Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
On the regeneration of our high streets and town centres, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there should be much more emphasis on bringing empty shops and empty homes back into use? It would help the high streets and the housing situation.
I want to mention quickly something that I did not have time to talk about earlier. I welcome the funding that we have had for Brownhills, but will the Minister work with us to ensure that it goes to the areas of Brownhills town that we need it to reach? Would she accept that regeneration of the high street is critical?
Too little, too late—that will be the legacy of this Labour Government. Earlier today, the Prime Minister admitted that capital projects including roads and energy infrastructure will no longer go ahead as planned to pay for this package. In the interests of transparency, can the Secretary of State tell the House which projects in the west midlands will now be delayed or cancelled, and does he not agree that it would be far better to get a grip of Labour’s ballooning, out-of-control welfare bill than to cut the infrastructure our regions need?
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and I thank Baroness Amos and her team for their compassionate work. As I said last week, I pay tribute to the women and families who gave evidence and to the babies at the heart of the inquiry. Many revisited the most painful moments of their lives after years of fighting to be heard. Their courage places a responsibility on us all. Last week, the House confronted Donna Ockenden’s devastating findings in Nottingham. Today we face the wider national picture. Successive investigations expose the same failures: women dismissed, deterioration missed, staff silenced, inequalities unchallenged and leaders failing to learn. The problem is no longer a lack of evidence; it is a failure to act. Donna Ockenden said this morning that, sadly, so much in this report is stuff that we already knew. She also raised concerns about waiting until December, and I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has just announced some of the work. She also said that no commissioner alone can fix a system needing action from every level from the Secretary of State right down to every ward. Donna Ockenden commands enormous respect and we should all listen to her, because she is right. When will the Leeds and Sussex reviews produce their reports, and how will Ministers act on concerns before they conclude, so that families in those areas can see the change that they need as soon as possible? Families should not have to keep proving the scale of harm. Their testimony must now lead to action. The Birth Trauma Association says that the report has overlooked serious injury to women and brain injury to babies, so will the action plan address those harms, and how will families shape and scrutinise it? We welcome the work beginning immediately on triage, discrimination, staffing and urgent estate risks. This is so important, and we must get on with that work, but families cannot wait until the end of the year for the wider plan. Those expecting babies now need reassurance about what will change and when. So many must be anxious, and we need to do all that we can to reassure them. The new triage standards will be published this week. By when must every trust meet them? Will the Secretary of State commit to update the House, by oral or written statement, on trust-by-trust progress? Will the estates funding include accommodation for parents close to neonatal units so that families are not separated from their critically ill babies? We do not oppose a statutory maternity and neonatal commissioner, but Ministers must be clear about the role’s purpose, powers and accountability, because just one person cannot bring the change that is needed; local leaders have a responsibility too. When will the commissioner be appointed, and what will they be able to compel trusts, regulators and national bodies to do? How will local leaders be held accountable when care remains unsafe? The additional midwifery posts are welcome, but temporary roles are not a sustainable workforce plan. Donna Ockenden has warned of rota gaps and of staff leaving obstetrics and midwifery. The 10-year workforce plan has been promised, delayed and pushed back repeatedly. When will it finally be published, and will it provide the permanent workforce that these recommendations require? With women having babies later and pregnancies becoming more complex, how will those at higher risk receive early specialist care? I agree with the Secretary of State that the culture has to change. Listening to women is a clinical duty, not a courtesy; as I said last week, it is at the core of our safety issues. When concerns are dismissed, warning signs are missed, and mothers and babies are put at risk. That duty must apply equally in respect of every woman. A woman’s safety must not depend on her ethnicity, first language, disability, income or ability to fight through the system. As I said last week, both to the House and to the Secretary of State privately, I want us to work together constructively. Where the Government act with the urgency that the report demands, they will have our full support. We all have a duty, and ours is to support these changes. Women and families will not judge today by new structures, promises or another report. They will judge it by what happens when a woman says that something is wrong. Is she heard? Are warning signs acted on? Is senior help available when needed? Are maternity units safely staffed? Can staff speak without fear? Do families receive honesty and compassion when harm occurs? Are fewer mothers and babies coming to harm? When decisions are taken, will they be fully explained? The evidence has been gathered. Families have told their stories. The system has been warned. Now it must change.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this important debate. South Shropshire residents really value their high street—the 4,500 people who filled in my survey explaining what was important to them on the high street are testament to that. Unanimously, businesses said that taxes were too high and it was so hard to make a profit. Established businesses that have been operating for many years are struggling to make a profit under the current conditions. Residents also spoke about parking, accessibility and how they get to the high street—a big issue—but also about the state of the high street, from cleanliness to pop-up shops. On pop-up shops, which many Members have already mentioned, we have the Turkish barbers, who have the skill of Sweeney Todd and serve about two people a day, can be closed for months on end and then open, and the vape shops, which have neon signs and displays that are not in keeping with any South Shropshire town. From Ludlow over to Bridgnorth, we see them changing the shape of the high street. Residents do not like it, it is not appropriate and we need to call it out. I am working with a rural crime officer; we have recently met with the chamber of commerce and local businesses in Ludlow. I am also working with a dedicated police officer in Bridgnorth specifically to look at this problem. It is a complex issue, but we are asking local residents to feed into the police and me any operations on the high street that they believe are illegal. We need to do everything we can to ensure that genuine local businesses can thrive and to get rid of shops that do not belong there, that present a blight on the high street and, in many cases, are fronts for organised crime that need to be closed down.
A high-profile child sex offender was released into a village near a school in my constituency. I was told about this by local residents. Over three months ago, I wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister expressing huge concern. He refused to meet me and said that this was down to the Probation Service. Why is the safety of South Shropshire’s children not worth a meeting to discuss this issue? This is a huge issue for my constituents.
The strategic defence review highlighted the importance of the active reserve, but the defence investment plan shows that there is no increase in reserve numbers this Parliament. Remarkably, the reserve is not mentioned in the land section. Even the commitment on cadets, made less than a year ago in August, has been shelved. Can the Secretary of State at least confirm to the reservists watching this debate that their reserve service days this year will be fully protected?
I recently met a constituent whose child was subject to repeated sexual abuse. She found access to justice very difficult and is still awaiting trial, but now fears that the accuser will not be found fit for trial and will be subject to a trial on the facts. She is now fearful that if the accuser is found guilty on the facts, they will not be subject to appropriate sanctions—for example, being subject to DBS checks. What reassurances can the Minister give my constituent about the resources allocated to such prosecutions, both by the police and the criminal justice service, about whether the bar for somebody being appropriate to stand trial is correct, and what sanctions will be applied, because they are fearful that this person will be at liberty in the wider community, subsequent to conviction?
Last Wednesday, and again today, the Secretary of State expressed his shock at the number of senior clinicians who refused to take part in the Nottingham review. May I repeat a suggestion that I made last Wednesday? Those clinicians should be named publicly. That is a step that he could take straight away. If a parliamentary question for written answer is tabled, asking him to name those clinicians, will he answer it? I cannot think of a better or more justifiable use of parliamentary privilege.
At last, we have agreement on a defence expenditure statistic. When the Secretary of State says that what the settlement means is that the proportion of GDP spent on defence by the end of this decade will now be higher than at any time in the past 30 years, he is quite right. The trouble is that if we go back 30 years to 1995, what we were spending then under the new accounting rules was 3% of GDP, and that was six years after the fall of the Berlin wall. Given that we are now in a more dangerous situation today than at any time since at least the height of the cold war in the 1980s, should we not be looking at the sort of percentages we spent then? Under the new accounting rules, that was between 4.1% and 5.5%. Haven’t we still got a long way to go?
rose—
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall and for his interest in what I am about to say. The Government took powers under the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 to license these kinds of premises, but there is real uncertainty—I have had correspondence with the previous Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper)—about the Government’s application of the new powers. I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in calling for the Government to get their act together and clamp down on these shops.
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Ms Vaz, and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), who introduced the debate and said much of what I would have said in his place. Let me set out the context for a moment or two. We must make a decision about the character of places. People’s sense of place nurtures and nourishes their sense of worth. When we see diminished places, people are diminished alongside them. We have to understand that the decline of high streets is about much more than retail habits; it is about how we comprise community. Community matters because it allows us to deal with the inevitable vicissitudes of human experience. The real issue is what Government can do to nourish and support those communities. I have some requests for the Minister. The first is to change planning law to limit out-of-town and edge-of-town development. When the life and the livelihoods are sucked out of the centre of places, that inevitably drives people to the extremities of settlements rather than drawing them into the heart of them; consequently, the hearts of our communities are being ripped out. Secondly, the Government need to crack down on the illegal shops that now pervade much of our kingdom, including South Holland and The Deepings, and to reinforce the powers of local councils to close such shops when they are trading illegally, as many certainly are. Thirdly, we can re-dignify our town centres. In my time representing my constituency, much of the footprint of government has been removed. Let us reopen closed magistrates courts and local tax offices. Let us see the footprint of government informing and dignifying so much of our country. Things like that, where the Government can take proactive steps to change the character of areas, would make a huge difference to regenerating communities and giving health again to high streets.
The Government need to know when to step back and when to step forward. They need to step back by reducing the costs that my hon. Friend has set out, and they need to step forward by restricting where businesses can be located. The Government should be obliging businesses to reinvest in the high street.
To do that, we must reimagine the role of Government. The Government need to stop their preoccupation with driving people online. How wonderful it would be if the Government suddenly said, “You can no longer do this online. You must do it face to face.” Those personal interactions, with all their civilities and courtesies, make up the tapestry of civilised life.
Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder. As Keats said, beauty is truth, truth beauty. That truth is about recognising that the aesthetic of a place informs people’s association with it. All my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) is asking is for design codes to have statutory force and not simply be guidance, which is not enough.
I will call Gregory Campbell to move the motion; I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they can make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge and of the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
I must point out that this is our second debate on this subject on the same day, in the same place and with the same Minister, whom I invite to respond. You will say something like what you said earlier, I guess.
Order. I should remind Members that they need to bob, though I see they already know that. I call Robbie Moore.
Order. Four Members are standing, so they have about five minutes each.
Just for the record, my first job was in Chiesmans, a department store that then existed in Lewisham, where I served in the china and glass department.
I call the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. Rachel, could you allow a short time at the end for Josh to wind up and for me to put the Question?
Absolutely. You missed the cut there, Robbie. I call Josh Dean to wind up very briefly.
I strongly agree with the comments of the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), about the need for getting the culture right with accountability. When I was Secretary of State, we passed the duty of candour regulations. They were supposed to make it—well, they do make it—a criminal offence for trusts not to tell the truth to families when a tragedy has happened. Yet to this day, trust lawyers advise doctors, nurses and midwives not to be open about what has happened when there is the prospect of legal action further down the line. Does the Secretary of State—I know he is very committed to this—agree that we will clear up this anomaly in the Hillsborough law so that it is just not possible for trusts not to tell the truth and so that trust lawyers always advise their own doctors, nurses and midwives that they must tell families exactly what happened?
Is it not the reality that the plan the Defence Secretary has put forward barely scrapes into 2.7%? It is not 3%. It leaves us £9.3 billion short, every single year of the process. If he is not going to achieve 3% by 2030, how in heaven’s name will he ever achieve the NATO minimum by 2035? It is not going to happen in ’35. He will not get 3.5% out of this Budget, will he? Will he give us the dates?
It would appear that this defence investment plan is unaffordable, but the Public Accounts Committee will be examining that. Deep in the plan is an old accountant’s trick: a vast efficiency savings figure of £10.7 billion. Does the plan rely on that figure? If not, what is the incentive to make efficiency savings over the course of the plan?
Will my hon. Friend give way?
T7. The Secretary of State knows how fond I am of him personally, and I want him to keep his job, so will he please his new boss—the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham)—virtually the entire legal establishment and the English people, whose only wish is to keep their 1,000-year-old right to trial by a jury of their peers when their liberty is at stake?
Many wonder whether aircraft carriers are going to go the way of the old battleships, uniquely vulnerable to drones that cost a tiny fraction of their cost. To protect aircraft carriers, we need destroyers and frigates. Moreover, in two world wars we relied completely on destroyers and frigates to protect our food supply, so will the Secretary of State say more about the replacement of our ageing frigate and destroyer fleet, particularly with regard to the Type 45 and Type 83 destroyers?
In what year will we reach 3%?
Will the Secretary of State keep an open mind as to whether it is right to abolish the Health Services Safety Investigations Body, which was specifically designed to provide for a duty of candour? Clinicians would be obliged to give evidence to HSSIP; they could not refuse, and there would be criminal penalties if they did. As we have already established, the duty of candour, as conceived in the Hillsborough law, does not work, and I suspect there will be no improvement unless HSSIP is allowed to carry out completely independent investigations that have proven that they can carry the confidence of the public, patients and clinicians. Will the Secretary of State keep an open mind about keeping HSSIP?
Can I return to the efficiency savings that are forecast to be made? There are to be savings of £10.7 billion—£7 billion to come from resource spending and £3.7 to come from capital. Apart from some very vague headings, there is no indication in this document of where that money is going to be saved. Can the Secretary of State issue a written statement as soon as possible to set out exactly how those savings will be made? Otherwise, I have to rather agree with the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier): we have all seen these accounting tricks before under previous Governments of both colours, and the savings are very rarely made. The Secretary of State will have to factor that into the negotiations with the Chancellor of the Exchequer—whoever that may be—in the forthcoming spending round, and I take what he has said about the next spending round to be a very significant point.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. This statutory instrument amends provisions within the Education and Inspections Act in relation to new schools. Let me start by acknowledging the one positive aspect of these regulations, which is to make it easier to create new pupil referral units. The previous Conservative Government supported PRUs and expanded provision of alternative education to children who need additional help. In particular, the alternative provision academies achieved better results, according to Ofsted, because they were allowed to innovate and take control of their curriculum. Unfortunately, this Government have not learned that lesson, either in relation to alternative education or traditional schooling. Regrettably, the focus of the statutory instrument is to crack down further on academies and the freedoms they enjoy. The Academies Act 2010 allowed more schools to benefit from academy freedoms, to innovate and to improve standards. Those rising standards are one of the proudest achievements of the previous Government. Research by the Education Policy Institute found that pupils attending the early sponsored academies achieved outcomes equivalent to roughly one GCSE grade higher in subjects, compared with similar pupils in predecessor schools. Academies are now educating millions of children across England, to their benefit. Although no system can guarantee success in every case, academy trusts are strongly represented among the highest-performing school groups in the country. Across the border in Wales, where the Conservative education revolution did not occur, standards have lagged behind. Welsh pupils have been disadvantaged compared with their English counterparts. Labour’s assault on academies is short-sighted and wrong. It speaks to its need for ever more control. The Conservatives know that giving academies freedom to innovate helps more children to get a decent education. That is why we will oppose the statutory instrument.
Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government’s failure to publish the impact assessment means that NHS authorities across the country do not know how much this deal will cost them? My constituents in Somerset cannot get a GP appointment or see an NHS dentist. That is far more important to them than this obscure deal.
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John, and to respond to this moving and, sadly, harrowing debate. I am the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group against antisemitism. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) for securing this incredibly important debate, for his dedication to this cause and for his moving speech. I also acknowledge the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey)—my good friend—who set out passionately why this debate is so important and why we are all here, even though we wish that we did not have to be. Jewish students face some of the worst antisemitic abuse in society and in universities. According to the Community Security Trust, there are over 9,000 Jewish students at universities across the UK, and they have faced a terrifying rise in antisemitism. In 2022-23, there were 53 university-related antisemitic incidents; that number rose to 272 in 2023-24—the highest total recorded for a single academic year. The Union of Jewish Students has published a harrowing report highlighting the fact that antisemitism is now effectively normalised on our campuses. It found that one in four students have seen behaviour that explicitly targets Jewish students for their religion. More broadly, the report demonstrates that universities are failing to confront the open glorification of terrorism. Nearly half of students have heard chants glorifying proscribed terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. The research also shows that “student groups have explicitly called for violence against Jews”, even justifying the sickening terrorist attack in Bondi Beach last year. As well as the terrible glorification of violence, and the sense that antisemitism is normal because it always goes unpunished, antisemitic protests also disrupt students’ learning. Students who have witnessed Israel-Palestine protests at university feel that it still goes unaddressed, and four in 10 students have seen Jewish students being harassed. Britain has a proud history of tolerance but we cannot be complacent in our fight to protect our fundamental values of decency, tolerance and support for each other. I thank hon. Members from all parties for speaking up in solidarity with British Jewish students. However, those freedoms, which are fundamental to our democracy, and proud traditions are under ever-increasing threat. Society is becoming more fractured, driven by divisive rhetoric online and offline that drives populism and pushes more people towards the extreme. The fact that our society is more divided is having a real impact on the everyday lives of the hundreds of thousands of Jewish people in the UK. The Community Security Trust estimates that there were over 300 antisemitic incidents per month in 2025—that is double the number in the year preceding the war in the middle east. Student testimony collected by organisations such as the CST, the Union of Jewish Students and the Pinsker Centre demonstrates the hostile environment faced by Jewish students on campus since October 2023. Although some have already been shared, let me share a few of those comments. In a focus group run by the Pinsker Centre, one student said: “Some people suddenly radicalised…after October 7th and now don’t speak to me. They have blocked me on social media, ignore me or have explicitly told me that I am complicit in genocide.” In summer 2024, a Jewish society committee member in Bristol approached a pro-Palestinian encampment to have a civil conversation. That night he was recognised, physically attacked and assaulted in a nightclub by individuals who had heard him earlier in the day. His shirt was ripped and his back was covered in scratches and cuts. Too often, we hear about Jewish students being chased, attacked and abused because they are wearing kippot, or skullcaps. As we heard earlier, a Royal Holloway student—Evaldas, whom I spoke to earlier today—received calls in which the caller read out his home address, warned that they were coming to get him and made an explicit threat to blow up the Jewish society. He told me that he got those calls 10 times a day, and that, at one point, because his address was publicised, bloody period pads were put outside his door. As we heard earlier, a professor at Bangor University physically attacked a student while calling him a “baby killer”—a medieval antisemitic trope. I spoke today to Evelyn from University College London, who told me that, at an antisemitism stall, she was approached and called an “effing white supremacist bitch”. I paraphrase, because the abuse went on and on. She had a recording, but last week she found out that no action was being taken. I hear repeatedly about how many members of the faculty at UCL are members of the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, which is clearly helping to exacerbate the situation. I spoke to Ben from the London School of Economics, who told me about the launch of a book titled “Understanding Hamas: And Why That Matters”. There was a protest outside the book launch, and a counter-protest to the protest. He eloquently said to me, “If you are counter-protesting at a protest against a proscribed terrorist organisation, what does that make you?” As we heard earlier, a King’s College London student had to write a 1,000-word essay explaining why it was wrong to display an Israeli flag on campus. Imagine if that had been a Palestinian flag. Would the result have been the same? The list goes on and on. Something has gone horribly wrong. It is clear that a permissive culture of antisemitism and abuse has been allowed to fester. Antisemitism has been covered up as activism and protest. Hate is being legitimised, and British Jews are left isolated and living in fear. Our Jewish communities need us. In this moment, we cannot falter. I am pleased that the Government have announced some new steps to ensure that universities publish the scale of antisemitism on campuses—that is a welcome step forward—but we need further clarity on what exactly the Government will do if universities continue to fail to tackle antisemitism, examples of which I have listed. Saying, “We will set out next steps in due course” is not enough. Our Jewish community need to know today what the Government intend to do to clamp down on this. Will the Minister address that? The shadow Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), has said that universities that fail to clamp down on antisemitism should have their funding stripped to ensure that there are real and serious consequences for that failure. I therefore ask the Minister to identify the steps that the Government will take to punish universities that have allowed antisemitism to become normalised. Too many students tell me that the complaints system is insufficient. The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, which they have to go through, has no meaningful sanctions. We need a complaints system that works for students. I encourage the Minister to look into that. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) wrote to him about it, but he is yet to receive a reply. Will the Minister address that? Is the Minister working with the Office for Students to better tackle antisemitism? I recognise that an independent investigation into antisemitism in schools, colleges and universities is due by the autumn, but will the Minister update the House on specific timetabling, as other Members have asked him to? The evidence we have heard today shows how important it is to tackle antisemitism urgently. The importance of this debate cannot be overstated. It goes above party politics, so I offer my sincerest support to the Minister in helping the Government to tackle extremism of all kinds in our universities. I say to British Jews: His Majesty’s Opposition will never shy away from standing up for you, and we will do so without fear, knowing that we are standing up for what is right. There are too many platitudes, too many never agains, and yet nothing changes. When I meet British Jews, as I did yesterday, I too often see fear and anxiety in their eyes. I too often hear that they are not sure if this country—their country—is safe for them. To hear about raging antisemitism on our university campuses, which should be a safe place for all, is a stain on our society. A future Conservative Government would ensure that universities do not allow antisemitism to fester. Those that do not comply would face the toughest of sanctions. Hate preachers who come to this country to spread hate would, under the Conservatives, be deported. Where the law is broken, we would empower the police to enforce it to its fullest extent. To British Jews, let me say this: your fight is our fight, you are of us and we are of you, and we will not fail you in this endeavour.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this important debate. Our high streets are facing huge challenges at the moment. Nationally, fiscal pressures have been put on them—employer national insurance contributions, the minimum wage, the business rates increase—and the Employment Rights Act 2025 is making it even more challenging for many of our high street businesses to take on young people. Then, of course, we have the tourism tax, or holiday tax, coming down the line.
Then why on earth legislate and introduce further regulations that impose much more of a burden on our high street businesses? That is exactly what businesses are telling me, that this legislation is making it more costly to do business. The tourism tax will tax businesses in Ilkley and Haworth, imposing much more of a burden on them for less money to be spent locally. What does that do? It gives our Mayor of West Yorkshire more power to use my area as a cash cow for money to be spent in other areas across West Yorkshire, rather than investing it in my constituency. Locally, Bradford council has imposed car parking charges across the whole of my district, including for on-street parking, which is making it much less attractive for people to come and spend money in Ilkley. A petition signed by 4,000 residents was submitted to Bradford council, but the council went ahead regardless. It costs £3,000 to £10,000 to install a parking machine. In the village of Addingham, which has only 18 parking spaces, it will take decades before the council starts making any money. My simple request to the Minister—and indeed to Bradford council, which I hope is listening—is to remove those parking charges, take away the cost to visitors and residents who want to spend their money locally, and back our businesses. We are fed up with being used as a cash cow for the rest of Bradford to benefit at our expense.
Will the Minister give way?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I commend the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing this important debate, and congratulate him on his speech—I thought he made some excellent points. Many young people are entering adulthood without the knowledge, confidence and access to the financial services that they need to build secure futures. Some 70% of adults believe that better financial education in their younger years would have improved their ability to manage their finances, and two thirds of young people believe that the lack of financial education has played a role in their amassing the debts they hold. I wish to talk through a few issues that have been raised with me, particularly regarding access to apprenticeships and the challenges that those in our rural economy face with increased costs. I recently visited Keighley college in my constituency, where I met the principal Kevin O’Hare. Kevin highlighted to me a key issue that is putting young people undertaking apprenticeships at a financial disadvantage compared with those who decide to stay in full-time education, if they are from financially deprived backgrounds. Currently, young people who remain in full-time education after the age of 16 continue to be treated as dependent children for the purpose of a range of household benefits. In contrast, young people who enter an apprenticeship are generally treated as employees, which can lead to a loss of income-related support linked to household benefits. For some low-income families, the resulting loss of benefits can exceed the apprentice’s initial earnings, meaning that a household might be financially worse off when a young person chooses an apprenticeship, compared with had they remained in full-time education. I am keen to understand what conversations the Minister is having with the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Education on that classification, because that appears to run counter to the Government’s objective of promoting apprenticeships as a prestigious pathway that is equal to academic study. It may disproportionately affect participation among young people from disadvantaged communities. I have seen that in the casework coming into my office. What assessment have the Government made of the impact of household benefit losses on participation in apprenticeships among 16 to 18-year-olds? If the Minister cannot answer that in her speech, I would be grateful if she would write to me. The second issue that I want to raise follows a meeting that I had this weekend with Silsden and Skipton young farmers club, whose members were keen to raise the cost of car insurance. Young people in rural areas face a crisis of skyrocketing insurance premiums, which makes it difficult for them to get around. Limited public transport makes owning a car essential, but they face huge costs. They cannot take up job opportunities and education if they are priced out of the market. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford spoke about the mental health implications when young people feel the strain of debt, whether from going through education or simply because of the cost of living in rural areas. The key underlying point is the Government’s failure to grow new opportunities for young people. Unemployment has risen to 5% and youth unemployment has risen to 16.2%. In January to March 2026, an additional 110,000 young people aged 16 to 24 were unemployed than in the same period in 2025. Young people at Keighley college who wish to pursue opportunities through apprenticeships face being worse off. That is further exacerbated by the rise in employers’ national insurance and the minimum wage, and the Employment Rights Act 2025, which has created challenges. Fiscal inclusion is about education and, crucially, about fostering an economy that rewards hard-working and ambitious young people, rather than punishing them. I would be grateful for the Minister’s thoughts on those points.
I welcome the Minister to her place. On the issue of mental health, many young people in my constituency raise the challenge of getting into work. With youth unemployment now at record levels, does she realise that one of the best ways of tackling mental health issues is to enable people to get into the job market in the first place, so that they do not have the additional pressure and anxiety of not being able to earn funds? Does she not recognise that things like employer national insurance, the Employment Rights Act 2025 and minimum wage increases have exacerbated the unemployment figures? Will she work with industry to address the concerns that are being raised with me and, I am sure, with her in her new role?