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
11,997 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
When applying for settlement, people will need to provide evidence that they have been working and earning within the care sector. Based on analysis of HM Revenue and Customs data, we expect that three quarters of care workers will meet the test and conditions of their visa and will be able to settle at five years.
The individuals my hon. Friend refers to will have a second chance, as they will be able to apply for a new five-year visa in the care sector. The Government will double the amount of time normally allowed so that those people can find another job with a legitimate employer, and the Government will help those individuals to be matched with legitimate employers so that they can work in the care sector.
No, the position in relation to those who enter the country unlawfully is different, not least because those who are arriving on a boat are doing so from the north of France, which is a safe country underpinned by the European convention on human rights. It is right to treat those different cohorts differently because their method of entry into the country is different, and it is right that the Government are able to incentivise the behaviour we wish to see and disincentivise those who pay people smugglers and who risk their lives in the channel. I would have hoped that we could agree on that.
My hon. Friend raises an important point. She will know that the Home Office is not responsible for workforce planning, but Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care are working carefully on a workforce response, and I am sure that they are discussing these matters with their counterparts in the devolved Administrations.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The point of earned settlement is to reflect and provide settlement for those who contribute to this country and who meet the new minimum requirements, which include no criminality and no debt. That is a fair deal for all concerned, not least the taxpayer, whose money underpins all the public services that we rely on.
It is absolutely right that while we should be able to bring in workers from abroad when we need to in order to fill market gaps in this country, of course we have to ensure that we are always providing opportunities for domestic workers, not least the 1 million young people who are not in education, employment or training. We have an obligation to them too and it is important that we strike the right balance. I believe the earned settlement reforms strike the right balance for migrant workers and British taxpayers. I assure my hon. Friend that I am talking to colleagues across Government. Immigration is not the only part of the answer—skills and training here at home are also necessary.
It was clear from the response to the consultation that the position of care workers was unique. They came at a specific moment post-covid, when there were very real challenges in the care sector, and it is right to reflect that and provide a five-year path to settlement for those who met the terms of their visa.
I was not aware of those arrangements in the Lake district. My hon. Friend is right about the broader point; it is incumbent on all Government Departments to think about these issues in the round and to strike a fair balance. All the conversations that I have had with my colleagues in Cabinet reflect that, as the Government position.
My hon. Friend makes an important point. She will know that those who are already in the country on lower salaries were given an exemption by the previous Government, and so can extend their visa on the same salary. We have agreed that we will extend that further to 2035, to enable those people to achieve settlement. More broadly, she will know that some of the changes in the Budget reflect advice from the Migration Advisory Committee on regional pay.
My hon. Friend will know that there is a specific transitional arrangement for teaching assistants, because they are defined by the Migration Advisory Committee as being in the health and education sector, on national pay scales. They will have a five-year path if they arrived before May 2025.
Let me reiterate to my hon. Friend that the transitional arrangement agreed for care workers reflects the unique circumstances of that cohort. Those who have met the terms of their visa will be able to settle at five years, and those who have not will get a second chance to make the contribution that they originally came to make.
My hon. Friend tempts me, but he knows that the OBR is independent. I am sure that it has heard his point about how the contribution of migrants is measured, for the purposes of its forecasts and the scoring decisions that it makes ahead of fiscal events. He will know that the Home Office’s approach is to look at settlement as a lifetime benefit, so we have considered lifetime cost, as well as unique circumstances of particular cohorts. He mentions the BNOs; he will know that they are exempt from any of these income changes. That reflects our long-standing commitment to them, but they have to meet the new minimum requirements.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. These workers have been making a contribution. Given their unique circumstances, and the fact that many of them have met the terms of their visas, they will be able to settle at five years.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Fairness to all is what underpins these reforms—not just to those who arrived here lawfully to work, but to those who are already here, and who pay for the systems we all depend on.
As I have said, the Government will assist people who have been with a rogue employer in the care sector to get legitimate work in that sector for the renewal of their five-year care visa. The Home Office will, of course, amend sponsorship regimes, following changes made by the Health Secretary and her team. They are looking carefully at what the minimum conditions and standards in this sector should be, and I have already undertaken that we will follow those changes, once they are made.
My hon. Friend is right that migration is down under this Government, and we are taking steps to make sure that we bring coherence and rationality to the migration system and fix the mess left behind by the previous Government. On his point about illegal migration, that is why there is an additional waiting period of 10 years for those who enter illegally; we consulted on this matter, and there was a plurality of support for that measure. It reflects the fact that in the end, the Government and their people have to be in control of our migration system, not people-smuggling gangs. Bill Presented Animal Shelters (Licensing) Bill <em>Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. </em><em>57</em><em>)</em> Mr Richard Holden, supported by Rebecca Harris, Mr Mark Francois, John Lamont, Dan Carden, Dame Caroline Dinenage, Simon Hoare, Dr Peter Prinsley, John Glen, Mims Davies, Greg Smith and Dr Neil Hudson, presented a Bill to make provision for the licensing of animal shelters; and for connected purposes. <em>Bill</em><em> read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 January 2027</em><em>, </em><em>and to be printed (Bill 168).</em>
My hon. and learned Friend is giving a powerful exposition on the arguments. He mentioned Australia, which has prompted a number of colleagues, including me, to sign a letter to the Government saying that five essential things, including age-verification, are needed to avoid the mistakes and perils that Australia has experienced. We also need parental involvement, privacy by design, and companies to be accountable by default. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that any effective ban must include some of those steps?
I welcome the news last week that local government reorganisation will finally take place in Oxfordshire and that the Thames valley will have devolution. Can the Minister confirm that it is the Government’s intention that these new authorities will all be in place by the end of this Parliament?
Hyndburn has incredibly high levels of houses in multiple occupation. That is driving up rents, taking family homes off the market <span id="578" class="column-number" data-column-number="578"></span>and increasing the number of vulnerable people moving to our community. How are the Government acting to enable councils such as Hyndburn borough council to reduce HMOs in their areas?
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. This is one of those occasions when a piece of legislation seems rather niche, but is completely obvious once we examine its purpose. The private rental sector has been broken for decades. In Tamworth and around the whole country <span id="6" class="column-number" data-column-number="6"></span>we have seen skyrocketing rents for poor-quality and substandard housing. Tenants have been living in houses or flats that feel neglected by their landlords, in areas that often say that they feel neglected by Westminster. Community spaces have vanished and been left neglected. Where people cannot own their own home, areas are left without strong advocacy for change. The Government’s Renters’ Rights Act has overhauled the entire sector, restoring fairness between tenants and landlords by giving over 5,000 tenants in Tamworth alone, and over 11 million renters across the country, greater security, rights and protections. The new rules mean that renters no longer have to fear last-minute no-fault evictions. Future rules brought forward by the Act mean that rented homes will have to meet higher standards, especially when it comes to tackling damp and mould. Renters have certainty that they can stay for longer in safe, good-quality homes and are no longer locked into contracts and unable to move for years. People with greater housing security can be further empowered to start building lives in the communities they live in. With that comes the need for serious investment in their local areas. The draft order means that the interest accruing on the estimated £5.5 billion already in the tenancy deposit schemes will not just go into the pockets of those administering that scheme, which is meant to be non-profit, but could instead be invested into local projects that align with what renters want to see in their areas. After all, that interest is generated from the tenants’ own money. It is only right that the renters and their communities can see the benefit. We estimate that the interest earned on a pot would be around £550 million. That is a lot of money that could help to restore libraries, reopen community centres, improve local facilities and create places where people want to live, not places where they have to live. Renters deserve more than just a secure roof over their heads. They deserve thriving communities, decent local facilities and a stake in the place they call home. We can already see the trajectory that the Government are plotting with the Renters’ Rights Act, and we can already see the difference they are making to communities such as Glascote Heath and Stonydelph through their £20 million Pride in Place programme. I urge the Minister to consider this opportunity to boost funds that communities can spend.
The purpose here is to outline the possibility for its use. That is not to negate the fact that tenants can also still claim against the scheme if they need to, but there is money here that is not currently doing anything for our communities. We need to look at what is needed to administer the scheme and support the ebb and flow of what it does; what I am asking from the Minister is to define how we can use the rest of the money more creatively. I would like him to be creative <span id="7" class="column-number" data-column-number="7"></span>with it, and would urge that those living in these communities who have bold ideas should be involved in that problem solving. It is quite a lot of money, and although it may be undefined, it has been underutilised to date, and it could offer a lot for communities. I therefore support the order. I hope that the money will be reinvested into communities’ big ideas and boost hope, play, knowledge, safety and joy.
Earlier this year, a young puppy was found in South Derbyshire, and its suspected mother was discovered in squalid conditions on a farm in Derbyshire Dales, alongside numerous other dogs, some of which were dead. The conditions were so horrific that one environmental officer was physically sick. This incident has stayed with and haunted me and my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby), particularly given that the environmental team officers, after putting animal welfare first, were subsequently suspended and dismissed. Will the Minister meet us to discuss how we can empower local authorities to prioritise animal welfare without fear of jurisdictional disputes, conflicting local policies or the risk of prosecution failure?
There were many welcome announcements in this Budget to help give people a little breathing space—from the £100 for households in council tax bands A to D to paternity leave payments for self-employed fathers. I personally really welcome the investment in getting more women into tech, as recommended by the Government’s women in tech taskforce. At a time when trust in the tech industry is low, we need women in tech more than ever. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, because I have quite a focus on that. However, following a meeting yesterday at Gresley Old Hall with members of the mineworkers’ pension scheme in South Derbyshire, I want to focus on them. I speak today on behalf of 1,141 scheme members and their families in my constituency. These men spent their working lives doing some of the hardest and most dangerous jobs in our country. They kept our lights on, our homes warm and our industries running. Their pensions are deferred wages earned through years of dangerous work, not taxpayer handouts. I welcome the transfer of the £1.5 billion investment reserve in 2024, and the Chancellor’s announcement to end surplus sharing so that 100% of future surpluses go to members, but the job is not finished. There is still approximately £1.2 billion in the guarantor’s fund, and members need certainty that it will be transferred in full <span id="663" class="column-number" data-column-number="663"></span>without further delay. Yesterday, what I had hoped would be a meeting to celebrate progress became one where I found myself apologising, because people who have waited decades for justice are once again being asked to wait again, and time is running out. About 100 former miners die every week, and some will never live to see the justice they have spent years campaigning for. This is also about our former coalfield communities. That money will be spent in our towns and villages in supporting local shops, businesses and families, and in helping growth in postcodes in South Derbyshire. I have raised this directly with Treasury Ministers and the Prime Minister’s office. I have also pledged to donate my next annual parliamentary salary increase to charity until miners and their families receive what they are owed. I stand in solidarity with them, not just in words but in deeds too. I want to finish with words from Gary Chamberlain, who I met yesterday: “If you think this is a storm in a teacup, think again. This is just the start of it.” Gary is right. For Gary, for my 1,141 MPS member constituents and their families, and for mining communities across the country, I say this to the Government: please release the remaining £1.2 billion, give members the certainty they deserve and ensure that their bonus payment arrives on 23 December, as originally planned, in time for Christmas. We are the Labour party. It is only a Labour Government who will deliver justice for our miners. We must not be a Labour Government who ask them to wait yet again. Our miners have given enough to this country. It is time this country gave them what they are owed.
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way—we are neighbours and friends in our neck of the woods, but I benefit from being part of a mayoralty that can have money devolved to my region, and she does not. Does she agree that, as well as we work together now, it would be even better if we could be part of the same funding pot and overall leadership?
My hon. and learned Friend is being very generous with his time. Does he share my concern that the Molly Rose Foundation’s research shows that 61% of Australian 12 to 15-year-olds are still accessing the platforms from which they are supposed to be banned? Does he agree that this potentially exposes some weaknesses in the concept of a platform-based ban and that a functionality-based ban should be considered instead?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. The petition calls for the Government to rethink their ban on social media for under-16s. I want to set out why I agree with the aims of the petition and substantially with the 457 of my constituents who signed it. I recognise that the Government’s policy was brought in with the best of intentions, but I have serious concerns that it will not be workable and that it will take away a lot of value. I am glad that Parliament has spent a lot of time recently debating the harms caused by poorly regulated social media. Urgent action is needed but, in looking at the current state of the online world, we have lost sight of what social media could and should be. I will, and do, strongly criticise how tech companies have increasingly sought to make social media addictive, and have turned a blind eye to horrific exploitation and abuse online, as well as to deeply harmful content along the lines of what my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) just mentioned. We must force them to act in those areas, but their failure to do so to date must not lead us to conclude that social media itself is an unfixable problem, when it can bring positives to people’s lives.
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that social media companies having denied a lot of the problems and treated this as a non-serious issue is deeply wrong and alarming. I hope he will agree with some of my proposals for how we may look at that. The petition emphasises the community and connection that social media currently offers young people. I have personal experience of that. I have spoken about this in debates before, but when I was about 13, I realised that my sexuality was not like that of those around me; I was not straight. But living in a rural area and growing up in quite a homophobic, close-knit religious community, I had few people to talk to about that. Social media was such a valuable tool for me to be able to connect with <span id="270WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="270WH"></span>other LGBT people in similar situations. Had I not had it, I would have been far more alienated and alone, and lacking peer support. I fear that a blanket ban on social media could risk making that a reality for many and I cannot support that—not after the lifeline that online conversation gave me when I was growing up. That does not just go for LGBT people. Growing up in a rural area more generally can create barriers for children, whose friends may live some distance away. If used properly, online spaces can help to widen social circles and maintain friendships made in the real world. I do not want young people to lose that because of the way tech companies are acting. Without a doubt, we need to seriously strengthen safeguards. Clearly, significant work needs to be done to keep children safe online. However, a blanket ban would be clumsy and risks being completely ineffective. I worry in particular that the proposed named-platform approach would result in a constant game of whack-a-mole between children and Ofcom as the former migrate to new platforms as the old ones are made unavailable. Young people are far more digitally literate than older generations have sometimes grasped and they move faster than I believe any regulator could. Although well meaning, a blanket ban could drive children to fringe platforms that are even less well regulated, where extreme content could be even more prevalent. That is an outcome that I am sure nobody wants. Earlier this year, the NSPCC, the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse, the Molly Rose Foundation and a long list of other child safety experts signed a letter to the Government warning that a blanket ban was a “blunt response”. They are united in calling instead for more accountability from the big tech companies. The NSPCC, for example, has been clear that the Government need to stop companies designing their platforms in a way that is addictive to children, and use the full force of the law to make sure that social media platforms are safe for children to use. I support a functionality-based approach: limiting certain features without creating a situation in which children—who will find a way to use social media regardless —are led on to more extreme platforms. We are seeing some of the risk with this right now in Australia, which has had a social media ban in place. According to research from the Molly Rose Foundation, 61% of Australian 12 to 15-year-olds are still accessing platforms that they are meant to be banned from. That is clear evidence, in my mind, of why platform-based bans are not the answer and why we must change course. A functionality-based approach would benefit users of all ages, frankly, by limiting the addictive and AI-generated content that has increasingly plagued the major sites in recent years. I say that because addictive content affects adults, too, and not just children. Targeting functionalities could also stop the race to the bottom when it comes to short-form content. The popularity of short-form videos exploded with TikTok a few years ago, and now pretty much every platform has a shorts feature. Even LinkedIn has experimented with one. It seems that many platforms have felt the need to introduce a shorts feature in order to remain competitive, even when it does not quite seem to fit—take YouTube, which was always designed for long-form <span id="271WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="271WH"></span>content, or Instagram, which has increasingly promoted its Reels function over the more traditional posts feed that it was known for. I think that a lot of short-form content has exacerbated a lot of underlying problems, particularly in relation to algorithmically driven harmful content, which we need to bear in mind. However, I can certainly envisage a scenario in which several platforms would probably not really have an issue with getting rid of their shorts features —which have led to so many of the problems that we are talking about—if others did so too. That is where regulation could step in. Any regulation of social media companies needs to take into account the decisions that they are making and why they are being made, so that we can force them to do things better. On the subject of YouTube, I would like briefly to highlight the fact that it is explicitly included in the ban. I think that is particularly difficult. There are of course problems with it as a platform—I have criticised it too—but it has a lot of educational content, for example. I would argue that there is an equality angle here, because although that is valuable for anyone, removing it could be a real blow for students who are trying to improve their school grades but do not have the funds to pay for private tutors. It is a real possibility that this type of ban could create significant inequalities in access to resources.
Absolutely. I welcome my hon. Friend’s contribution, and I know that so many parents are grappling with and having a lot of trouble with this issue. We need to hear their voices and what would work for them, and support them, as well as the users that we are talking about. The enforceability of a ban is also damaged by the fact that, particularly with YouTube, a lot of viewing is done on TVs. Do the Government have any thoughts about how parents might grapple with that in a home situation, and about the enforceability of a ban in that circumstance? Ultimately, my concerns are that a blanket ban lets the big companies off the hook and will likely prove ineffective at keeping children safe. Children will still get on to online platforms, and if they are on platforms that are not well regulated, or if social media companies can argue that children are not using them when frankly they still are, they will stop focusing on child safety at all. I want to touch on online gaming, which is underdiscussed in these conversations, with many people not necessarily recognising the social features associated with those spaces. For example, Roblox is a massive online game aimed at children. It is such a hotbed for predators that vigilantes have taken to conducting paedophile sting operations in-game, as the company’s <span id="272WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="272WH"></span>response to online abuse has been so atrocious. One such vigilante, known online as Schlep, managed to get six child predators arrested. Roblox responded by banning him and threatening legal action. So it takes no action to stop predators, but it takes strong enforcement against people who are trying to stop them. We cannot encourage vigilantism, but the priorities there are clearly so wrong. That is not the only example of abuse in online gaming. I have met the Breck Foundation, which was formed in 2014 after the tragic death of Breck Bednar—a 14-year-old boy groomed and murdered by someone he met while playing “Battlefield 3”. The groomer lied and manipulated Breck to gain his trust and lure him to his flat. The foundation goes into schools to improve the digital resilience of children across the country. It provides invaluable resources to help keep children safe, but crucially, it is not in favour of a blanket ban. In Breck’s case, removing his access to technology only drove the abuse underground, with a secret device provided by the abuser. I agree with the foundation that a ban risks narrowing a complex conversation. Indeed, online gaming is a fun hobby for many children and adults, and it can be very pro-social and support the development of creative skills. The current proposals do not ban online gaming for children, which is right; any attempt to do so would be devastating for people who enjoy it and they would inevitably end up in less regulated spaces, if mainstream platforms and games were clumsily cut off to them. But the proposals also do not really tackle the issues in the online gaming space, and I would like to see more recognition of what we need to do in that area. The Breck Foundation, like other safeguarding organisations, has called for greater accountability from big tech companies. That is where we need to be. A blanket ban will not work; it would allow predators to ruin it for everyone else and essentially let them win. We need to protect the benefits that social media and online gaming can offer young people while ensuring that the companies behind them take safety and security far more seriously. As the youngest MP, I know more than most how interwoven the online world is with growing up. We need to regulate those spaces, not hope they will magically go away—they will not.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the current proposals to have a hard cliff edge at 16 create a problem in terms of people suddenly being exposed to all of that world, having not really had the opportunity to develop the skills to be able to deal with it?
My hon. Friend and I clearly have different solutions in mind, but what unites the Chamber is our clear demand that these tech companies sort out what they are doing. Does he agree that their atrocious behaviour is the root cause? Until that changes, and until the Government bring in methods to make it change, we will not get any further.
I appreciate the Minister’s tone and the different considerations he is bringing in, but does he agree that it is very difficult to define social media? We have a definition in the traditional sense, but there are social platforms now that operate primarily on an anonymous basis instead of having identities behind them, and there are online gaming platforms and so on. How do the Government propose to deal with the fact that social media is a very loose term now?
<Question HRSContentId="{88C97A5D-5160-4680-BC70-CDC78EF62E85}">16. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{87C66B25-874D-4524-A144-72E965966D9B}">What steps she is taking to support tenants in the private rented sector.</QuestionText> </Question>
Too often, constituents contact me about horrific behaviour from private landlords and lettings agencies. One lady told me recently that she had been left with broken heating for six months, and that, as a result, her daughter had developed pneumonia. Adding insult to injury, the lettings agency has continually refused to provide my constituent with her landlord’s contact details, in violation of the law. Will the Secretary of State set out what this Labour Government are doing to crack down on rogue landlords and lettings agencies that are totally failing in their responsibilities?
The Government are determined to ensure that we have strategic authorities everywhere by the end of 2028, and I and other Ministers in the Department will work with my hon. Friend and council leaders from across the region to ensure that they also get a strategic authority in that time.
We had an excellent meeting with Cornwall leaders and MPs in No. 10 North not long before that decision was taken. I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution to that, and I understand the distinct status that Cornwall has. We will continue to work with him to ensure that Cornwall can make the most of its foundation strategic authority in the future.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech during a Budget debate—a Labour Budget that speaks directly to some of the challenges that first brought me into politics and public service. It is a profound honour to rise for the first time in this House as the Member of Parliament for Holborn and St Pancras, the place that has been home for most of my life. I came to Camden with my family as a child refugee. It is where I grew up and where I went to school, made friends and discovered the opportunities that would shape my life. This Budget speaks to the issues that matter deeply to the people I represent, from the security of a home to the opportunities available to the next generation. Like so many young people growing up in Camden, I spent my time making friends through the universal language of football. On the football pitch, you quickly learn that it does not matter where someone comes from, what language they speak or what their family does for a living. What matters is whether they turn up for their team mates. Those friendships taught me something important about community, long before I entered politics: that we are stronger when we look beyond our differences and recognise what we have in common. As I came of age, Camden continued to give me opportunities and a sense of belonging, and it gave me the responsibility to give something back. For more than 20 years, I have tried to honour that responsibility through community work and public service, campaigning for change and serving in local government, ultimately as leader of Camden council. That experience has taught me that beyond every policy, every budget line and every statistic is a person whose life can be changed by the decisions made in this House. Holborn and St Pancras is a place of extraordinary character. What makes our constituency so special is not just the landmarks, but the extraordinary variety of places and people. From the leafy streets and village feel of Primrose Hill, the independent spirit and community life of Kentish Town and the neighbourhoods and estates of Haverstock to the historic streets, theatres and cultural institutions of Covent Garden, every part has its own story to tell. We are home to thriving local businesses, historic markets, places of faith and community centres. We have students and academics, artists and entrepreneurs, families who have lived here for generations, and people who have made this place their home from every corner of the world. That diversity is our strength. It is one of our greatest strengths. It is reflected in our languages, our food, our festivals and our music, and in the everyday way that we all come together to look out for one another. It is what makes Holborn and St Pancras not simply a collection of neighbourhoods but a community.<span id="635" class="column-number" data-column-number="635"></span> The Roundhouse in Chalk Farm began life as a railway engine shed before becoming one of the country’s most well-known cultural venues that also provides creative access to young people. Legends from Led Zeppelin to David Bowie have played there. It is a reminder that places, just like people, can be given new opportunities and go on to achieve remarkable things. In King’s Cross stands the historic German gymnasium, where sporting events were held at the national Olympian games in 1866, long before the modern Olympic games came into being. My constituency has a sporting legacy stretching back over a century, and I am pleased to make a little history of my own, as Holborn and St Pancras’s first Tottenham Hotspur supporter MP, bringing an end to a rather lengthy period of Arsenal and West Ham dominance in our representation in this House. If supporting Spurs had a dictionary definition, it would read something like this: “To remain eternally hopeful despite overwhelming evidence, and to return, every season, convinced that this will finally be your year.” I hope that combination of optimism and sheer refusal to give up will serve me well in this House. Of course, the West Ham and Arsenal dominance that I mentioned came from the distinguished Labour MPs who represented the constituency before me. I am immensely proud to follow in the footsteps of two men who have given so much to Holborn and St Pancras, and whose contributions to our community and my party deserve to be celebrated. The late, great Frank Dobson represented Holborn and St Pancras for more than 33 years. He was a tireless champion for local people, a proud defender of our NHS and public services, and a politician who never lost sight of the people who were behind the policies. I have a childhood memory of meeting Frank at a community event. I had no idea at the time how much of an important political figure he was; to me, he was simply a nice bearded man who took the time to speak to a child. Looking back, that small encounter captured something important about his connection with the community. He was a familiar face to generations of residents—someone who understood the challenges facing working people and was never afraid to stand up for them. Sir Keir Starmer continued that tradition, representing our constituency for more than a decade, leading the Labour party from opposition back into government, introducing generational reforms to renters’ and workers’ rights, and lifting half a million children out of poverty. I have had the privilege of working alongside Keir through our local Labour movement, and have seen another side of his public service: watching him quietly console bereaved families who have lost young loved ones, and hearing his determination to end youth violence. I pay tribute to both men, with enormous gratitude and respect. I will do my utmost to honour the trust that generations have placed in them, and that the residents have now placed in me. It is also an extraordinary honour to become the first woman, black person and Muslim to represent Holborn and St Pancras in Parliament, and the first British Somali woman to sit in this House. I take great pride in those milestones, and in being elected during Black History Month in a constituency whose town hall proudly commemorates Claudia Jones, the pioneering black woman who founded and hosted Britain’s first Caribbean carnival there. I take pride in those milestones because <span id="636" class="column-number" data-column-number="636"></span>of what they might mean to a young woman or a young girl growing up in our constituency today. I want her to see that her background does not define the limits of her ambition, that there is no ceiling to what she can achieve, and that public life belongs to her, too. One of the issues that first drove me into politics 10 years ago was the rise in homelessness. Alongside people sleeping rough on our streets, families and young people are facing a housing crisis that leaves too many struggling to find a secure, affordable place to call home. That is why I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s determination to end rough sleeping. This Budget turns that determination into action, with nearly £900 million to tackle rough sleeping and an additional £1.5 billion to support the delivery of social and affordable homes. For constituencies such as mine, this investment is essential. There is another issue that matters deeply to me: the strength of our communities and the bonds that hold us together. Growing up in Camden, I saw different people from different backgrounds, cultures and faiths build support networks and look out for one another. I saw how diversity enriches our lives and how cohesion is built through everyday acts of kindness, friendship and solidarity. But that cohesion is hard won, and we cannot take it for granted. During the election campaign, I experienced attempts to question people’s belonging, sow division, and turn differences into reasons for suspicion and hostility. We must stand firmly against the hateful and divisive forces that seek to pull our communities apart. Hope is not naive; it is what gives us the courage to change lives for the better. My parents taught me to work hard and always give something back to the community that has given me so much. I want every young person in our constituency to have the opportunities that I had. I want families to have secure homes, young people to have access to good jobs and apprenticeships, and our public services to always be there for people when they need them most. To represent this community in Parliament is an extraordinary privilege. Camden gave me hope and opportunity. Now, as the MP for Holborn and St Pancras, I will pass that hope and opportunity to others, and give them the same chance.
The Government’s local government reorganisation will abolish the two-tier system in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency of Bromsgrove, thereby reducing the number of local councillors and so the number of politicians. Which part of that did he miss in the announcements that have been made over the last 12 months?
This Budget puts families and businesses at its heart. It provides a breathing space on the cost of living today, while giving people fresh hope for the future. I am proud to be the granddaughter of a coalminer, and this Government have done so much already to right historical injustices in the mineworkers’ pension scheme. I welcome the commitment to ending the surplus sharing arrangement and standstill mechanism, but that only rights part of the injustice. Since 1994, successive Governments have taken more than £4.4 billion from the scheme, in return for a guarantee that has cost the public purse nothing. It cannot be right that the remaining £1.2 billion in the guarantor fund has still not been released to benefit former miners and their widows. For many, time is running out. I ask again, as I have asked before, that the Chancellor looks at this and delivers justice for mineworkers across the country. I particularly welcome the measures in the Budget to tackle rising energy bills. With conflicts overseas pushing up prices at home, families are understandably worried about how much it costs to heat their home. That is why the £100 household energy payment is so important. In North Warwickshire and Bedworth, around 37,920 properties will benefit. In a constituency like mine, driving is not a luxury. For so many people, it is the only reliable option for getting to work, taking the children to school and going about daily life. It is why my parents made me learn to drive as soon as I turned 17. I ensured that residents’ concerns about fuel costs were heard, and I am delighted that the Chancellor listened, extending the 5p fuel duty <span id="667" class="column-number" data-column-number="667"></span>cut until July 2027. For a family already struggling to make ends meet, every extra pound at the pump matters. The impact of fuel duty goes beyond families filling up their cars; it affects the lorry drivers delivering food to our supermarkets, the businesses transporting goods across the country and, ultimately, the prices that we all pay at the check-out. Before coming to Parliament, I spent 20 years working as a property solicitor in a high street firm in my constituency. One of the things that I loved most about that job was helping first-time buyers. I remember the happiness of seeing young people come through my door, proud of the amount that they had saved for their deposit. They would tell me about their plans for the future. These were people putting down roots in our communities, and there was nothing quite like the moment when they finally collected their keys. However, the longer I did that job, the fewer first-time buyers came through my door. I watched as owning a home became increasingly out of reach for young people, particularly those who did not have the bank of mum and dad to fall back on. That is not the future I want for the next generation in North Warwickshire and Bedworth. That is why I am delighted that the Chancellor has announced the new £4.7 billion Your First Home scheme, which is expected to help around 70,000 first-time buyers on to the property ladder. This Budget is taking action on the very issues that my constituents have raised with me: the cost of heating their home and filling up their car; supporting the industries they work in; and helping their children and grandchildren on to the housing ladder. It is a Budget that gives families breathing space today, supports the businesses and workers who keep our country moving, and offers young people fresh hope for the future.
I will read the detail in the consultation, but I am concerned about retrospective changes because our word should be our bond to people coming here. Also, in an economy where skills and contribution do not correlate with wages, I find the Home Secretary’s proposals prejudicial on that basis. Will she look at that again in the light of the consultation, so that we can put fairness at the heart of this?
I thank the hon. Lady for mentioning the APPG that I chair and the work that we are doing. Does she agree that the Government cannot simply enforce their way out of the problem of illicit activity on the high street and in the sector? When the National Crime Agency conducted its Operation Machinize in November 2025, it visited 2,734 premises up and down the length of the country, but it only closed down 10 of them. Of course, not all of those were hairdressers or barbering salons. Does she agree that a proportionate licensing regime is therefore the right step forward, akin to what the Dutch have done with their Bibob Act, and that that is the right way to seize control of who operates in these sectors and to give the public confidence about who is cutting their hair and who is operating on the high street?