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 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I established the “Get Hyndburn Working” group, and together we are looking at how we can bring our youth hub into a town centre location and also bring health, training and education services all under one roof. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how the Government can support us to make that a reality?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. The draft remedial order implements the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of SW v. the United Kingdom. The order amends section 9(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 to make damages available in relation to judicial acts done in good faith where the judicial act breaches the requirements of procedural fairness under article 8 of the European convention on human rights. The Government consider that amending section 9(3) in this way is the appropriate approach that ensures we meet our international obligations while respecting the principle of judicial immunity. The background to SW v. the United Kingdom is as follows: the particulars in the case are that the applicant was a social worker who acted as a professional witness in childcare proceedings in the family court. The family court judge made adverse findings in his judgment as to the professional conduct of SW without giving the applicant adequate opportunity to respond and directed that the judgment be sent to the local authority to which the applicant was then assigned. The applicant’s assignment within the local authority was subsequently terminated. In November 2016 the Court of Appeal found that the applicant’s article 8 rights had been infringed and set aside the findings. However, the applicant was unable to obtain damages due to section 9(3) of the Human Rights Act, which prevents the payment of damages for judicial acts done in good faith except in very limited circumstances. In 2021 the European Court of Human Rights subsequently found that there had been a breach of article 13 of the convention, which is the right to an effective remedy when read together with article 8. This is because the applicant did not have access to an effective remedy at the national level capable of addressing the substance of her article 8 complaint and by which she could obtain appropriate relief. The European Court of Human Rights awarded a sum in damages which has now been paid. We are obliged, as a matter of international law, to implement this judgment, which in this case requires legislative change to ensure that similar violations will not arise again in future. The Human Rights Act contains powers in section 10 and schedule 2 to make amendments to legislation via a remedial order to address findings of the European Court of Human Rights. On 17 July 2025, the Government laid a proposal for a draft remedial order to make the necessary amendment to the Human Rights Act. The Government consider that this represents an appropriate measure to implement the findings of a breach of article 13 on the facts of this case. In November 2025, the Joint Committee on Human Rights reported on the draft remedial order. We are grateful for the Committee’s scrutiny and for accepting that this is a valid use of the power to make a remedial order and address the specific breach of article 13 that the Court identified in SW. The Joint Committee was of the view that the proposed amendment was too narrowly drafted to prevent future breaches of article 13 where judicial acts infringe on convention rights. It recommended amending the order either by introducing principled exceptions to section 9(3) or considering removing the provision entirely alongside a number of other recommendations to amend the drafting. While we recognise the Joint Committee’s recommendation to go further, having examined these concerns carefully the Government decided to continue with the current approach for the order and implemented small drafting changes in response. The implementation of this judgment should not be delayed any further as it has already been five years since the judgment became final. We have taken care to ensure that the draft remedial order appropriately addresses the incompatibility identified by the Court in SW while respecting the principle of judicial immunity. While the remedial order has not been amended as recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, we have committed to undertake a review of the operation of section 9(3) separately to the implementation of this judgment in consultation with the judiciary, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and other relevant parties. I want to express my gratitude to the Joint Committee for its scrutiny of the proposal and its careful consideration of the more recent draft order. We welcome the Joint Committee’s recommendation that both Houses approve the order. Hon. Members will have heard me mention the need to protect the principle of judicial immunity, and I just want to say a few words about that. Judicial immunity is a long-established common-law principle. An independent and impartial judiciary is one of the cornerstones of a democracy, and judicial immunity is an important safeguard of that independence. It protects judges from personal liability arising from acts carried out in the exercise of their judicial functions. Officials have had continued engagement with the judiciary during the drafting of this remedial order to ensure that they were fully sighted on our plans. Given that the Human Rights Act applies to the whole of the United Kingdom, this order will apply UK-wide. Officials have been in contact with the devolved Governments during the process of drafting the order. The draft order will ensure that damages may be awarded under the Human Rights Act in respect of a judicial act done in good faith where the judicial act is incompatible with article 8 on the grounds that it was done in such a procedurally defective way as to amount to a breach of the requirement to procedural fairness under that article.
How regrettable that the Opposition could not waste an opportunity to engage in the point scoring rather than problem solving that is their ordre du jour. How sad, too, that their memories are so short—David Maxwell Fyfe, the distinguished Conservative jurist, was one of the architects of the European convention, which was such an important part of the post-war settlement and is now a vital pillar of documents such as the Good Friday agreement, which is so important to peace within these isles. It is so sad to see the Opposition seek to ally this country with the likes of Belarus, which is not a democracy in which I would care to live.
The ECHR contains some pretty basic principles: the right to privacy and the right to fair proceedings and a fair hearing. The Human Rights Act, one of the achievements of the previous Labour Government, brought rights home so that British people could enforce those universal inalienable rights in our domestic courts. How far the Conservative party has drifted. Here we are, seeking to make a forensic but much-needed remedial order, yet instead we hear bombast about ripping up the ECHR, together with the Good Friday agreement, to end up much like Belarus, one of the few countries outside the ECHR. Anyway, here we are. Those are the political dividing lines and I commend the order to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.
3. What assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of the rate of statutory paternity pay on household financial resilience.
My constituent got in touch with me after she had had an emergency caesarean section with twins. It was a traumatic experience. Her husband had to go back to work when she had been out of hospital for only a week. Does the Minister agree that this is not how we should be looking after parents in a civilised society, and that both the mother and the father in that situation would have been better served by longer periods of paid leave?
Younger generations in this country sacrificed a great deal during covid to protect older generations, and we all owe them our thanks for that. With the youth jobs grant and the Your First Home scheme, the Government are taking concrete steps to try to improve opportunities for young people. Of course the Prime Minister must prioritise economic growth in his discussions with the EU, but will he confirm that long-term commitment to Erasmus and the youth mobility scheme will be prioritised as well, so that younger generations can have the same opportunities that benefited my generation?
Climate change is not a distant threat; it is already reshaping lives and livelihoods around the world. The Earth is warming, and rainfall patterns are becoming increasingly unpredictable. Sea levels are rising, and extreme weather events are now more frequent and more severe. The impacts of climate change are being felt more than ever, both at home in the UK and, even more acutely, in the world’s poorest and most climate-vulnerable countries. Climate change is often discussed in terms of emission targets, financial commitments and international agreements, but behind these debates there is a humanitarian crisis unfolding—a crisis of homes destroyed, crops failing, livelihoods lost and communities struggling to rebuild in the wake of disasters that they did little to cause. We witnessed such a reality most recently in Nepal. In a matter of hours, devastating floods washed away entire cities, leaving thousands of people dead or missing, and forcing many more to face an uncertain future, in a country where a quarter of the population already live in poverty. But Nepal is not an isolated case, and with a “super El Niño” in prospect, such disasters are set to become the norm, if countries are unable to mitigate and adapt to climate change. It is against this backdrop that the International Development Committee has published its report examining the UK’s international climate finance commitments. Our inquiry focused on three overarching themes. First, the Government’s successive reductions to official development assistance have made it difficult to deliver on their climate finance commitments to lower and middle-income countries in a transparent, meaningful and credible way. Frustratingly, rather than striving to deliver genuine climate and nature outcomes, the Government have been cutting corners to maintain headline spending commitments, and this is impacting on our international credibility. Our report highlights that the Government have also substantially reduced the ODA portion of the UK’s climate finance commitment for the next three years. This comes at a time when climate finance needs are growing and sustained international leadership is more important than ever. To that end, I welcome the new Foreign Secretary, who, I would argue, is uniquely qualified to meet this challenge, but let me be clear: it is an enormous challenge. Recent policy shifts in the US, alongside signalling from major multilateral institutions that they may scale back or abandon climate finance targets, have created an increasingly uncertain landscape for climate action. In that context, the case for strong and consistent UK leadership has never been clearer. Secondly, UK climate finance is not simply about how much money is spent; it is about who can access it, who benefits from it and who has a voice in how it is used. In a period of constrained public finances, the quality, accessibility and effectiveness of the UK’s climate finance is vital. Throughout our inquiry, we repeatedly heard that climate finance is most effective when local organisations, communities and sub-national Governments can access high-quality funding directly and play a meaningful role in designing and delivering climate solutions. We also heard compelling evidence about the importance of inclusion. For example, women and girls disproportionately bear the brunt of climate impacts yet receive less than 1% of climate finance globally. However, women and girls are often agents of change in their communities, and are capable of driving long-lasting climate outcomes. It is clear that, too often, those most affected by climate challenges face the greatest barriers to accessing the UK’s climate finance. That is why the Committee’s report argues that the UK’s climate finance—regardless of whether it is delivered through its own programmes, multilateral institutions or partners—must be more accessible, inclusive and responsive to the needs and priorities of the most climate-vulnerable countries. Thirdly, we considered the Government’s evolving approach to mobilising private finance for climate adaptation and mitigation. We recognise that, in a resource-constrained environment, the Government are increasingly seeking to mobilise private capital to help them meet their climate finance obligations. We acknowledge that the pathway to addressing climate change must include the private sector. However, our Government have a critical role in creating an enabling environment that allows finance to flow to where it is needed most. That means using the UK’s development finance institutions, guarantees, partnerships and diplomatic influence strategically to reduce risk, strengthen local capacity, support investable projects, and direct investments towards climate and nature outcomes. However, the shift from donor to investor must not come at the expense of poverty reduction. Public climate finance has a unique role to play in supporting the poorest and most climate-vulnerable countries—particularly those to which private finance investment is least likely to go. The Government must therefore ensure that their efforts to mobilise private finance complement, rather than replace, grant-based solutions, so that we can support those communities that need it most. Let me be blunt: climate change threatens to reverse decades of hard-won progress towards meeting the sustainable development goals. That not only risks perpetuating a vicious cycle of poverty, instability and humanitarian need in the most climate-vulnerable countries, but will have downstream implications for the UK’s prosperity and security. The question facing the Government is not simply how much climate finance can be provided; the real test is whether the UK can demonstrate that every pound spent delivers genuine climate and nature outcomes. That means being more transparent, focusing on evidence, targeting our limited ODA climate finance where it is needed most, and ensuring that it strengthens, rather than undermines, broader development objectives. The Committee’s report should serve as a reminder that climate finance should not be treated as an optional extra to ODA. It should not be reprioritised or repurposed in the face of competing priorities; rather, it should be treated as an essential part of how the UK meets its global responsibilities under the Paris agreement and meaningfully contributes to tackling the defining challenge of our times.
I thank my fellow Committee member for her question. She well knows that in some of the places we visit, farmers have not been able to plant crops for years. Those are areas that we expect the food in our supermarkets to come from. Unless we recognise this as an international catastrophe with which we are all connected, we will never get to the resolution that we need.
I thank my hon. Friend and Committee member, who has consistently made this argument. The Government need to give us that transparency so that we can see what does and does not work, and then replicate that on a global scale. Without that clear information being presented to this House, it becomes impossible to see the impact we are having.
The hon. Member makes a powerful point, which I have heard him make for decades, about trying to support women and girls to flourish wherever they find themselves. I would say that the most straightforward thing the Government could do right now is to publish the data about who the money goes to and how it impacts positively on their lives. The Committee has been calling for that for as long as I have chaired it, and I think the Government really need to act on it.
The regulations set out how the carbon border adjustment mechanism will work in practice from 1 January 2027. In North Somerset, where residents care deeply about the environment, the principle matters. Imports should not escape a carbon price that UK producers already pay. As the Member for a farming constituency, I know that my farmers will appreciate the answers that my right hon. Friend the Minister gave earlier. Importers who have paid a genuine carbon price abroad can claim relief, but only under qualifying schemes, with independently verified data and six years of record-keeping. That guards against greenwashing and double-charging and is a sensible adjustment mechanism.
York for Europe’s consistent polling in York shows a clear aspiration from my constituents to rejoin the EU, which I support, with 262 of them signing the petition. How we progress our relationship is as important as the relationship itself. The geopolitical landscape has changed. In this new world order, we have leaders of core nations who assume dominance and build disruption, volatility and protectionism rather than bridges. That neither builds stability nor advances our collective interests as progressive nations interested in providing optimised opportunities for our families and communities in our countries. Mark Carney has delivered two significant statements. The first was at Davos highlighting the importance of the new world order, with the power sat in the hands of the middle states to determine economic opportunity, national security and a union of nations working for the advancement of society against the headwinds of global challenge. Then, at the European Parliament in September, he set out a new model of associate EU membership. As we have just heard, on 20 November, our Prime Minister will lead the discussions for a £10 billion opportunity to advance our economy. Nations of common interest will join together to address the destabilising pressures of Trump, Putin and Xi, to protect our economy base and to ensure border and national security. That is progressive politics, and it is our opportunity to ensure that we put forward an alliance for the future. The question then follows: to what extent? The EU has signalled its willingness to work with our Government to secure the best possible relationship.
I won’t have time today. I recognise that in 2016 people did not know that they were going to be £3,000 worse off. They did not know that the cost of living crisis was going to bear down on them as a result of that. Businesses and agriculture did not know how bad the barriers would be. People did not expect the economy to be 6% smaller and our financial industries to look to Frankfurt and Ireland rather than remain in the City. I also recognise that people were not informed that migration issues would get worse as a result of coming out of the Dublin agreement. They were not told the cost of that. People did not know that their public services would have huge backlogs because they were not told. Now evidence has come to the fore about the crisis that has been created by being outside of the EU. Therefore, it is appropriate that we look at how we move forward. People are poorer, have fewer prospects and feel insecure, services are failing and the UK is disempowered, so it is right that the Prime Minister looks at how to advance this. How we conduct our discussions to form a new relationship with the EU over the next couple of years will really matter. Can we build an in-depth, deliberative process where citizens from all our communities help to shape the next manifesto commitment and what the relationship with the EU should look like? Can we call for participation from all our communities so that every resident can have a say? Can we ensure that verified material is accessible to all so that people can consider all the options available to them? Only if our residents are at the heart of shaping our future relationship with the EU will it succeed. The Prime Minister has opened up a tremendous opportunity, as we heard in the House this afternoon. I hope the Minister will be willing to work with MPs and our communities to deliver this.
In my speech, I mentioned ensuring that we have a proper deliberative process so that everyone in our communities can be engaged in shaping the future of Europe, to ensure that the people can co-create it with Government. Will the Minister support such a methodology?
It is only because I rose at the same time as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy). The points we are coming to at the end of this debate show that, as the Prime Minister has recognised, although debates in this place may have fallen away, there has never been a settled opinion in the country on the path forward following Brexit. It has remained a conversation among our constituents, on the doorstep and around the dinner table, and that is what this petition demonstrates. I ask the Minister to reflect in the final part of his speech on the fact that this is not about us reopening a debate, but us in this place catching up to the conversations that have never gone away in the country. It is really important to acknowledge that.
The Prime Minister is right to be honest with the British public. Brexit has made us economically and socially poorer; it has made it harder to tackle illegal immigration; and it is driving a cost of living crisis for my constituents. That is why the Prime Minister is also right to say that the status quo cannot hold. Can I urge him to take a position of maximum pragmatism ahead of the EU summit in November, so that we can make sure we get a closer relationship with Europe and a better deal for the British people?
My hon. Friend has brought forward an incredibly important debate, which will allow many such stories, like the one we have just heard, to be shared. I want to share the story of my constituents whose son Jesse died in their arms just six days after he was born. His parents are now bravely campaigning for placental cord insertion to be routinely assessed as part of a 20-week scan to reduce preventable stillbirths and neonatal deaths. Will he take this opportunity to pay tribute, as I do, to the bravery of Jesse’s parents in launching this campaign?
Meur ras, Sir Edward. It is an honour to serve under your chairship. I thank the 239 constituents of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle who signed the petition following the debate here in September. In that debate, I set out how disastrous Brexit has been for Cornwall. Thanks to the late Member for Falmouth and Camborne, Candy Atherton, Cornwall was awarded more than £100 million a year in European objective 1 funding, which supported the Eden Project, Newquay airport and our universities.
As my hon. Friend is a Cornish MP, I will give way.
I wholeheartedly agree: for our farmers and our fishers, Brexit has been a disaster—I will come on to that. We were promised in Cornwall that the funding would be replaced like for like, but it never was. The Brexit benefits were all smoke and mirrors. As my hon. Friend says, our farmers now compete with cheap imports, our fishermen face more bureaucracy, and our businesses face new trade barriers. Across Britain, 20,000 small businesses have stopped exporting to the EU. Farm exports to the EU fell 37% in the five years following the referendum. Brexit has been a tragic failure and Britain is infinitely weaker—economically, socially and culturally—because of it. It is interesting to listen to the hon. Members for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) and for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), who sound like two King Cnuts shouting at the sea while the waves of evidence that Brexit has been a failure crash over them. I reiterate what I said in September: there were virtually no small boat crossings before the Brexit referendum. Why the increase? It is because we took the disastrous decision to leave the Dublin agreement and the Eurodac database without replacements. It is only since this Labour Government have started working collaboratively with our friends and colleagues in France that the number of people crossing the channel in small boats is down, year on year, by 44%. I therefore welcome the Prime Minister’s willingness to hold an honest conversation about our long-term relationship with Europe with all options on the table. As chair of the electric vehicle all-party parliamentary group, I am particularly concerned by the “Made in Europe” policy. I am delighted that the Prime Minister has just raised that issue at the Dispatch Box. Without an agreement, British-built electric vehicles could be excluded from subsidies available to EU-produced vehicles, placing UK manufacturers at a systemic disadvantage. I therefore urge Ministers to ensure that an agreement there remains a priority. The question the Prime Minister has posed is: how can we contemplate another 10 years of failure? If we are not prepared to commit to the status quo, what are the alternatives? I hope that in coming weeks and months we can engage constructively, cross party, for the sake of our constituents and our country.
Meur ras, Mr Speaker. The number of young people claiming unemployment benefit in my Camborne, Redruth and Hayle constituency has risen by 26% in the last year alone—far higher than the national average. Can the Minister outline what employment action the Government are taking—particularly in remote coastal areas like mine, which has seen such a dramatic increase— to deal with the issue of young people claiming unemployment benefit?
Order. If the hon. Gentleman does not wish to give way, then the hon. Gentleman does not wish to give way.
T3. Earlier this year, I met Benenden Health, a healthcare provider that offers support to women going through the menopause. Its research shows that 17% of women in Yorkshire who have experienced menopause symptoms have reduced their working hours, and that 7% have left their jobs due to these symptoms and a lack of support. In the light of this, will the Minister commit to assessing whether the menopause aspects of employer action plans are improving retention and reducing workforce exits among women experiencing menopause?
It is estimated that Scotland is some £30 billion a year worse off as a result of Brexit. We have already heard this afternoon about the problems faced by the fishing and agriculture sectors, but in addition, the creative industries, financial services, architectural firms, engineering companies and tourism have all identified problems arising for them and the people who work in those areas because of Brexit. In the EU summit to come, will the Prime Minister consider the opportunities there may be to advance the cause of those industries, particularly as they are so important to my home city of Glasgow?
It has been some time since we had one of these sessions, and there have been some political developments. We have a new Prime Minister in place. The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), has survived a reshuffle—I know what that feels like, so I welcome her back to her place—and of course, we have just welcomed my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Sagal Abdi-Wali), the new MP for her seat. I should say that if her opponent ever needs any help with employment security, we have a number of work experience and training programmes that I am happy to make available to him. Turning to the question, youth guarantee trailblazers are a flexible, locally delivered way to help more young people into work. The early evidence is encouraging, showing more participation and getting young people work-ready. There will be a full evaluation next year. Delivering employment support more locally through mayors and local authorities is the direction of travel, and we will do more of this in the future.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his tireless and constant campaigning on the issue of youth opportunity. He asks specifically about skills. From 1 August this year, we are fully funding apprenticeship training for all eligible under-25s. We have brought the National Careers Service into the Department for Work and Pensions, meaning that around 500 qualified careers advisers are now helping people of all ages to access careers support regardless of benefit status, and doing that skills matching that my hon. Friend spoke about so eloquently.
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Lady for her question, and I agree that more youth apprenticeship starts are desirable. She may not know this, but we are introducing a hiring incentive of £2,000 for a small business that takes on a young apprentice, and if that young person has been out of work and on universal credit for six months or more, that incentive goes up to £5,000. We are helping small businesses to do exactly what she has called for.
We have announced an additional £2.5 billion, as part of the youth guarantee, to create up to 500,000 opportunities to earn and learn over the next few years, and we have begun to roll this out across Great Britain. The gateway to the youth guarantee is available in jobcentres. We are expanding youth hubs, we have launched the £3,000 youth jobs grant, and we are rolling out the jobs guarantee for young people who are long-term unemployed. I recently met the first beneficiaries of the jobs guarantee at Boots headquarters in Nottingham and saw the huge difference that having a job made to the young people taking part.
I thank my hon. Friend for the campaigning that he has done on this issue, and the Minister for Employment enjoyed cutting the ribbon at the Future Start youth hub a few weeks ago. My hon. Friend is absolutely right in what he says. We need to end the culture of “signed off and written off”, and we want all young people, including those with special educational needs, to benefit from the youth guarantee. That is why youth hubs work closely with our work coaches and disability employment advisers, as well as local partners. The idea is that whatever condition people have, we try to give them the opportunities that are available and help them to live the fullest life.
I am very happy to echo my hon. Friend’s congratulations to Derwentside college on all the work it is doing. With regard to a visit, I will do the best I can. I know that she is a passionate advocate for the college, and if I get an opportunity to visit, I most certainly will.
Yes, I do agree with my hon. Friend. She is absolutely right to say that we need to invest in opportunity and success, and she has spoken admirably about her own life experiences in this House. As I have said, we are putting forward an additional £2.5 billion of investment in the youth guarantee and the growth and skills levy. We have recently announced that we are expanding the jobs guarantee to help eligible young people receiving health-related benefits. They should not be signed off and written off. Another point raised in her question is that too often in these debates, young people are attacked in a negative narrative in which they are described as “snowflakes” and “shirkers”. She is right to say that, given the chance, young people want to work, want to have a full life and do not want to spend it on benefits.
When I get back from Derwentside, I will see whether a visit to Basingstoke is popular. Youth hubs are a crucial part of the youth guarantee. They bring together employment and skills, with wider support that often involves housing and health advice. They are an important feature of the Dutch system, where the NEET rate is one third of ours. We are expanding the network to over 360 locations across Great Britain, and the whole idea is to get the help that a jobcentre can provide out of the jobcentre and into the community. There are also other important parts of the youth guarantee, such as hiring bonuses, an extra 300,000 work experience places and a jobs guarantee for the long-term young unemployed.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. Skills England plays an important role in accrediting approved apprenticeships, looking at demand and quality, and I am sure it has heard the representations she has made. The overall direction of travel that we have given to Skills England is intended to ensure that we have more youth apprenticeship starts in future, because that is where the need is greatest and where the public expect us to be investing the growth and skills levy to create the most opportunity that can change the most lives.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. As I said to the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) a moment ago, Skills England will always look at the range of courses available and will always consider accreditation. I am sure it will have heard the representations that she has made.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the importance of jobs. That is why he will be pleased to know that there are 243,000 more people in work than at this time last year. He will also be pleased to know that the employment rate in the UK is higher today than in all but one of the 14 years when his party was in power. He will be pleased a third time to know that economic inactivity is down by 367,000 since the last election.
We made a major change on this front last year, when we abolished the two-child limit. That, together with other elements in the child poverty strategy, is estimated to bring down child poverty by about half a million over the course of this Parliament. That is an important step towards children being able to live the fullest life possible. Children who are poor can also suffer from worse education results and worse mental health later in life, so this is not just an anti-poverty measure; it is a pro-opportunity measure too.
I remind the hon. Lady that, under her Government, the number of young people not in employment, education or training went up by a quarter of a million in the two years before the last election. As I said to the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), there are now 243,000 more people in work than at this time last year. The employment rate in the UK today is higher than in every year but one of the Conservatives’ 14 years in power. The UK had the fastest growing economy in the G7 in the first half of this year. I will tell the hon. Lady what could threaten that: a bunch of unfunded tax cuts from the Opposition. We know where that ends up—we saw the movie a few years ago—so I advise her not to repeat it.
The hon. Member is right to say that the devolution map in England is uneven. I urge him to wait for the White Paper later this year, when we will have more to say about that. However, we believe that locally delivered services in employment support can break down the departmental barriers that have too often dogged getting the right help to people at the right time. People are human beings, not departmental clients, and it is time we treated them as such. Delivering more services locally can help us do that.
Alan Milburn delivered his interim report a few months ago and will deliver his final report in a few weeks’ time. I thank Alan Milburn for his tremendous work highlighting the issue of youth inactivity. I look forward to his final report.