to close off legitimate opportunities for engagement.
I quite agree. Another colleague touched on the cliff edge: the idea that the day someone turns 16, they might get access to social media for the first time and then head off to the polling station to vote. It is right that we have more education on media literacy in schools but hands-on, practical experience in a safe and regulated online space is important as well. We have to consider how restricting young people’s access to this source of information might affect their long-term democratic participation. If we are serious about encouraging the next generation to take part in our democracy, we have to bring young people with us on this journey, not exclude them from it. I commend the Government on their engagement with young people, parents, teachers and families across the country. Young people I spoke to were very pleased that their MP came to speak to them and hear their views, but the feedback from young people since the announcement has been less positive. It is so important that we bring them with us as we do this. During the pandemic, we pushed more of young people’s lives online. They had no say. Education, social interaction, public services and democratic engagement increasingly moved into digital spaces. Many young people developed the habits of accessing news, discussing current affairs and engaging with campaigns through the very platforms we are now debating. We cannot rip them back out without giving them a proper say again. Protecting children from harm must be our priority, but I worry that if the answer is simply to ban access, we risk alienating the generation we seek to protect. They will not forgive us if we get this wrong, nor will their parents. If we shut them out of conversations, information and opportunities for participation that increasingly shape modern civic life, we should not be surprised if they choose not to engage going forward. The challenge before us is not simply to restrict access to a list of platforms, but to create an online environment in which young people can participate safely, responsibly and confidently as future citizens. Yes, we should act. Parents are right to expect action. Young people themselves are asking for action. But let us focus on the features, the business models and the failures of regulation that are causing harm rather than assuming that a blanket ban is the only solution available and putting the pressure of companies’ failures on the shoulders of young people. Will the Minister update the House on how the Department is assessing evidence from countries, such as Australia, that have pursued a social media ban for young people? Will he confirm that restrictions will be regularly reviewed and remain adaptable, given the current pace of technological change?
We agree on the cause; it is the methods that we have different views on. I recognise my hon. Friend’s point about the development of the brain, but should the onus not be on social media companies to clean up their act across the piece, so that every 16-year-old accessing social media, and indeed everyone over 16, is free from the harms currently found there? Should the aim not be to make sure that the harms are gone, not that the under-16s are gone?
Like many of my colleagues, I am delighted with the new Prime Minister’s clear ambition to reindustrialise Britain, which can drive economic prosperity in areas that really need it. My constituency is an example of somewhere that can drive and reap the benefits from this reindustrialisation. In Pendle and Clitheroe we do not trade financial derivatives; we make aeroplanes, furniture, chemicals and cement, and we produce food. Not only does manufacturing make up over a quarter of the jobs, but they are often the best jobs, too. However, the truth is that, as I speak, Britain is still deindustrialising. We are as vulnerable to global supply shocks as any major economy without the sovereign capability in key sectors to look after our basic needs. I am glad to see the Chancellor deliver immediate relief for households, but in the long run we must not just treat the symptoms of this failed economic model—with fiscal transfers patching up the gaps—but overhaul it entirely. The British economy remains too reliant on the City, foreign money and importing increasingly expensive essentials. True economic security can only come from the British economy being productive enough to convert world-leading innovation and research into valuable industrial output. I was pleased to see some of the announcements at the Budget last week reflect this challenge, with measures including: serious public investment into productive British industries via the National Wealth Fund and the British Business Bank; an acknowledgement of the need for cheaper power and protections offered to energy-intensive manufacturers; support for vocational apprenticeships, which is essential for skills development in manufacturing and aligned sectors; and a long-term partnership with Rolls-Royce, whose Barnoldswick site in my constituency provides well-paid jobs for hundreds of my constituents—a reminder that Britain could still be home to world-leading industrial champions in highly competitive sectors. But there is a lot more to be done. We must be clear about what we mean when we talk about reindustrialisation. The clue is in the name—it is about industry. Reindustrialisation must mean increasing physical production of goods needed at home and abroad. I hope that we will see more detail on how we will achieve this in the forthcoming 10-year plan. As a short-term measure, I would like to see an expansion of the British industrial competitiveness scheme to a much wider range of manufacturing firms in Britain. We cannot expect our productive sectors to thrive and grow with energy costs as high as they currently are. Over the long term, we must improve our energy sovereignty by making it cheaper to build nuclear power stations urgently and reducing our reliance on gas imports by using our own North sea supply.<span id="629" class="column-number" data-column-number="629"></span> I would also urge the Government to include in the 10-year plan an ambitious plan for rebuilding our defence industrial base, alongside a continued commitment to British procurement. Building our domestic capacity for defence and other critical sectors can be supported beyond procurement through investment in equity stakes, taking control of essential inputs, as the Government did with British Steel, and accelerating planning decisions for key sectors. So many of our challenges stem from a lack of quality work in productive industries. That is not talked about enough.