partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Georgia Gould

   Higher Education Funding

   I regularly talk to colleagues across the four nations, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities, Baroness Smith, does the same. It is very important that we have that spirit of learning. Those different routes are deeply connected. We think that the relationship between higher education and the Department is important, particularly on supporting outcomes for young people and as we think about how we respond to the changing nature of education, the introduction of the lifelong learning entitlement and long-term flexible learning. We want people to have access to education throughout their lives.

   Hansard source
2. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Georgia Gould

   Higher Education Funding

   No, I must make progress. The lifelong learning entitlement will transform the student finance system, giving people flexible access to high-quality education throughout their working lives. From January 2027, for the first time learners will be able to use their entitlement to fund individual modules as well as full courses at levels 4 to 6 at colleges, universities and independent providers. A number of Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Central and for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), raised the issue of international students and support for them. I want to be clear: international students are welcome in the UK. They enrich our campuses and communities, and are ambassadors for this country long after they graduate. They made a vital contribution of £12.7 billion in fee income in 2023-24—almost a quarter of the sector’s income, as other Members said. The new international education strategy confirms our commitment to welcoming students who meet the requirements to study here. A range of questions were asked about the international student levy. That is part of a wider package that also includes inflation-linked fee rises, and it is important to stress that every penny it raises will be reinvested in higher education and skills—including new maintenance grants for disadvantaged students, which many hon. Members raised, to remove some of the barriers around the cost of studying. We know how important those are. The levy is simple and proportionate: a flat £925 fee per international student per year from 2028-29, paid for by providers with an allowance of 220 students each. We listened to the sector; the flat fee is equivalent to around 4% of international fee income, down from the 6% first provided. To answer the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) and others, we will publish an updated impact assessment ahead of the Finance Bill. I was asked a number of questions about the pressure that many students are facing, including from my friends from Cornwall, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham). We know that cost of living pressures have hit students hard. The previous Government removed maintenance grants and the real-term value of loan support for students fell by almost 20% between 2020 and 2024. We are taking action to put that right. We are introducing a targeted maintenance grant from 2028-29 of up to £1,000 a year for disadvantaged students on top of their loan, putting cash in their pockets without adding to their debt. The new grants will support students from low-income households studying full-time courses, which is in line with the Government’s mission and industrial strategy. We are future-proofing maintenance loans by increasing them in line with forecast inflation every year, with the biggest cash increase going to students from the lowest-income families. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen raised the issue of student loans, and I want to address that in the time that remains to me. As we have heard from across the Chamber today, giving those who want it and have the ability the chance to study in higher education changes lives. We are determined to support students who want to go to university to fulfil their aspirations. We cannot lose sight of the value that student loans provide in enabling that and levelling the playing field at the point of access. They remove that upfront financial barrier to studying and enable students to repay when they are earning. We inherited a student loan system that is not working as fairly as it should, and we recognise that some students and graduates feel the impact of that. We are making the tough but necessary decisions to deliver a fairer and more sustainable system. We increased the plan 2 thresholds in 2025—its first increase since 2021—and we again raised the plan 2 repayment threshold in April, to £29,385. We have also capped interest rates for plan 2 and plan 3 loans at 6% for the academic year 2026-27. There are a whole range of very important discussions that came up today. I know that myself— Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

   Hansard source
3. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Gareth Thomas

   Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

   It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin). Perhaps because of the time limit, he did not dwell on the dismal economic inheritance that the Government were left by the Conservatives, which we are still having to contend with—huge national debt, public services starved of investment, and dismal levels of productivity and growth. It is encouraging that we are the joint fastest-growing economy in the G7, according to the OECD; that the IMF has lauded this Government’s efforts to tackle the national debt; and that unemployment is down. But the Chancellor is right that, with the war between Iran and the US driving economic uncertainty and pushing up inflation, there is still much more to do to help family finances and tackle more of the long-term challenges our country faces. I welcome, in particular, the Budget’s focus on the cost of living and the support for families with their energy bills. One of the most pressing long-term challenges that our country faces is how ambitious we want to be in resetting our relationship with our European allies. Made in Europe is the canary in the coalmine—the warning that the more distant we get from Europe, the more vulnerable British jobs dependent on European export orders will become. In the European Union our voices would be louder, our reach would go further and our economic security would be more assured. I recognise that my constituents will want to know the costs as well as the benefits of rejoining, so I very much welcome the Government’s appetite to have that honest debate. This time, however, there should be a plan B. An “all or nothing” choice to go in or not would be even more irresponsible than the Cameroons’ failure to prepare for the possibility of exit a decade ago. So the reset must deliver more. Greater access to the single market, of the sort the Swiss have, and a uniquely British deal, but one recognisable to our allies in Europe, would bring substantial economic gains, albeit not the full benefits of rejoining. On some of the specific measures in the Budget, I welcome very much the focus on small businesses and the sensible measures that the Chancellor set out, but we need to go further: to offer better access to capital, to help small businesses find new export markets, and to explore offering tax relief to help SMEs hire those who are not in education, employment or training. Securing affordable finance to grow a small business remains significantly difficult for many firms. It is a sustained market failure, with a gap of up to £4 billion holding back growth, and it is particularly acute for businesses outside the south-east, and for women, disabled and ethnic minority entrepreneurs. That market failure is made even more acute by high-cost credit firms offering easy-to-get loans without real affordability checks or clarity on annual interest rates, and often those who broker such loans are not open about the commission they charge. This is the payday lending scandal over again, with entrepreneurs and small-business owners being exploited. The further investment announced for the British Business Bank is welcome, but it needs to drive a sustained expansion of community banks, or community development finance institutions. They must build capacity jointly with big banks such as Santander, Barclays and HSBC, which invest in community banks in the US, but as yet not in the UK. There is a neglected sector of the business community that exists not to make a profit for shareholders but to serve a social purpose, and it is crucial to delivering sustainable growth in every postcode. Those co-operative and mutual businesses do not charge the highest prices and they often cannot secure traditional bank finance, but they exist to achieve social goals for the communities in which they operate.

   Hansard source
4. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Gareth Thomas

   Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

   I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who makes an important point about the need to do more to expand credit unions. It is for such businesses, and the communities that would benefit from other co-operatives and mutuals, that Labour Members committed to put in place policies to double the size of the co-operative sector. We now need to see enacted the capital reforms drawn up by the Law Commission, which would unlock significant investment from capital markets, crucially without requiring a co-operative or mutual business to have to sell up and demutualise. We should look at using the corporate tax regime to encourage investment in those third sector businesses. Why cannot the bigger co-operative businesses be allowed to offset some of their corporation tax liabilities if they invest in co-op development funds that help bloody minded co-operative entrepreneurs to bring the hopes and ambitions of their communities to life? Finally, I welcome the investment in public services in my constituency that the Budget locks in. New investment in primary care in Harrow, for example at Alexandra Avenue clinic, will unlock another 100,000 face-to-face appointments with a GP, nurse or other health professional. A new state-of-the-art GP surgery and, over time, a neighbourhood health centre is coming at the White House in Harrow College in central Harrow. Work is under way to plan further investment in other local medical centres, and more than £27 million has been given by the Government to invest in new special needs places across the borough. Vital funding for electrical and safety repairs has been invested at Rooks Heath high school, Whitefriars school, Nower Hill school, Bentley Wood high school, Hatch End high school and Earlsmead school. It is proof that this Government are delivering for the people of my constituency.

   Hansard source
5. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Gareth Snell

   Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

   Given that he raised the issue, could the hon. Gentleman set out by how much he thinks the minimum wage should be cut?

   Hansard source
6. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Euan Stainbank

   Economic Growth

   3. What steps he has taken with Cabinet colleagues to support economic growth in Scotland.

   Hansard source
7. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Euan Stainbank

   Economic Growth

   I welcome my hon. Friend to her place on the Front Bench. To deliver good growth in my area, the reindustrialisation of the Grangemouth industrial cluster is essential. We must take steps to include Grangemouth in the strategic sites accelerator, unlock a final investment decision in the Acorn project and take concerted action to secure and reutilise the Syngenta site when the company withdraws next December. What action is my hon. Friend taking, alongside departmental colleagues, to enable the reindustrialisation of Grangemouth?

   Hansard source
8. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Lewell

   Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing

   I remind Members that they should not speak about any live or ongoing court cases or inquests.

   Hansard source
9. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Lewell

   HCRG Care Group: Performance in the South-west

   I remind hon. Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates. I call Sarah Gibson to move the motion.

   Hansard source
10. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Lewell

    National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions

    If possible, could our final two Back-Bench contributors keep to five minutes each, so that we can hear from the Front Benchers?

    Hansard source
11. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Lewell

    National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions

    I call Wendy Morton to sum up, if you can do it in a few seconds.

    Hansard source
12. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Emma Hardy

    Flood Resilience

    I will do my best to croak my way through the rest of the debate. I thank the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) for securing this really important debate. It was heartening that there was so much I found myself nodding along with as she was speaking. I know that the emotional and financial impact of flooding can be devastating on families and businesses. Like the hon. Lady, I have spoken to many people who have been affected by floods, including farmers whose crops have been damaged. I have also seen and heard from communities affected by flooding. It is not just about the economic impact, but about the impact on their mental health and wellbeing. The scars of flooding remain for a long time after the floodwaters recede. I completely agree with the hon. Lady’s points about climate change. The situation now is that 81% of the country in drought, but we saw some flooding just last week—and one area that is in drought had a flood as well. We are dealing with the impact of climate change, which is absolutely here and now. On a slightly different note, I find it frustrating that some parties in the House do not seem to accept that climate change is both real and here. Luckily, I can look around the Chamber and see that nobody in here currently does so, which is positive. As the hon. Lady said, this year may be especially challenging because we are expecting a strong El Niño, with an increased likelihood of wetter and stormier conditions across the UK during autumn and winter. We are better prepared this year than we were last, and last year we were better prepared than we were the year before. That is partly because of the number of flood defences we have been able to build successfully and partly because we have been able to restore and maintain more of our flood defences. It is also because with the original floods taskforce, after each episode of flooding each winter, we wanted to do some honest lessons learned on what worked, what did not and what we could do better and set up that cycle of continuous improvement; the hon. Lady was right on that. I am therefore pleased that now, through the flood and drought resilience taskforce, we are thinking about this together. I fully agreed with the hon. Lady on how the things that help with drought help with flooding as well. If the soil can retain more moisture, that helps with drought in the summer—that helps with groundwater levels—but it will also absorb more water when there is a flood. It was interesting that the hon. Lady mentioned the Netherlands. Just last week, I met someone and talked to them about their regional planning and—exactly as the hon. Lady said—how they look at a region and decide what is the best intervention to take in that area. We are looking to introduce a regional approach for water in this country. That is what is on my mind—what is the best answer? Water pollution has not been mentioned in the debate, but we know that too much rainwater ending up in the system can create overflows. If we have areas where we can hold more water—this adds to why we should be doing this and why it is a good thing—that helps to decrease pollution. Of course, I have huge admiration for Flood Mary, who is a wonderful person; I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Lady on that. The flood recovery framework is run by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but I will ensure that the hon. Lady’s remarks are heard by the relevant Minister. The existing flood resilience taskforce, which I have already mentioned, is all about how we prepare not only for more frequent periods of increased rainfall but frequent periods of low rainfall, looking at those two sides of the same coin. As the hon. Lady said, the eighth wettest winter in England since 1836 was followed in some parts of the country by the driest summer in a century. That brings the challenges together. My focus at the moment is how we take the rain as it falls, and when it falls, how we use it to fill up our reservoirs so we are in the best possible position for March. It is also about how we make it easier for farmers. I am interested in what the hon. Lady mentioned about the work that her farmers are doing in their area. There is a great scheme by a water abstraction group in another part of the country, and it is absolutely one way to go forward. We have brought more people into the taskforce than ever before, and as the hon. Lady mentioned, some of the action groups are taking away specific actions. I know the hon. Lady was on the Environmental Audit Committee, and one of the things that we have taken from the recommendations in the Committee’s report, which was a really good piece of work, was about how we create that one-stop shop for information. We have launched Flood Action online, which is about helping communities to understand their flood risk and to look for flood information. It would be so helpful if colleagues around the Chamber could help share that and get that information out. While I am asking everyone for favours, the Priority Services Register helps to identify people who are vulnerable and who would need water in case of an outage, because flooding can cause problems with water supply—anything on that would be super helpful. We have changed the rules on investment. I know that the hon. Lady and I agree on our love of nature-based solutions and slowing the flow, which is a win for everybody. I was pleased to hear that there are some in her area as well. We are talking about a minimum level of investment, so the only thing I would correct my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) on is that it is not just a small amount of money that is going in; it is a minimum amount. We set it as a minimum because we want to encourage people to use more nature-based solutions where possible. The pushback I get is that it is not always suitable. Of course, it is not always suitable everywhere, but I think where we can, let us let nature do what it does best. If that helps slow the flow and creates and supports biodiversity, surely we can all get behind it. While I have the Floor, and I am able to, I will talk a little bit about what we have been doing. After more than a decade of under-investment by the previous Government, we have invested £2.65 billion in our first two years, delivered real change, stabilised the condition of existing defences and done 250 flood defence projects, with new and improved defences coming online. The hon. Lady is right again: the money that we have put into that will prevent an estimated £10 billion in economic damage, provide communities with better protection, restore pride in our towns and defend valuable farmland from regular flooding. Earlier this year, we announced our 10-year flood and coastal erosion investment programme, which will benefit 200,000 properties over the next three years. The targets are ambitious, but I am proud to get behind them. The programme is forecast to generate more than £27 billion of avoided economic damage, so I think that is pretty good for an investment of £7.9 billion. I think I should have mentioned that earlier in front of the Chancellor, but I will keep mentioning it—almost £7 of benefit for every £1 invested. The Environment Agency continues to work with Herefordshire council and the River Lugg internal drainage board to reduce that risk faced by local communities. I am aware of the £276,000 investment in a new hydraulic model of the River Wye to improve the evidence base for future investment planning and development decisions along the river. Turning to house building, although the hon. Lady knows that I am not directly responsible for it, I will reiterate the Government’s stance. The Government are committed to building the homes the country needs while ensuring they are resilient and safe from flooding, and a consultation on the new national planning policy framework concluded recently. The updated policy clarifies how key flood risk tests should be applied and strengthens policies relating to coastal risk. Policy remains clear that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas of highest risk. Where development is necessary in areas at risk of flooding, permission should be granted only if it can be demonstrated that the development will be safe for its lifetime, without increasing flood risk elsewhere. Additionally, the NPPF now requires sustainable drainage systems in new developments, designed to the national standards. I am pleased that the hon. Lady also mentioned property flood resilience, which is another of my favourite things. The “FloodReady” report was published in October last year, with 22 recommendations and 50 supporting actions across six themes. We are looking at how we can move this forward and keep meeting regularly with the leadership group to see where we can make this something that is considered more of a normal part of something people do every day. The chair now sits on the flood resilience groups, which is really positive as well. This Government are committed to strengthening resilience to flooding, not only to keep people safe but to support economic growth in rural and local communities across the country. By protecting businesses, reducing disruption and safeguarding jobs, these measures contribute to stability and growth in the face of increased climate change and flood risk. The Government’s record investment in flood defences will benefit communities across the country, and our reforms to the flood funding rules will ensure a more balanced system that strengthens rural resilience and delivers benefits for farming communities and the environment alike. This is a personal priority for me, and it is a privilege to be the Minister responsible for flooding. I remain determined to ensure that our approach to flood risk is effective and co-ordinated to support the public we all serve. Question put and agreed to.

    Hansard source
13. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Elaine Stewart

    Oil and Gas Sector: Jobs

    It is fair to say that there was a muted response from the First Minister at the good news from the UK Government on Jackdaw. Will the Secretary of State help to inspire and animate Mr Swinney by telling him more about the new energy wealth fund and how it will support jobs in Scotland?

    Hansard source
14. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Simon Opher

    Flood Resilience

    The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. I would like to talk about natural flood management and how it sits naturally with district councils. In my constituency we have had more than 1,200 interventions over 12 years—I think we lead nationally on this. I want in particular to praise Chris Uttley, who works for the district council, and who does an absolutely fantastic job with natural flood management—he has saved hundreds of homes and businesses from a repeat of the terrible 2007 floods. Would the hon. Lady join me in urging the Government to make it as easy as possible for councils to access the £25 million funding that the Government have earmarked for natural flood management so that we can unlock this tremendous potential in local government?

    Hansard source
15. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Scott Arthur

    Higher Education Funding

    It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for the way in which she introduced the debate. Sheffield University was the first place I visited outside Scotland; I think the Red Deer pub, which is right next to the university, was the first English pub I ever went into. Before I was elected to this place, I worked in the university sector for 20 years in Scotland. Our universities are among Scotland’s biggest assets. Across the sector, there is incredible innovation. Each year, our universities attract the very best staff and students from across the world. I always say that any country serious about its economy should be serious about its universities. It is great to see our Prime Minister putting universities at the heart of the triple helix model that he talks about so often. In a debate in Westminster Hall 18 months ago, I quoted the then president of NUS Scotland, who warned that Scotland’s education system was “crumbling”. At that time, I hoped our words would prompt the Scottish Government into action. Sadly, they did not, and Scotland’s sector has lurched from crisis to crisis. Undergraduate university education in Scotland is free, but the sector is grossly underfunded. Broadly speaking, funding per undergraduate student in Scotland is well over £2,000 less per student compared with universities in England. That means less money for facilities and staff wages. I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a member of UCU and have an ongoing connection with Heriot-Watt University. Because of the huge stresses on the sector, there is industrial action at, I think, six universities in Scotland right now. Industrial action at one university might suggest a local issue, but when it is happening across the country it suggests that the Government need to step up and do something about it. In my constituency, both Edinburgh Napier University and Heriot-Watt are internationally recognised institutions. They are home to dedicated staff, ambitious students and world-leading research, but both face serious challenges. In the past year, there has been talk of compulsory redundancies and course reductions. There are similar issues at Edinburgh University, which is outside my constituency, but quite a lot of staff and students are based in Edinburgh South West. This situation cannot continue. We need the Scottish Government to bring together universities, staff, students and trade unions to agree a way forward. I want to talk briefly about immigration. During my time at Heriot-Watt, I worked alongside fantastic academics from around the world. Next door to my office, on one side I had Professor Adebayo Adeloye from Nigeria, and on the other I had Benny Suryanto, who came from Indonesia. Our students are lucky that these people choose to come to the UK. I felt lucky that students came from around the world to spend time in Edinburgh and enjoy its education and the opportunities that provides. I am concerned that the Government are making it harder for both staff and students to come here. If we are serious about growing our economy, we have to recognise the benefits that universities provide, both nationally and locally in our towns and cities. It would be great to hear what is happening inside the Government to support universities and ensure that they can thrive. In Scotland, their funding is largely a matter for the Scottish Government, but I think the UK Government could do more to support the immigration status of students and staff.

    Hansard source
16. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Scott Arthur

    Higher Education Funding

    I know I do not look it, but when I went to university, Margaret Thatcher was still our Prime Minister. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is incredible that funding for students’ day-to-day living costs was better then than it is today.?

    Hansard source
17. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Scott Arthur

    Higher Education Funding

    The hon. Member is diagnosing the problem excellently and detailing all the issues. I do not want to go back too far, but we have to think about the role the Lib Dems played in the coalition Government and the decision to go back on their pledge not to raise fees but instead raise them to £9,000. The Budget this afternoon is not just about spending money; it is also about raising money to pay for policies. A range of policies—

    Hansard source
18. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Scott Arthur

    Higher Education Funding

    It would be good to hear how the money would be raised to meet all those obligations.

    Hansard source
19. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Scott Arthur

    Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing

    I thank my hon. Friend for shedding light on those cases. It cannot be easy for the families to hear again what happened. The reason we are back here, I expect, is because the sentences are not a deterrent, and because the term “death by dangerous driving” completely underplays what happens, particularly in the cases my hon. Friend explained. This is manslaughter. Does he agree that we should think not just about sentencing, but about how we present such cases to the courts?

    Hansard source
20. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Scott Arthur

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    As always, the hon. Lady is speaking very passionately. She has talked about energy security in Wales. Would it not be a lot easier to achieve that if the Welsh Government did not proceed with their plan to ban electricity pylons?

    Hansard source
21. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Rupa Huq

    Higher Education Funding

    “Crisis” and “world beating” are overused terms, and both apply to UK higher education, which, after an over-reliance on international fee income during years of underfunding, feels ready to snap. Four in 10 of the best universities on Earth are in Britain. Imperial College London, whose White City campus is in my seat, is one. It attracts the brightest brains for groundbreaking postdoctoral research, and its Scale Space facility incubates start-ups, but Home Office restrictions on dependants, the cutting of the post-study work visa, indefinite leave to remain changes and the new basic compliance assessment, which has inexplicably resulted in record visa refusals, have threatened all that. In a competitive world, international students have other options, which we see them opting for. I am also the MP for the University of West London. It is not top 10, but it is a local anchor institution. It is a big employer and a vital hub for under-represented communities. Both universities are concerned by the international student levy. The return of maintenance grants, which the proceeds will fund, is welcome, but the £925 fee that universities must pay per international student per year of study at a time of falling student numbers is unviable. Given how course fees vary, why not a percentage—6% was originally mooted? What is the logic behind the the first 250 students being free of the charge? Sadly, the University of Suffolk has for the first time gone below that number—an unwanted situation—thanks to that perverse disincentive. Could we not increase the number? Why are only the subjects in the Government’s industrial strategy funded by the grants? They include computing, maths and pure science, but no arts or social sciences, which potentially leaves those subjects to elites. Creative sector education—including at UWL, the old Ealing School of Art, which specialised for 100 years in art and the humanities and which was where the Who formed and Freddie Mercury studied—risks being wiped out along with jobs, as the University and College Union fears, because such subjects do not fit financial forecasts. Our universities are not simply dreaming spires and ivory towers. They are essential invisible exports offering soft power and regional capacity building, with growth in every postcode. The University of Westminster, the first polytechnic, was founded to enrich the working man; its Soho Poly venue was where Pink Floyd played their early gigs, and things still happen there. We must treasure our wide diversity of institutions, not just throw them to the wall. The Office for Students estimates that 119 universities—43% of the sector—will be in deficit this academic year, with 24 in danger of bankruptcy. After mergers and departmental closures, the next step, as predicted in the Education Committee’s excellent report, is insolvency. The Oxbridges will go from up here to down here, but where will the Suffolks and the UWLs go? Down there? Will it take someone to go bust before the Government finally take notice? When I taught in the sector, international students, who spend money locally, were seen as the golden goose to compensate for real-terms funding cuts, but our over-reliance is now exposed. The basic compliance assessment’s red, amber and green ratings have become existential. The Government cannot rely on past laurels, then cash-starve a sector, demand gullible international students with limitless pockets, prop it up with staff good will and magically expect growth. The elasticity of demand inevitably snaps.

    Hansard source
22. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Rupa Huq

    Higher Education Funding

    I know the Minister is really passionate about this subject, and her Department has done excellent work with the Department for Work and Pensions on the phenomenon of those not in education, employment or training. A statistic shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) was that the UK has the lowest proportion of public tertiary education expenditure among OECD countries. Could the Minister have a word with Treasury colleagues about nudging that upwards, because that is a statistic we are not so proud of?

    Hansard source
23. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Peter Prinsley

    Higher Education Funding

    It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing this important debate. Sheffield is my university. I attended the 45th reunion last weekend and, apart from the fact that many of my former student colleagues had decided to dye their hair grey, everybody was looking remarkably well. I would also like to say that I actually went to university before Mrs Thatcher was the Prime Minister. I am a former NHS surgeon and a father of three children who have all been through our university system. Our universities are among our greatest assets, as we have heard during the many thoughtful contributions this morning. They drive research and support our local economies, but we cannot take them for granted. They are facing considerable financial pressure. Rising operating costs and an increasing reliance on international student income have left many of them in a precarious position. We all know that the importance of universities goes far beyond the lecture theatres. Just this Monday, I spoke in the House about genetic research at the University of East Anglia to help us distinguish between dangerous and less dangerous prostate cancers—a subject that we absolutely need to sort out. That sort of groundbreaking research depends on well-funded universities with the confidence to invest in the long term, particularly in subjects such as my own, medicine, but also in the sciences and many others, where the costs of providing higher education and training are considerable. The Government’s decision to increase tuition fee caps in line with inflation rather than allowing their value to erode makes sense. I also welcome the return of maintenance grants. Those are important steps towards supporting universities and students, but we must recognise that there is a difficult balance at the heart of this debate. Universities need more money, yet increasing tuition fees means that we are asking students to take more debt. I can see that generational difference in my own family. My two eldest children studied under plan 1, my youngest is on plan 2 and the students I met at Thurston community college in my constituency face the prospect of something called plan 5, with repayments potentially stretching over 40 years. I graduated from medical school without tuition fee debt. I began my career, I entered the housing market and I gradually became more secure, but that looks very different for today’s graduates. A maths graduate who recently attended one of my constituency surgeries brought home just how complicated our student finance system has become. He brought a very well worked-out spreadsheet that explained it to me—at least at the time; I could not possibly explain it to Members today. We must avoid a situation in which the financial sustainability of our great universities is secured simply by transferring the ever-greater burden on to the next generation, for generational unfairness is the great challenge of this Parliament. I ask the Minister to consider just two things. First, how can we provide universities with greater long-term funding certainty rather than leaving them so dependent on tuition fees and unpredictable international student recruitment? Secondly, how can we ensure that efforts to stabilise university finances are accompanied by a fair and transparent student finance system so that young people really understand the financial commitments they make? Our universities need financial stability, but our students need financial security. That is a hard thing, but our Government know how to do hard things.

    Hansard source
24. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Lauren Sullivan

    Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing

    Government figures show that rural roads account for 60% of road deaths but only 45% of traffic, and speed-related factors were recorded in over half of all fatal collisions in the last year. In my constituency of Gravesham, we lost two people in Sole Street who were cyclists on the road. Does my hon. Friend agree that in rural villages—where roads are narrower, without pavements, and shared by walkers, cyclists and horse riders—need particular attention and intervention?

    Hansard source
25. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Douglas McAllister

    Impact of Government Policies on Businesses

    Does the Minister agree that a good example of a Government policy that will have a positive impact on businesses in Scotland is our youth guarantee, which is providing Scotland’s businesses with skilled-up young people ready for work? That includes our new youth hub in West Dunbartonshire, which is set to open this Friday.

    Hansard source
26. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Debbie Abrahams

    The Global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I, too, welcome these regulations on global human rights and international humanitarian law sanctions. We know that sanctions are a vital tool for the Government to use to promote our British values, particularly in relation to the rule of law, democracy and human rights. By designating individuals or entities responsible for human rights violations, for example, we send a clear message that the UK stands firm against despots such as Vladimir Putin. Sanctioned persons face penalties including director disqualification in this country, asset freezes and being prevented from travelling to Britain. Those are significant penalties, and those who are designated to face them are designated only on reasonable grounds. Although the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 was certainly an important piece of legislation, recent events have shown the incompleteness of its implementation. Of course, the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020, which the regulations that we are debating replace, were correct to punish those who perpetrate violations of human rights. However, it was clearly an oversight to punish those acts while not taking equivalent action for serious breaches of international humanitarian law. What do these new, expanded regulations mean? As the name sets out, the Global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026—I will just call them the new regulations—expand the former regulations so that serious breaches of international humanitarian law around the world now constitute designate-able activity. Previously, that was not a consistent policy of the British Government. Such breaches could be designated in countries that face their own UK geographic sanctions—regimes such as Sudan, Syria, Myanmar and the Democratic Republic of Congo. This is a common-sense change. Some examples of serious breaches include armed actors targeting defenceless civilians, performing public executions and a state deporting or transferring parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. One of the chief catalysts for this action was the Israeli Government, under Benjamin Netanyahu, making a clear statement that they intend to bury the prospect of a Palestinian state, and with it the two-state solution, through illegal settlement expansions, particularly in the case of the E1 project. That breaches the rights of Palestinians to self-determination. Israel always had the right to defend itself in a proportionate manner after the heinous terror attacks of 7 October 2023. However, what we have seen in both Gaza and the west bank has gone far beyond that. This Government have thankfully accepted the 2024 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory is unlawful. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was exactly right to say in his statement on 8 September: “If the occupation is illegal, do we want to maintain, at the level of principle, normal economic relationships? We say no.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 887.] Nevertheless, without a new statutory instrument, normal economic relationships with illegal settlements would have been effectively maintained. The previous regulations did not afford the Government the power to systematically oppose the creation of illegal settlements through financing and construction originating in the UK. The previous regulations, while a good step, were inadequate for the Government to deliver on their obligations under international humanitarian law. Although I wholeheartedly support the replacement of the previous regulations with the new ones, two questions remain, which I would like to put to the Minister. How will the Government monitor those who commit acts that may make them liable to designation? How swiftly will we act on reliable reports of such acts? I am sure that, in the case of the Government’s ambition with its allies to stop E1 being built and protect the two-state solution, the Foreign Secretary’s statement to the House on 8 September and the joint statement from this and other Governments on how we will take action against settlement expansion were a meaningful factor in the Israeli Attorney General delaying the opening of construction and financing tenders to mid-November. To support the Government’s action, the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group, which I co-chair with my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), has written to over 150 financial and business entities, trade associations and regulators to inform them of the obligations that these regulations place on them, their members and those under their regulatory purview. Currently, we have had a response from 27 of those entities. It is evident that the Government’s initial announcement on 8 September was a good warning for them to avoid involvement in E1. Nevertheless, that response rate suggests that people have not quite got the message. We cannot afford to march to the edge of action, only to falter when we have finally shown the collective action of the UK and our allies to be a powerful threat against breaches of international humanitarian law. I therefore ask the Minister: what work is his Department undertaking to ensure that this unity of purpose, particularly between those who are co-signatories of the joint Foreign Ministers’ statement on the two-state solution of 8 September, translates into unity of action? Does he also view these measures as sufficient to combat activities to maintain existing settlements? If not, what action will he take to ensure that that is the case? Only yesterday, I was approached by a journalist who had evidence of jobs in medical clinics in illegal settlements being advertised in this country at an event in London last weekend. I know that the Government were outraged by the advertisement of illegal settlement properties at the Great Israeli Real Estate Event, which took place a few months ago in London, so what action can they take to ensure that these activities cannot happen again? As I said, I fully support these new regulations. However, I would be interested to know whether creating a set of activity-based regulations applying to all existing settlements, not just the new ones, would be a better approach. I am grateful to you for allowing me to speak, Mr Stringer, and I thank the members of the Committee.

    Hansard source
27. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Debbie Abrahams

    The Global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026

    Will the Minister also respond on why our regulations would not incorporate existing settlements as well?

    Hansard source
28. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dave Robertson

    Engagements

    Q6. Hon. and right hon. Members will all know that Royal Mail has a serious problem. Part of it is that the parcel companies that Royal Mail competes against use bogus self-employed models for their employees, and too many pay a pittance for an unmanageable workload, where drivers cannot provide a quality service as they race to complete routes. The public purse loses too: Royal Mail pays £650 million in national insurance, while many of its competitor firms pay next to nothing. The Government’s consultation on employment status is a great start. Will the Prime Minister commit to using that review to truly level the playing field and secure the long-term future of Royal Mail, ensuring that my constituents in Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages get the service they deserve?

    Hansard source
29. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Darren Paffey

    Higher Education Funding

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) on securing this important debate. Southampton is home to two excellent universities and yet in my constituency, only 7% of kids on free school meals will hold a degree by the time they are 22. Of those who do not receive free school meals in Itchen, just 19% will get there. If we go a few miles up the road to Winchester, however, that become 39%. We must make sure that higher education is not shut down as an option for young people. In my speech, I will focus on three points that are becoming worryingly clear about the funding system as it stands: it is not working for students, it is not working for universities, and—I fear—it is working only for the Treasury. I do not believe that is what this Labour Government are about. First, on students, I was the first in my family lucky enough to go to university. I started in 2000 when fees were—wait for it—£1,025. My annual loan was about £3,500. We looked enviously on the generation before us, who did not pay fees and who received a grant to go to university. This generation is looking enviously on my generation, which is worrying. I went on to spend 20 years as university lecturer, so I saw every subsequent wave of student finance agreements. The Treasury Committee has concluded that we were essentially mis-selling some of the previous loan agreements on terms that no commercial lender would ever be allowed to offer.

    Hansard source
30. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Darren Paffey

    Higher Education Funding

    My hon. Friend makes an absolutely salient point. Many of us never imagined that we would get to an even worse place, but here we are. Only the top three earnings deciles of recent intakes will ever pay off their student loans in full. The nurse, the teacher or the engineer on £35,000 will pay 9% for decades and still never clear the balance. Dare I say it, but if it walks like a tax and quacks like a tax, let us call it a tax and treat it as one. If we properly sort it, it could well be a better deal than the current loan system.

    Hansard source
31. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Darren Paffey

    Higher Education Funding

    I agree that this is not the deal that I think our country wants to offer its young people, particularly if the Government are about breaking down barriers to opportunity. Secondly, on universities, the Office for Students reported in May that more than a third of English higher education institutes were already in deficit last year, and that if recruitment simply flatlines, nearly six in 10 could be in deficit within five years. International student numbers, as hon. Members have stated, fell by around 45,000 last year, and student visa applications in the first months of this year were down by a third. In May, the Education Committee, which I sit on, warned of the real threat of insolvency. Universities such as those in my constituency—the University of Southampton and Southampton Solent University—are anchors of our local economy, and that is reflected around the country. We cannot afford to let them fail. They are not immune to the job losses that are affecting other HEIs. Thirdly, I turn to the taxpayer. The Government estimate that the state meets 35% to 40% of the cost of higher education. Others take a different view: the Institute for Fiscal Studies put the figure for the 2022 cohort at around 3%, with 97% of the cost met by students. Sir Philip Augar recommended a 50:50 split. Whichever number we look at or choose to believe, we are a long way from the balance that Parliament intended, and the bill is quietly being passed to young people. That brings me to the international student levy. Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely welcome the return of maintenance grants—for families on low incomes, they really matter—but a grant of up to £1,000 a year amounts to about £20 a week, and it is to be funded by a levy of £920 per international student from 2028. Last November, that was forecast to raise £445 million in its first year, but that forecast was made before visa applications fell by a third. I fear that a grant that depends on a shrinking tax base is a good intention built on sand. Before the levy legislation completes its passage, will the Minister commit to publishing an updated forecast of what it will raise based on today’s recruitment figures? Will she confirm that maintenance grants will be protected if they fall short? Finally, the Government have said that the whole student finance system is under review, and I welcome that news enthusiastically. Will the Minister set out how and by when that review will report, and whether it will move us back towards a fair balance between the state and the individual? As hon. Members have very eloquently said, this is all about intergenerational justice. It is about whether 22-year-old me would look at university and say, “Yeah, I can risk that,” or whether I would now be more likely to say, “Nah, my family has never done that and I simply cannot afford it.” It is about growth and the 7% of kids in Itchen, and more across this country, who deserve better opportunities and better odds.

    Hansard source
32. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Daniel Zeichner

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Gentleman, although I am not sure that the Liberal Democrats are always quite so bold when it comes to local decision making. It is a pleasure to support the measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. I have known him for many years, and he certainly knows Cambridge well. The measures on rough sleeping will be strongly supported in the city of Cambridge. They are the right thing to do, because they also help tackle a problem that I have talked about before, which I described as the pauperisation of the public realm. Over the last few decades, too many of our city centres and towns have not had the investment and care that they needed. That goes some way towards explaining how we can be a country that, by international and historical standards, is well off, yet has a general sense of unhappiness. The fragmentation and privatisation of public services and spaces, widely attributed to decisions made in the 1980s, have come back to haunt us. I was pleased to hear the suggestions in the Chancellor’s speech, echoing the comments made by the Prime Minister over the last few months, that address those points.

    Hansard source
33. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Daniel Zeichner

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    As I said, I think it goes back over decades, and it needs to be reversed. I thought the most radical measure in the Chancellor’s statement was the fiscal devolution. I am someone who, along with many others in the Chamber, has argued for business rates retention over many years. I look forward to seeing how that plays out. I represent a young city, and I am confident and optimistic about the future if we can give our young people the opportunities they need. I was pleased to hear about the measures to support innovation and entrepreneurs. At the Innovate Cambridge summit last week, we were told by local people that as an innovation cluster by density, Cambridge ranked second in the world and first in Europe in 2026. Just a few months earlier, the Oxford-Cambridge Supercluster Board published research showing that the growth corridor has produced 740 university spin-outs—almost 70% more than the fabled Bay area in America—and produces more scientific publications per resident than anywhere else in the world. As we know, all too often we manage to generate tremendous start-ups, but have a problem with scale up. The points in the statement about the National Wealth Fund and the British Business Bank can help us use the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor to drive prosperity for the whole nation, not just the region. I welcome the announcement of the flexibility that will be offered to the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation, which will allow us to be innovative in the way we use public funds to also pull in private funds. I welcome the optimism and confidence that the Budget brings, but I add one word of caution. The success and strength of cities such as Cambridge, and of the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, is based on the strength of our universities. Colleagues will know that universities are facing acute financial pressures, made more difficult by some of the measures that are being taken to address international students. The changing attitude of UK Visas and Immigration on visa applications is increasing the pressure, while the introduction of the international student levy will increase the financial pressure. I strongly urge my colleagues on the Front Bench to talk to Universities UK and look at alternative ways to fund maintenance grants. I understand and appreciate that there are long-term structural issues, but it is dangerous to allow universities to get so close to the financial brink, and it potentially undermines the success of the Ox-Cam corridor and cities like Cambridge. We should be optimistic about our future. That we have the talent to succeed is based partly on the fact that we attract talent from across the world. We need to remain competitive internationally. Innovation and knowledge are things that we are good at in this country. They should be celebrated, and there are measures in the Budget that will be strongly welcomed by innovators, but we need to ensure that they are not undermined unintentionally as the Government seek to address other issues.

    Hansard source
34. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Siobhain McDonagh

    Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis) on securing this debate on an issue that is particularly close to my heart, having seen two young women from my constituency lose their lives as a result of dangerous driving. I know that too many colleagues in this room will have supported families who have experienced similar tragedies. I want to begin with the story of Lillie Clack, and the extraordinary work that her family have undertaken in her memory. On Christmas Day 2021, Lillie was a passenger in a car driven by a man who had been drinking. That driver, Charlie Hilton, was fleeing the police at speeds of more than 100 mph when he lost control of the vehicle and crashed into a tree. Lillie suffered catastrophic injuries and died three days later. She was just 22 years old. In February 2023, Hilton was sentenced to 10 years and six months in prison for causing death by dangerous driving and other offences, but no prison sentence can bring Lillie back or undo the devastation caused to her family. And Lillie’s death is far from an isolated incident.

    Hansard source
35. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Siobhain McDonagh

    Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing

    I absolutely agree. I extend my condolences and, I am sure, those of all Members to Abigail Eggleston’s family that she died in such tragic circumstances. According to the Stop Excessive Speeders campaign, between 2020 and 2025, 282 people were killed or seriously injured in road collisions in Mitcham and Morden, including five who lost their lives. Those figures seem extraordinary. Another young woman from my constituency who lost her life as a result of dangerous driving was Aalia Mahomed. Aalia was just 20 years old and was studying at King’s College London. In March last year, she was sitting on a bench outside her university when a van mounted the pavement and struck her. She died at the scene. The driver, Christopher Jackson, subsequently pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving and was sentenced to eight years in prison. Aalia had her whole life ahead of her. Her family have been left to come to terms with a loss that no sentence can undo. Her death is a reminder that dangerous driving threatens not only those travelling on our roads, but pedestrians going about their everyday lives. It is tragedies like these that have led families to campaign for change. Since Lillie’s death, her mum Debbie and her auntie Donna have worked tirelessly to ensure that something positive comes from the unimaginable tragedy. I want to take a moment to recognise what Debbie has achieved. On what would have been Lillie’s 25th birthday, Debbie opened Lillie’s in the Garden, a beautiful tea room at Merton and Sutton joint cemetery. I had the pleasure of attending its opening, and I cannot speak highly enough of the wonderful space that Debbie has created. It is somewhere for people visiting loved ones at the cemetery to find comfort, and somewhere for anyone passing to enjoy a cup of tea, a slice of cake and a friendly conversation. I encourage any hon. Members who find themselves on Garth Road in Lower Morden to pay it a visit. Through her charity Eyes Wet Now, Debbie is also working to support other bereaved families. It is a remarkable achievement and a wonderful tribute to Lillie. Debbie and Donna have also campaigned for the introduction of Lillie’s law, with more than 43,000 people having signed their petition. Their campaign has two demands: first, that a driver’s licence be immediately suspended following a fatal road collision, pending investigation, and secondly that anyone convicted of causing death by dangerous driving should be permanently disqualified from driving, whether or not alcohol was involved. Those proposals seek justice for those who have lost their lives; they are also about preventing further tragedy. I want to recognise the extraordinary determination of Claire Corkery, who has been campaigning for justice following the death of both her parents. In January 2024, Tom and Sue Corkery were walking their dog in Bearsted, Kent, when they were struck and killed by a speeding driver. In a single moment, Claire lost both her mum and her dad. The driver, Scott Gunn, was subsequently convicted of causing death by dangerous driving and was sentenced to 16 years in prison, but it took over a year for Gunn to be brought before the courts. Throughout that time, he was legally permitted to drive, and he admitted in court that he had continued to drive. Even after his conviction, Gunn received a driving ban of just eight years. Claire is understandably concerned that he could return to the roads once he has served his sentence and his disqualification has expired. Claire has also campaigned against the early release of dangerous drivers. She is determined to ensure that their sentences reflect the seriousness of the lives lost. Her experience demonstrates precisely why the two demands of Lillie’s law are so important.

    Hansard source
36. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Siobhain McDonagh

    Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing

    I agree with my hon. Friend on that point. Lillie’s law is campaigning for the power to suspend licences immediately following fatal collision, and for permanent disqualification for those convicted of causing death by dangerous driving. Claire’s determination, like Debbie’s, deserves recognition. I recognise the important progress that the Government have already made. In August, the Government confirmed that those convicted of causing death by dangerous driving would be excluded from the new early release arrangements. Debbie Clack wrote to the Prime Minister personally to thank him for that decision. For a family who have endured so much, it meant a great deal to know that the seriousness of what happened to Lillie has been recognised. I welcome the Government’s road safety strategy, which was published in January and which sets out an ambitious target to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured by 65% by 2035. The strategy recognises the need for stronger action against dangerous drivers. It considers new powers to suspend the licences of those under investigation for the most serious motoring offences, resulting in death or serious injury. That is a significant step towards addressing one of the central concerns of Lillie’s law. I would be grateful if the Minister updated us on the progress of those proposals and on when we might expect to see them brought forward. I also want to raise the question of permanent driving disqualification. I recognise that courts already have the power to impose lifetime driving bans. Will the Minister explain what consideration the Government have given to mandatory permanent disqualification, and whether further measures could be considered to strengthen the protection of the public? The Government’s own road safety strategy makes an important point: holding a driving licence is not an automatic right. Principle should guide us as we consider how to protect people from the most dangerous drivers. I hope that the Minister will continue to listen to Debbie and families like hers, and work with them to ensure that we do everything possible to prevent another tragedy like those of Lillie, of Aalia and of Tom and Sue Corkery.

    Hansard source
37. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Siobhain McDonagh

    Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing

    Is the hon. Member prepared to give credit to my constituent Miss Corkery, who campaigned tirelessly for death by dangerous driving to be excluded from the early release scheme, and to recognise that she and other campaigners were successful?

    Hansard source
38. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Siobhain McDonagh

    Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing

    Debbie and Donna both met the previous road safety Minister to discuss their case and their reasons for asking for licences to be suspended after an accident, and then for there to be a lifetime ban. I thank the Minister for offering to meet them. I am sure Debbie will be marching her way towards him as she hears him speak.

    Hansard source
39. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Meg Hillier

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    The right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) needs to have a tough look at the reputation of her Government. She talks about welfare and she talks about defence, but it was her Government who crashed the economy. Under her Government, welfare spending rose by 0.7% of GDP in the last Parliament alone, and in the last year of the Government in which she served it rose by £33 billion. She knows—we all know—that reform is necessary, and reform is coming, because under this Labour Government we are reforming the social security safety net and ending the scandal of young people on personal independence payments, who, in droves, are being put on a benefit that they are less likely to come off than someone over the age of 55. As the Prime Minister said earlier, Labour’s approach is a “names, not numbers” approach. There is a lot of thought going in, and I pay tribute to Alan Milburn for his thinking about how to reform the system as a whole. It is easy to talk about numbers and top-slicing, but that takes no account of the human beings at the heart of the benefits system.

    Hansard source
40. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Meg Hillier

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    I look to the reputation of my predecessor in this role, who took her job very seriously but would still make a point. It would be very difficult for me to stand up and, from the Government Back Benches, not react to those in the Conservative party who crashed the economy in 2022 and left a lot of the mess that we are now dealing with. I am passionate about these issues because I spend a long time looking at public spending and at the waste of the previous Government, as does the Public Accounts Committee, quite rightly. It should challenge this Government on any waste of taxpayer pounds, because taxpayers work hard for their money and they need to be sure that someone is watching the Government to make sure that they are spending it as well as they can. We know that that is not always a simple task. I look to welfare reform. Yesterday, I was with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in my constituency of Hackney South and Shoreditch. We met with Scope, which is doing amazing work with disabled people. Some 72% of the recent cohort supported into work were still in work 26 weeks later—people who had been written off by the system. If we make sure that it is done properly through some of the devolution measures that the Government propose, we can make sure that the “names not numbers” approach is replicated across the country, where there are already good examples. I welcome the Chancellor’s decision to fund the defence investment plan—again, I looked at this issue for many years as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. It is right that we stand with Ukraine—a cross-party position—and it is right that we spend the right money on defence. Unfortunately, the last Government reduced the money spent on defence to a ridiculously low level under austerity, leaving us exposed to the challenges we face in the world. I hope that we will have cross-party consensus that we need to increase defence spending and back the Chancellor in that mission.

    Hansard source