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 10 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,868 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
As the Government look to introduce this hated so-called overnight visitor levy in England—[Interruption.] I believe they are. Labour Members always say, “Don’t worry, it’s not very much money. It will all be hypothecated. It will have no effect on the inbound tourism industry.” Perhaps some of them might look at the example of my hon. Friend’s home city of Aberdeen and consider what could happen.
rose—
I can tell the Minister that 3% is a relatively small percentage of 100%, and many of those people are students. The Labour party used to speak about zero-hours contracts as if they were taking over the entire economy, but that is simply not true—they are a perfectly legitimate form of employment that works for some people. I described the situation of my constituents who have one zero-hours contract at their term-time address and another at their home address. What is wrong with that? If it works for the employer and for the employee, why is Labour so against that flexibility?
I rise to present a petition that represents not just the names on the petition but the many thousands who have signed the petition, complaining and protesting against the proposal by the Government to force Staffordshire Moorlands into local government reorganisation. The people of Staffordshire Moorlands say no to Stoke, which they have said in their many thousands on the internet in online petitions. The petitioners request “that the House of Commons urges the Government not to proceed with any plan to include Staffordshire Moorlands in a new combined or unitary authority or regional devolution deal without the clear consent of local people in Staffordshire Moorlands.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of Staffordshire Moorlands, Declares that the Government has consulted on a proposal to create a new unitary council across north Staffordshire, encompassing Staffordshire Moorlands, Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under-Lyme; further declares that this is despite continued fears of bankruptcy in Stoke-on-Trent, with the Government having to intervene in February 2024 with a £42.2 million bailout package; and further declares that a merger could leave Moorlands residents on the hook for future costs, and that it would place the unique identity and heritage of Moorlands towns and villages at risk. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government not to proceed with any plan to include Staffordshire Moorlands in a new combined or unitary authority or regional devolution deal without the clear consent of local people in Staffordshire Moorlands. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003215]
Last month, I asked the Secretary of State about the risk of blackouts from the increasing instability of our electricity grid, and he accused me of scaremongering. Since then, I can inform the House that I have been contacted by a whistleblower at the heart of our grid operator, the National Energy System Operator. They allege that senior managers have ordered control room operators to hide information that shows that the grid is not being run securely. They also allege that corporate affairs have interfered with the operational decisions needed to stabilise the grid in order to protect the NESO’s reputation. If true, this is nothing short of a scandal. Will the Secretary of State take back his accusation of scaremongering and launch an immediate investigation into the security of our grid operations?
According to the press, the Secretary of State is applying for a new job, which means that he must be in need of references. Who will he ask first: the trade unions, who are calling for him to be sacked; the public, who have faced a £300 rise in their energy bills on his watch; or the oil and gas workers, who roundly rejected him at the recent by-election in Aberdeen?
Let us look at the facts: bills went down £500 under me, but they have gone up £300 under him. The Secretary of State said that he has raked in investment, but that is because he has promised that consumers will pay sky-high prices to wind developers for decades to come. He is decimating British industry. Great British Energy is a complete flop. Is not the truth that the only reason he wants an out from this job is so that someone else has to clean up the mess that he is leaving behind?
I call the shadow Minister.
Before I put the Question, let me say that it is a shame that those at the Burnley summer school have left. The Minister will want to be careful about using the word “hypocrisy” in the Chamber. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House regrets the combination of the rise in employers’ National Insurance contributions, the impact of the Employment Rights Act 2025, and the regulations that make it more difficult for young people to get their first job; further regrets the destructive impact that the Government’s policies have had on entry-level, flexible and seasonal work in particular; also regrets the Government’s plans to give Mayors powers to introduce an overnight visitor levy, making staycations in England less attractive and less affordable, while risking jobs in the tourism and hospitality industries that depend on domestic visitors; calls on the Government to change course to support summer jobs, flexible working and seasonal work, on which the hospitality, leisure and retail sectors depend; and further calls on the Government to abolish business rates for high street businesses, to boost the economy and save summer jobs.
I inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected the amendment. I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Order. The hon. Gentleman should say “worse than the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)”.
Order. I think the right hon. Lady means the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe).
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Does my hon. Friend agree that is perhaps the most corrosive consequence of all? Businesses have all the pressure that is bearing down on them, and so many are telling me that it is just not worth it. The correlation between effort and success is being depleted, their self-confidence is being eroded and, as a result, our economy is being sapped of any desire to contribute because the effort does not reap any reward.
I have a few questions for the Minister. These are extremely harmful drugs that threaten the people who take them. Can the Minister update the Committee on whether they are arriving in the country in their final form or whether they are synthesised in this country from raw products, and how are they being administered right now? It is clearly important for enforcement to know whether we need to stop them at the point of entry or whether we need to take action in the community to identify the drugs and seize them. Can the Minister update us on whether the ingredients of these harmful drugs can be brought in legally but then synthesised in this country? That will have an effect on enforcement as well. Finally, have the police established the prevalence of these products? I completely accept the number of deaths that have been caused, but equally, the drugs might be being used in a more widespread way.
T9. In this House, I have long championed rolling out small modular nuclear reactors, so the decision on Wylfa is welcome, despite the fact that we could have a full-scale nuclear power station and an SMR there. Will the Secretary of State announce the sites that will be used in further roll-out, so that is settled in the community and we can get that nuclear power on to the grid?
Employers right across my constituency of Mid Bedfordshire—particularly SMEs and retail, hospitality and leisure businesses—are telling me that the Employment Rights Bill is reducing flexibility and having a chilling effect on their ability to employ people, particularly young people. If employers are telling me that, why are they not telling the hon. Member the same in his constituency?
That was liberating.
I start with a point that I think is abundantly obvious to most people, and certainly to Opposition Members, which is that economic growth is possible only with a culture in which we support businesses in taking risks. I mean “risk” in all its forms, including the taking on of staff. Also, we need abundant clean energy. That was proven in the industrial revolution, and in the 1980s.
My hon. Friend makes a compelling case for drilling in the North sea—a case that he made very successfully in the by-election in Aberdeen South. I congratulate him on that, and welcome him to the House of Commons. In the 15 years that I was working full time in the City before coming here, I saw a ratcheting-up of costs and the de-risking of our economy. Energy costs have increased as we have sought to decarbonise; employment flexibility has gone down; taxes have gone up; and regulatory burdens are uncontrollably high. I will give two examples from my time in financial services. They are not necessarily related to summer jobs, but I will come to that. Anti-money-laundering regulations are now costing the economy £33.6 billion a year, and bank ringfencing is costing banks £1.5 billion a year. The regulatory burdens throughout our economy are absolutely incredible. We have failed to properly recognise that it is businesses that grow the economy, not Governments. Over the past two years, the Government have missed an opportunity. They came in claiming that they would be the “change Government”, but they have doubled down on all the mistakes of the past. Tax has gone up over the past two Budgets by £66 billion, and red tape has gone up. The Minister said that he had aspirations to reduce red tape, but in fact the Government have demonstrated that they are capable of increasing red tape. With the Employment Rights Act 2025—the unemployment rights Act—labour flexibility is down. Britain has spent two decades trying to build an economy on less risk, and it is just not possible to do that. The impact, unfortunately, is felt most acutely by our young constituents. In particular, as a result of the Government’s interventions over the past two years, the Saturday job is disappearing. That is absolutely tragic. Hon. and right hon. Members from across the House have spoken passionately about their first job. If you can believe this, my first job in north-west Hampshire was sweeping a weighbridge at a scrapyard. That was not under contract, and I was not promised any particular hours. As a 16-year-old, or thereabouts, I would sweep the weighbridge in the morning and wash the owner’s car—and I would get 20 quid, not 50p, so there was quite some inflation since my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) earned that wage.
Or, indeed, I was overpaid. I moved on and washed pots in my local pub. Then I progressed and became a waiter and ran wedding receptions. By the time I got to university, I was working in a Zizzi pizza restaurant—other pizza restaurants are available—and I enjoyed it thoroughly. I made connections, I blossomed, and I became more confident. I know that people describe these as soft skills, but my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who is not in his place, correctly said that they are the hard skills—the difficult skills that we need in our economy. We will only have them in our economy if we grow them in young people when they first start working.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend and I started our lives sweeping floors; that is something that we have in common. Of course, resilience is a really important skill in life and it is learned best when we are young. I remember those early days on my bike, cycling in the cold with my knuckles freezing. I do not want to sound like my father, but it is true. I had to get to that workplace on time, and there was no public transport. It was a few miles away, so I jumped on my bike and I did it. This is how we learn resilience and how we grow as people and succeed in the economy. Youth unemployment is now at an all-time high, with 14.5% of 18 to 24-year-olds unemployed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills also mentioned the fact that 30.7% of 16 to 17-year-olds are now unemployed and are not learning the skills we have just agreed are important for enabling young people to grow into strong, resilient adults. That feeds through the whole of the economy, and 700,000 recent graduates are now out of work and claiming benefits. A generation of young people are at risk of unemployment and being left behind, unable to find the dignity of work and unable to save, buy their homes and invest for their future. This is a serious problem that we are facing in our economy, and it is all a result of the decisions by this Government, who are putting the summer job at risk. It all starts with the summer job. What needs to be done? We need a fundamental reset in how we think about risk, investment and enterprise. We in this House should be creating the conditions for economic growth and allowing businesses to get on with what they do best, and then we should get out of the way. Of course, this Government are doing the absolute opposite. They are meddling, getting in the way and wrapping businesses up in red tape. They are increasing costs by increasing levies, which is the polite word for taxes, and they are also increasing taxes on jobs. That really is not fair on our young people, and it does a disservice to the opportunities throughout our economy. As I know hon. Friends want to contribute, I will make just one final point on repealing red tape. The Milburn review says that the decline of the Saturday job has made it more difficult for young people to enter the workforce, and that is absolutely right. In previous generations, we had far more routes to start our working lives, of which we have heard many examples. Those routes not only provided us with an income but taught us skills, confidence and habits of work. Without those, none of us would be where we are. Those first steps into a lifetime of work are crucial for enabling us to understand what we want to do for the rest of our life, what we want to achieve and how we can learn the skills to get there. Young people need the Government to get out of their way to help them back into work, and that is what a Conservative Government would do.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart, and not for the first time. It brings me back to those happy, heady days of the Scottish Affairs Committee 2021-22, when it was a joy to serve under your chairmanship. Using the powers designated under the Energy Act 2013 to amend the contracts for difference regulations, as the Minister eloquently set out, this instrument brings lifespan extension for nuclear power generators into scope for contracts for difference. Last year, France approved extending the lifespan of 20 nuclear reactors to 50 years. The UK, by contrast, extended the lifespans of advanced gas-cooled reactors Heysham 1 and Hartlepool until 2028, and Heysham 2 and Torness to 2030. That is welcome, but as our nuclear fleet ages, it will be necessary to extend the lifespan of existing nuclear power by considerably more. The stable baseload and clean power are essential to our energy mix, and we support extensions to keep this reliable generation on our system. The Department’s note on this instrument acknowledges that the existing nuclear fleet provides “a significant proportion of firm, low-carbon electricity generation, contributing to energy security and system resilience”. I could not agree more, which is why as the nuclear Minister in the last Conservative Government, I announced our intention to build a new nuclear power station at Wylfa—a project which this Government have effectively cancelled; in addition, their lack of commitment to new gigawatt-scale nuclear is disappointing. Our ambition was to generate 25% of British electricity, 24 GW, from nuclear by 2050, but that has been overshadowed by the current Department’s obsession with renewables over everything else. The Government know that nuclear generation is the right thing to do. I know the Minister knows this too, so why will they not give a commitment to new, large-scale nuclear in this country? The Conservatives have set out a clear plan for cheap energy in which new nuclear is a vital component. We would make it easier and cheaper to build new nuclear, removing habitat regulations and prohibitive environmental impact assessments. What is Labour’s ambition for nuclear? Given the importance of nuclear power to our energy security and stability, we absolutely welcome those limited measures to keep reliable power on the grid, but the Minister will have noted our serious concerns about the contracts for difference scheme—a fixed price, long-term, inflation-linked mechanism that locks consumers into higher prices for longer. We have already seen that in the eyewatering prices offered to offshore wind, in particular in allocation round 7. This amendment to the eligibility criteria facilitates future awards to nuclear generators, which is fine, but it does not oblige a CfD to be awarded to an individual plant. How can the Minister assure us that steps will be taken to keep costs as low as possible, and that we will not be locked into high prices just to keep these plants online? Will the Minister reconsider the attitude to new nuclear and signify to the industry that Great Britain is ambitious when it comes to gigawatt-scale generation? Will he commit to a third gigawatt-scale reactor on the completion of Sizewell C later in the next decade?
Thirty-eight years ago yesterday, 167 men lost their lives off the coast of Aberdeen on board the Piper Alpha rig. The friends and families of those men still mourn their loss, many of them in my constituency. That is a reminder of the danger in which so many still put themselves to ensure that energy flows to our homes and businesses around the UK. This may be a first, but I welcome the Department’s work in exploring the possibility of new nuclear in Scotland. The majority of Scots support it, but because of the Luddite SNP’s ideological opposition to new jobs and investment, they will not benefit from it. What is the Department doing to ensure that no part of Great Britain is left behind as the rest of the UK leads the world into this new golden age of nuclear?
So for once we agree—and, by the way, my colleagues and I also welcome the Government’s acceptance of the Fingleton review. However, it is sad that Labour’s ambition pales in comparison to ours when we were in government and committed ourselves to building a new gigawatt-scale reactor at Wylfa and generating 25% of British electricity from nuclear. From Labour, we have a third large-scale plant cancelled and no ambition for a quarter of our electricity to come from nuclear power. Will the Minister update us on the progress of delivering on Fingleton, and will he now revive our commitment to an ambitious British nuclear future?
My constituent Carol Campbell is a marine coastguard team leader in Stornoway. Civil servants like her do not just serve the public—they save the public. The June deadline has come and gone, and all she sees is a shambles. I know Carol; she has given a lifetime of service. She tells me, “At 63, I am loath to continue working through another Hebridean winter doing 12-hour dayshifts and nightshifts, but currently I don’t feel I have any alternative.” What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that Capita and its chief executive are held to account for failing these lifesavers?
My thoughts are with the victims and survivors of Shabir Ahmed and the Rochdale grooming gang. The Minister has always been clear that removing foreign national offenders is a priority for him, the Home Secretary and this Government. Will he update the House on what more the Home Office is doing to speed up these removals?
I thank the Minister for her statement and Philip Rycroft for his work. This issue is something that my constituents care about, because they want to know that their vote is their own and is not for sale to the highest bidder from overseas, whether it is for £5, £500 or even £5 million. Will the Minister tell the House when we will see the changes in law?
I thank the Minister for her statement and my local police officers for their work. Trust in policing is essential, but that trust and confidence has been tested too many times in recent years. Does the Minister agree that strong ethical leadership is fundamental to rebuilding public confidence in policing? Does she also agree that the police leadership commission report provides an important opportunity to ensure that officers at every level are better supported to deliver the high standards that the public rightly expect?
Too many of my constituents are seeing delays to receiving their civil service pensions because of Capita’s failures. In some cases, it is causing serious hardship, and I am doing all I can to assist people to access their hard-earned pensions. Will the Minister outline what steps he is taking to ensure that correspondence from Members in this place, advocating for their constituents, is dealt with quickly by Capita?
On behalf of constituents that I am proud to represent, I want to ask the Paymaster General questions of justice. I want to ask whether the infected blood compensation scheme is delivering the justice that Sir Brian Langstaff’s inquiry promised everyone who has suffered one of the greatest scandals in our nation’s history. First, however, I want to thank the Minister for our discussions about this topic, most recently just a couple of hours ago. I have raised it on the Floor of the House before, and I will keep raising it on behalf of my constituents. Tonight, I want to represent one family in particular, but although I am raising the experience of one family from my constituency, that experience is identical to that of many other families up and down the country. Jane Yvonne Fitzgerald was infected with contaminated blood following the administration of a single unit of blood during a non-emergency procedure. She did not consent to the risks to which she was exposed, and according to the inquiry, many patients like her should never have had such transfusions in the first place. She endured decades of illness, repeated hospital admissions, invasive procedures, severe psychological trauma and profound threats to her sense of dignity. Her experiences of care fell short of expectations. On one occasion, she suffered litres of fluid being drained from her abdomen in what was effectively a hospital broom cupboard. On another occasion, she was sent home despite being in excruciating pain because no bed was made available. On that same day, her abdomen ruptured. When she sought support, she was told there was nothing physically wrong with her. The only psychological support she was offered was alongside alcohol and drug dependency groups, when she had no addiction. The state failed to protect her and failed to care for her mental and physical health. Since she died 10 years ago, Yvonne’s family feel that justice has evaded them. Under the current compensation scheme, because she died before surviving long enough to make a claim under today’s framework, her compensation is deemed by her family to be around £300,000 less than for someone in otherwise similar circumstances who remains alive today. In her family’s view, the scheme creates a perverse outcome whereby dying from infected blood can result in less compensation than surviving with it. The younger someone was when they died, and the earlier they died, the greater the financial penalty imposed upon their family. In some cases, I am told that the disparity between deceased victims and survivors can approach £1 million. Will the Minister explain to my constituents why that is? The technical expert group recognised that severe psychological harm and exceptional suffering could be evidenced through historical records and expert opinion, yet many deceased victims cannot access enhanced awards because they died before modern assessment mechanisms existed. The inquiry recognised that affected family members suffered direct and profound harms and recommended a supplementary compensation route, yet that recommendation has still not been implemented. On behalf of my constituents, I ask the Paymaster General why the recommendation of the Infected Blood Psychological Service that affected individuals should receive individual assessments not yet been adopted. The current approach also produces unfair outcomes. My constituent Ruairí Fitzgerald moved back into his parents’ home to help save it when his father was considered too old to obtain a mortgage. He gave up his own first-time buyer status and put his own future on hold to care for Yvonne, his mother. He cooked, cleaned and accompanied her to countless appointments, witnessing at first hand the effects of her poor health. His mother died before she could see him marry, she never met his two children—her two grandsons—and he is living life in that knowledge. Under the current scheme, he is entitled to substantially less compensation than estranged relatives who played little or no role in her life or care. He wonders why the scheme compensates people according to broad family categories rather than recognising the harm individuals have experienced. There are further concerns. Widows’ support payments made under the previous schemes are now deducted from compensation awards for many claimants, while those who settled earlier are unaffected. Compensation is not routinely uprated for inflation, meaning delay steadily erodes its real value. The issue raised in my constituency is how compensation delayed should not become compensation diminished. As we have heard from all hon. Members who have contributed, this debate is about trying to remedy what went wrong and trying to ensure that there is justice. Justice cannot depend upon whether someone survived long enough to satisfy an administrative process. Justice cannot depend upon the year someone died. Jane Fitzgerald endured years of suffering caused by failures of the state, before losing her life, and her family believe that the current scheme treats her life as though it were worth less because she died before the compensation framework caught up with the truth. In closing, I put the following questions to the Minister. Will the Government review the disparity between awards for deceased victims and survivors? Will they establish a route for recognising severe harms suffered by deceased victims through historical evidence? Will they implement the inquiry’s recommendation for a supplementary route for affected family members, including individual assessments where appropriate? Will they end the deduction of widows’ support payments and ensure that compensation keeps pace with inflation so that delay does not diminish justice? For Jane Yvonne Fitzgerald, for her whole family, and for every family whose loved one was taken from them, this debate and the proceedings in this House offer us an opportunity to ensure that a promise is honoured—a promise that justice is given to all.
I very much support the proposals that the Minister is outlining. One of the groups most impacted by waste crime is farmers. There is a farm in my constituency where more than 200 bales of DIY waste were dumped on the land, at an estimated cost of £250,000 to remove. I welcome the discussion on fines, but does she agree that we need to look at whether those fines can go towards the cost of the clear-up to a greater extent, to match the scale of the crimes committed?
I beg to move, That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2026, which was laid before this House on 1 June, be approved. In my view, the provisions in this statutory instrument are compatible with the European convention on human rights. The statutory purpose of the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board is to make better provision for training throughout the engineering construction industry in England, Scotland and Wales. Engineering construction is critical to the Government’s wider ambitions for economic growth, clean energy and energy security. The industry provides the skilled workforce to build, maintain and operate major energy, manufacturing and industrial infrastructure across the country. The continued value of the ECITB and the Construction Industry Training Board was confirmed by a 2023 independent review, which found that a statutory levy remains the most effective model for industry-wide investment in training, and is needed to address persistent structural workforce challenges within the industries covered by the industry training boards. This order gives effect to the ECITB’s levy proposals for 2026, 2027 and 2028. The levy remains the board’s primary source of funding, and the order is required for the board to raise mandatory assessments on employers that are in scope. It continues to receive strong support from employers: more than 85% of levy-paying employers supported the levy proposals, representing nearly 98% of total levy value—well above the statutory threshold of more than 50% support required from industry. A 12-week Government consultation has just closed on a proposal to bring the two ITBs together into a single, unified body to support the combined skills needs of the engineering construction and construction sectors. The Government are now carefully considering the views expressed before making decisions on reforms that may be needed to ensure that the system delivers the support that employers need. I cannot prejudge the outcome but, in order to maintain the ECITB for support for employers, we need this levy order. If the Government chose to proceed with the proposed reform, the earliest that a single body could be in place would be the spring of 2028. If reform required a new ITB levy order, it would come to the House through the usual parliamentary process. I thank the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for its detailed review of this levy order. The order retains levy assessment rates from the Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2023 and retains the exemption threshold to protect small businesses and microbusinesses that are still eligible for ECITB grants and support. An estimated £137.9 million will be raised in levy between 2026 and 2028. It will be invested in meeting the skills needs of the engineering construction industry. It will fund programmes to widen participation, raise skill levels, increase opportunity and maintain occupational standards for the industry. It includes targeted grant support for employers to develop the skills pipeline in engineering construction. Since 2023, more than 5,000 apprenticeship starts have been supported through ECITB employer funding, including electrical, mechanical and nuclear-specific apprenticeships. That support includes direct grants for employers, travel and accommodation costs, and costs of additional qualifications that are required. The funding raised by the ECITB levy directly underpins broader economic priorities. More than 90,000 people are employed in the leviable workforce, contributing an estimated £33 billion in gross value added, which rises to £100 billion when we include the wider sectors serviced by the engineering construction industry. However, the industry faces big, long-standing challenges in recruiting and retaining a skilled workforce, which makes voluntary investment in training harder to secure. Only a statutory levy can guarantee that the skills that industry urgently needs will be provided at the scale required. If this order is not approved, the ECITB will be unable to collect the levy in 2026. That would hit apprenticeships and other vital industry qualifications, employer support programmes, training standards and the future capabilities of one of our most economically significant sectors. It is estimated that the UK needs an additional 40,000 engineering construction workers, and this order will play an important part in supporting major infrastructure projects nationwide. In addition to industry support, the proposals before the House today have received the full support of the devolved Governments of Scotland and Wales. They recognise, as we do, that the ability of the ECITB to raise and invest levy income is vital to ensuring that employers across all three nations can access the engineering construction skills that they need. I commend the order to the House.
I am grateful to all those who have spoken in the debate for the thoughtful scrutiny they have given to this instrument, and I am grateful for the support expressed by the hon. Members for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) and for Torbay (Steve Darling) and my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) and for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner). What I think the debate has effectively underlined is just how important the work of the ECITB is and the scale of the challenge that faces one of our most economically vital industries, which has a core workforce of 90,000 people and is responsible for £33 billion in annual output. The importance of that industry has been well reflected in the contributions to this debate. It is clear that the engineering and construction industry cannot meet its skills demands in the coming decade without a stable, collective system of investment in training. The evidence is consistent that market forces on their own will not deliver the pipeline of skilled workers that the industry urgently needs. The ECITB levy is the mechanism that enables the collective benefit for the focused skills strategy for this industry. It ensures that employers can access support for training and share the benefits of a skilled, competent and resilient workforce. It also opens up opportunities. It helps apprentices and other new entrants to complete high-quality training, and it helps existing workers to reskill or upskill to progress their careers. The hon. Member for South West Devon asked what the Government are doing to support the industry more widely with skills. Substantial Government investment is being deployed to that effect as part of wider reforms to help employers respond to current and future workforce needs. This includes an additional £1 billion of investment to help deliver some 50,000 more apprenticeship opportunities over the next few years, alongside increased flexibility through the new growth and skills levy and sector-specific skills packages in engineering and construction worth over £800 million. The hon. Lady will know of the targeted incentives for employers, including payments of up to £2,000 for taking on foundation apprentices, which will help more young people to enter skilled careers. The continued investment that we are making in skills bootcamps and increasingly devolved approaches through mayoral strategic authorities are enabling local areas to respond more effectively to local employer demand and skills shortages. Together with support from the ECITB, the measures certainly will strengthen the pipeline of skills, and I agree with the hon. Lady about how important that is. The hon. Lady cited the figure from 2024 that £28 million was invested by the ECITB in training grants and new entrant programmes. That went up to £32.6 million last year. We are expecting continuing increases, and we recognise the importance of being able to fulfil the growing demand that we are seeing. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) quite rightly reflected how important these measures are for Portsmouth, and she asked for engagement with the all-party parliamentary group. I will pass on that request to the Minister for Transformation, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western), who I am sure will be very pleased to do that. To the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner), I am afraid that I am not in a position to shed any light on the timing of the decision following the recent consultation. I will, though, pass on his suggestion that trade union representation should be considered when the reorganisation is being reflected on. The shadow Minister asked me a question about the proportion of new entrants. I think she was asking about those who are still in the industry 12 months on. That is not a figure that I have to hand but I will, if I may, drop her a line, if I can get the information to answer her question. The debate has reminded us just how important supporting the needs of small businesses is, ensuring maximum impact and value for money from employers’ levy contributions, and I think that the order gives reassurance on all those points. It maintains support for the engineering construction industry by minimising burdens on employers, holding steady levy rates and protecting smaller firms by maintaining exemption thresholds. Regardless of any future decisions needed to future-proof its support, the industry cannot afford a gap in funding now, and approving this order provides continuity, stability and confidence for engineering construction employers across England, Scotland and Wales. I am grateful for the support this measure has received in the debate, and for all those reasons I urge the House to support it. Question put and agreed to.
I thank the Minister for her statement. I have notified the relevant Member that I am about to name them. Over the weekend, The Telegraph ran a study about the Iranian-born property magnate Sasan Ghandehari pledging to donate millions of pounds to Reform UK. He described the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) as an “honest politician”. Does the Minister agree?
Shabir Ahmed’s crimes are the worst imaginable, and we are all just horrified to learn that he has now been released. As the Government look at every option to remove this vile individual, can the Minister confirm when he expects to bring forward those options and legal solutions to this situation?
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on leadership in policing. The police perform a unique and vital role in our society. They enforce our laws, tackle those who break them, and keep the public safe. These are awesome responsibilities. The officers and staff who uphold them every day, at all levels, are owed our respect, admiration and thanks. At the same time, if forces are to serve their communities effectively, they must secure and retain the trust of those communities. But in recent years, that trust has come under strain. Creaking systems, outdated structures and a lack of central grip from previous Governments have meant that the police have struggled to consistently hit the high levels of performance that we rightly expect of them. Things have to change. That is why earlier this year, the Home Secretary announced the most significant police reforms in 200 years. Our plans will ensure that the right policing happens in the right place, building on the progress that we have already made on restoring neighbourhood policing and driving down serious threats such as knife crime, and creating a new model in which local policing protects our communities and national policing protects us all. The reform programme provides us with a generational opportunity to address the long-standing challenges that have hampered the police’s ability to provide a consistently world-class service to the public. One such challenge centres on the question of how we ensure that our forces have the strong, effective leadership that they need to meet the significant demands that are placed on them. It is a question that is rightly the subject of considerable parliamentary and public scrutiny, especially when things go wrong, as they have in the recent past. Equally, I want to emphasise that there are a great many outstanding officers and staff across the police service, including those in the highest ranks. When failings occur and the public are let down, they feel it more keenly than anyone. The reality is that leadership is about more than just individuals. It is about culture and standards, and about giving every member of the police workforce the support and skills that they need to flourish and become leaders themselves. We are not the first Government to grapple with this topic. Various tweaks have been made to the system over the years, yet the same concerns keep arising, whether they relate to culture, conduct or the retention and promotion of talent. As we roll out our reform programme, this is clearly an issue requiring close examination. That examination has now taken place in the form of an independent review commissioned by the Home Secretary last year. The police leadership commission was established last October and is co-chaired by two former Members of this House with extensive knowledge of policing: my noble Friend Lord Blunkett and the noble Lord Herbert of South Downs. Together with the other members of the commission, they have carried out the most significant review of police leadership in recent times. Its findings and recommendations are published today. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Lord Blunkett and Lord Herbert for the care and skill with which they have approached their task. I am grateful, too, to the other commission members, and all who have participated. There has been a particular emphasis on giving voice to those on the frontline, which is welcome and essential. The review’s report sets out a comprehensive and, in places, candid assessment of police leadership in England and Wales. While the commission found examples of excellent leadership and delivery, it also identified concerns around consistency, capability and culture, and the impact that shortcomings in those areas have on the service received by the public. To quote from the report, “the policing profession has not consistently had the excellent leadership it needs”. It was also clear that those on the frontline are not getting the consistent support they deserve, amid wide variations in approaches to leadership development. The commission highlights the critical importance of leadership to ensuring that policing is prepared for the challenges of the future while upholding the sacred principle of policing by consent, without fear or favour. It is also important to emphasise, as the report rightly does, that leadership must not be confined to the senior officer ranks. It can and does exist in all parts of the service. It should be nurtured at every stage of a policing career—for both officers and staff. The review’s findings are rightly unsparing, and I welcome its willingness to engage with difficult issues, because, as the report’s foreword states: “Fundamentally, this is about ensuring that the public receives the quality of policing to which they are entitled.” I will turn now to the review’s recommendations, of which there are 27 in total. They are ambitious in breadth and scale and, taken together, they make a compelling case for change. While it is right that we now take the time to consider them in full, we welcome the commission’s proposals and the intent behind them. In particular, we are actively looking at the recommendation to create a formal senior constable rank and at how this could be done. The commission also recommends a new professional digital passport for every individual in policing, and other measures to put stronger supporting structures in place around professional development and performance. These could in the future help to build a route to a licence to practise, which is a proposal we included in our police reform White Paper, as one way of raising standards and promoting a stronger culture of professional development. Other recommendations from the review include: a new police leadership fast stream; a new targeted direct entry scheme to fill specific gaps in policing, with a focus on leaders from professions with transferable skills; and a role for the forthcoming national police service in promoting ethical policing at national level. As I have said, we will consider all the report’s findings and recommendations carefully. I am certain that they will be of great assistance as we advance our police reform agenda. A full Government response will follow in due course. In the meantime, we are making progress on leadership-related measures designed to improve public confidence and police performance, such as a new senior appointments panel and reforms to promotion processes, alongside the wider work we are doing on restructuring, including the creation of the national police service, which will provide a single source of strategic leadership and a stronger set of national standards. I will finish where I started: by paying tribute to the thousands of men and women who work tirelessly every day to protect our communities from harm. From the officers and staff on the frontline and their colleagues performing essential roles behind the scenes to the chief constables they ultimately report to, I am grateful to them all. While the threats they must tackle are evolving all the time, what will never change is our commitment to the founding principles of British policing, which dictate that in this country we police by consent, and assert that the police are the public and the public are the police. To uphold these traditions while meeting the demands of modern crimefighting, we must ensure that our police forces are fair, open and meritocratic workplaces that are able to meet the high standards we rightly expect of those entrusted with keeping their fellow citizens safe and driven forward by strong, effective leadership at all levels. Reform on the scale required is no easy task, but working in partnership with policing and aided by the findings of this important report, I believe that we can and will succeed in making our police service stronger and our society safer. I commend this statement to the House.
I thank the hon. Member for welcoming the report. I agree with some of what he said. He is right that it is not the work of critics looking in from the outside. The evidence base was developed through nine months of forensic work, talking to police across all levels within the force, meaning that this is a very honest assessment of the realities in which we find ourselves. As I said in my statement, police leadership has been a problem for some time. Inspections of police forces by His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services from 2023 to 2025 showed that not a single force had outstanding leadership. There are different leadership challenges across all our forces. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the public need to believe in the police and be confident in policing. The statistics on public confidence in policing have been worrying for some years now, and we must all look at them. The hon. Gentleman made the usual point about officer numbers, and I will make the usual point back: as he knows, the Conservative party cut 20,000 police and then recruited 20,000 police, but then put 12,000 of them behind desks. We are taking them away from desks and putting them on the frontline. We are also investing in technology. For example, the £75 million that I put into PoliceAI will transform the bureaucracy on which our police officers have to spend lots of their time, so that they can focus on the frontline. Overall, I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s nice comments on the leadership review. The review has been incredibly important, and it is important that we have cross-party agreement about the need to improve leadership in policing.
My hon. Friend is right. We have to be laser-focused on what will improve outcomes for the public and what will enable the police to do the job that we ask them to do. I do recommend that he reads the report—it is a very good read. At its heart, it says that we want our police to have sound judgment and common sense in their policing. We want them to be freed up to make the decisions that are commonsensical and the right thing to do. To do that, we have not only to strip away the bureaucracy and all the forms they have to fill in, but to ensure that they are trained to be the police officers we want them to be. How do we match that training with freeing up our police to get on and do the job that we all ask them to do in the first place?
Taking those points in turn and working backwards, we are working with the Police Federation on data on police suicide. It is an area where there are some contested figures, and we are trying to rectify that so we have the right picture, as well as putting in place more comprehensive wellbeing support for officers and staff so that they can get support in the difficult jobs they are faced with. The hon. Member asked whether the review will directly inform our reform agenda and the legislation we pass—absolutely it will. It is a very important part of the learnings that we will take forward. The hon. Member points to nepotism and other challenges we have in policing. Hon. Members might have seen Lord Blunkett on the television yesterday talking about that. It is absolutely true, and many the reforms pointed to in the report that we will carefully consider are aimed at taking that away, whether through having a targeted direct entry scheme or the new rank of senior constable. A leadership fast stream has been recommended, which would be interesting to look at. I recommend that he looks at all those recommendations. On bobbies on the beat, we have already increased the number of police on our streets by well over 3,000. As the hon. Member might know, we have a target of 13,000 police by the end of this Parliament.