Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
The Secretary of State talks about deregulation, but does he not accept that adding 330 pages-worth of regulation in the Employment Rights Act 2025, at a cost of a billion pounds to the economy, is having the opposite effect? Youth unemployment in my constituency has gone up by 28% in just one year.
The stories the hon. Lady is telling about the poor connectivity in her constituency echo what I experience in mine, where we have some of the worst full-fibre broadband certainly in the south-east, and potentially in the country, despite being only an hour away from London. I recently surveyed my constituents about mobile coverage and, contrary to popular opinion, more than two thirds were willing to have more masts in their area because of the change with people working from home and in how people do business. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need to look forward and ensure that we have connectivity in our areas, rather than looking back to a time when people were operating very differently?
I agree with my right hon. Friends the Members for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) and for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) that there seems to be a complete lack of understanding from those on the Government Benches of the absolute disaster they are presiding over when it comes to the economy and, most importantly, growth. The evidence is hard to ignore. The hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race) talked about a battle of ideas—
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Exeter talked about a battle of ideas, but those on the Government Benches seem to be totally devoid of any ideas that will actually get this country moving again. The ITEM Club forecasts around 160,000 job losses this year alone, with manufacturing, retail and construction expected to be hit the hardest. Unemployment has risen month after month and now stands at 5.2%. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs payroll data shows 110,000 fewer people in employment than when Labour took office. In my constituency of Farnham and Bordon, in Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages, there has been a 28% increase in the number of young people claiming unemployment-related benefits in a single year. This is the reality behind the rhetoric that comes from the Government: young people unable to get a foothold in work, businesses pausing recruitment, families feeling the squeeze in their bills, and high streets losing momentum. The reason is not difficult to identify, and businesses across the country are telling us the same thing: Labour has increased the cost of employment, raised taxes and layered on regulation that is undermining confidence. The Employment Rights Act alone introduced more than 330 pages of additional obligations on employers. The Government’s own assessment acknowledged a cost of around £1 billion a year. Both the Federation of Small Businesses and the Institute of Directors warned that the legislation would reduce hiring and investment, which is exactly what we are seeing. What is the Government’s response? A regulating for growth Bill. It is like asking a vegetarian how they would like their steak cooked. The reality is that this is not the way to get growth. At a recent hospitality roundtable in my constituency, one publican told me that there is now “no incentive to hire someone under 25”. That should concern every single Member of this House, but Labour Members simply parrot the Government’s talking points. They are totally detached from what is going on in the real world. The unemployment rate is now close to one in six among 16 to 24-year-olds, and I cannot believe that Labour Members are not being told this by their constituents. For many young people, their first job is the foundation for everything that follows—skills, confidence, independence and ambition—but too many are now finding the door closed.
My right hon. Friend is right. Per capita growth is down, and that is a shocking indictment on the Government. Across our high streets and the hospitality sector, the pressure is becoming severe. To give some local examples, John from Birdies café in Farnham told me that his business rates are rising from around £290 a month to approximately £1,600 a month, and his energy bills have increased from £300 or £400 to about £,3500. As a result, he has already let a member of staff go. Wey Hill in Haslemere is one of the areas most affected by business rates. The average increase in rateable values is 82%. That is entirely unsustainable for small shops—a butcher, a kitchen shop and a party shop. These are not enormous businesses. At the same time, retail sales are falling and confidence is weakening across the sector, yet the Government still do not appear to grasp the impact of their decisions. In the King’s Speech, instead of backing enterprise, the Government are increasing the cost of employing people. Instead of reducing the burden, they are adding to it, and instead of restoring confidence, they are eroding it. Thirty-year gilt yields are at their highest level since the 1990s, and higher borrowing costs mean higher mortgages, higher debt interest and less capacity to fund public services. The Government are presiding over stagnation and apparently calling that a strategy. Good news: there is a different path, which we Conservatives laid out in our alternative King’s Speech. I say to the Ministers on the Treasury Bench that we are not precious about it; take every single policy and enact it, because we want the best for Britain. We will support them in every way we can, if they pick up those policies. They include reducing regulatory burdens on businesses, cutting energy costs by removing unnecessary levies, restoring domestic energy security by renewing North sea licences, and properly cutting business rates for high streets and the hospitality sector. Jobs are not created through legislation, regulation or press releases; they are created when businesses are confident enough to invest, expand and hire. That requires lower costs, lower taxes, cheaper energy and a stable regulatory environment. Labour came in promising growth, but we have seen anything but. Unless there is a change of direction soon, the cost of this Labour Government to our country will only rise further.
The Secretary of State is making a wonderful speech about the 1980s. While I agree with many of his points, the truth is that the country today has come a long way in all sorts of sectors, and I am proud to have done my bit to help that. On regulation, the Secretary of State agrees that leadership on regulating new industries, and having sandboxes and testbeds, is a great UK strength. He also wants us to get closer to the European market; is he worried that if we do, we may end up losing our competitive advantage in a number of areas where we could genuinely attract investment into new industries, such as agri-tech and gene editing?
The hon. Member makes an important point about regulation in Northern Ireland. When in government, I championed the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023, which gives this country the ability to grow disease-resistant and drought-resistant crops—the potato that typically requires 14 applications of high-carbon toxic fungicide can, with technology developed in Norwich, be grown without. Does the hon. Member agree that the Act is a big opportunity for Northern Ireland? It could be growing those potatoes without the fungicide, with huge environmental benefits, but under the European partnership Bill, it will be denied that opportunity.
My hon. Friend is making a really important point. I was previously the Minister responsible for the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Traditionally, the MHRA’s influence has been in denying proper companies permission. It seems to me that now, in a digital age, we have a different problem, which is people coming up with rubbish and selling it over the counter unofficially—digitally. Do we not need a much more powerful set of legal and financial disincentives to really hammer the people selling these sorts of products?
There is no more important issue for the country than the stubbornly low growth rate and the structural barriers to the growth, productivity, enterprise, innovation and investment that this country so desperately needs, solutions to which have defied successive Governments since the coalition and the political crisis that Brexit unleashed in 2016. It gives me no pleasure to highlight that, for my constituents in Mid Norfolk, the King’s Speech is irrelevant without real delivery on the ground. In Mid Norfolk, the small businesses on which we rely are shedding jobs; disposable incomes are falling; high streets in market towns such as Dereham, Watton and Attleborough are struggling; pubs are closing; farmers are moving away from farming food to take the Government incentives for solar panels and commuter housing estates; and public services are being overwhelmed by rising demand from new housing and an ageing population. This is fuelling a surge in political anger, which explains a lot of the election results last week. Across Suffolk, Norfolk and the fens of Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire, rural deprivation, rural poverty and the disproportionate impact of high energy prices on the rural economy—where, according to Treasury figures, every cup of coffee, schoolbook, pencil, lesson and journey costs 20% more than in cities, yet rural areas are underfunded—are driving real anger, based on real grievances. People are now paying European levels of tax for American levels of public services, and they are fed up. Unless we—this Government, this Parliament, this media, this Whitehall—respect and understand the grievance and set out a truly bold plan to deal with it, I fear that the rich will continue to leave this country, that the middle classes, the engine of growth, will conclude that it is no longer worth putting the work in, and that the poor will turn to the black market and crime.
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. The King’s speech that my constituents loved was the King’s speech in Washington, in which he spoke for the very best of this country. My point is that it is in all our interests—I say this as a friend of mainstream politics and democracy—that we tackle this challenge more boldly. I welcome the speed with which newly elected Labour MPs have realised the scale and urgency of the problem of public and voter anger, stubbornly slow growth, rising unemployment and demand for public services exceeding capacity, but they are in danger of going for the wrong prescription. What we need is a renaissance of enterprise and innovation across the public and private sectors. Convenient though it may be for my party politically, the idea that the answer is a regicidal political infighting crisis and a leadership contest in office is for the birds. Take it from me: my party has tested that idea to destruction, and we have all paid the price. We do not need a Labour party beauty contest. We need a Parliament and a Government that get more urgent about the many laudable things they have set out to do, but we do not have 10 years to deliver it—we have a couple of years. If the Labour party knifes this Prime Minister, he will be the seventh who will have been got rid of because of the structural deficit. I remember, when I first arrived here in 2010, the brilliant Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies explaining what the structural deficit is, and it is worth repeating. The normal deficit is when a Government do not earn as much as they are spending; because the economy has taken a downturn, they borrow a bit to keep spending and then pay it back. The structural deficit is that bit of the deficit that goes up every year even when the economy is growing, and it is driven by four things. In 2010, it was being driven by welfare, public sector pensions, and—the big one—health, and debt interest was remarkably low. After the coalition, we had capped off the rise in public sector pensions, incredibly painfully, and we had capped off the rise in welfare, incredibly painfully. Health has continued to defy reform, and it is bankrupting the public sector. We are now spending more than 50% on health, welfare and social support. That is simply not affordable. We cannot cut, borrow or tax our way out of this. The only way out is to grow, not through dumping cheap housing across the countryside, but by backing the industries of tomorrow.
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I will make a slightly different point, which is that there are huge opportunities for good growth in this country. Speaking as someone who has had a 16-year career backing the industries of tomorrow, whether it is in fusion, SMR nuclear technologies, agritech, bioscience, the bioeconomy on Teesside, or the satellite economy in Glasgow, we have an opportunity to turn these into the industries of tomorrow. I welcome the Government’s industrial strategy commitment to do it, but it is at 50,000 feet; we need to drop down to some more tangible and bolder policies to back those industries. I know the Secretary of State gave a tub-thumping speech about the 1980s, but the truth is we have made a lot of progress over the last 20 years. I was doing my work as the Minister for Life Sciences, for agritech and for Science and Technology following in the footsteps of Paul Drayson and David Sainsbury. In life science, fusion, AI and quantum, we have built an unbelievably competitive economy, but other countries are moving fast. Our competitors are more agile. We are terrible at adopting technology in the public services. Our scale-ups are not getting the finance they need in the city. Kate Bingham in The Times today is right. How do we unlock this? I want to suggest a ten-point plan for renewal. I support the Government’s ambition. I say this because if all of us fail, the Benches to my left of pub populists who are promising everything will win, and we will see even deeper disillusionment. I am calling in this speech for, first, real honesty of a 1979 scale about the extent of the emergency; secondly, bold devolution to the people, cities and mayors who know how to do it better—frankly, they could not do worse than Whitehall—thirdly, serious Whitehall reforms, so that we end the juvenile process of His Majesty’s Treasury playing Departments off against each other for funding, which in the end comes very late and is taken back; and fourthly, a serious backing for the innovation economy. I welcome the £20 billion of R&D, but how we allocate it is key. We need to allocate it in a way that attracts private investment. Fifthly, we need a bold revolution of tax incentives for enterprises—a new deal for new business. There should be no national insurance or VAT for a couple of years for someone starting a company and growing it. Sixthly, we need regulation for innovation. That is not just cutting regulations, but leading in setting the regulation. I welcome the Government’s work in setting up the Regulatory Innovation Office. We then have skills and patriotic capitalism. I do not think it is communism to get the city investing in British business. Boldness—
It is an honour to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition to this debate on backing business to create economic growth. I would like to start by congratulating the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton North (Lucy Rigby), on her promotion. It seems like only moments ago that she was a colleague on the Treasury Committee, and now she is in charge of the whole nation’s spending, so I wish her the most enormous amount of luck. I also want to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I will be mentioning by name some colleagues who have not been in the debate, but I have warned their offices that I will be doing so. I want to focus in this debate on a simple truth that many businesses across this country have come to recognise, which is that when it comes to backing business to create economic growth, Labour does not know what it is doing. Labour does not know how to govern when times are tough. It entered government without a plan and we are seeing the consequences. I am afraid that this goes deeper than the Prime Minister. Only one Labour Cabinet Minister has started a business, and none of the Prime Minister’s wannabe rivals has worked in a business or a start-up. This matters because it goes to the core of this Government. Whose side are they on? Time and time again, Labour shows that it is on the side of “Benefits Street”, not on the side of people who work, who strive and who save. When this Labour Government came into office, they had a choice. They wanted to deliver growth. They could have backed business. They could have supported enterprise. Instead, they delivered higher taxes, higher costs and higher uncertainty, and I am afraid that the consequences are now undeniable. Business confidence has collapsed to record lows. The Institute of Directors reported its lowest-ever confidence reading in March 2026, and the Confederation of British Industry says that businesses expect their activity to fall. Jobs are being lost, payroll jobs are down, and the ITEM Club has forecast that there will be 160,000 further job losses this year because of a slowdown in growth and rising energy prices. Retail sales are weak, and nearly half of all businesses are now worried about business rates, which are rising sharply. It all started with the Chancellor’s first Budget. Labour’s £25 billion jobs tax has increased the cost of employing someone by around £900 per person and, as a direct result, youth unemployment is at a shocking 15.8% on Labour’s watch. For an average pub with eight employees, national insurance means an extra £7,200 bill every year. At the same time, Labour has squeezed our high streets with rising business rates. The result of all this is that one in eight business leaders are planning to leave Britain and 30% of those on The Sunday Times rich list have fled high-tax, socialist Britain. That is a vote of no confidence in this Government. The damage is not confined to business; it is spreading across the whole economy. Inflation is up. Borrowing costs are surging, with gilt yields at their highest level in decades. Debt interest is spiralling towards £140 billion a year. We are now paying more to service debt than to invest in our future. That is the direct result of a Government without a plan. So what will happen if we get a new Labour Prime Minister? Will that help businesses and the economy? No, because Andy Burnham wants higher taxes and more borrowing, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) wants higher taxes and more borrowing, and the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) wants higher taxes and more borrowing. Businesses can see where this ends. It ends in low growth and unsustainable debts. Perhaps the IMF will have to be called in, as it was under Denis Healey. I thank colleagues on the Conservative Benches who have contributed to today’s debate, and spoken powerfully for their constituencies and the businesses that they represent. Their speeches were beams of light shining into this Chamber from the real world. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) spoke about debt and chaos. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) talked about the importance of small businesses and deregulation, and the impact on them of national insurance. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) referenced the debt markets and the pressing need for welfare reform. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), in an outstanding speech, spoke about his local businesses, and said that the last thing they need is another holiday tax. In an excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) highlighted the impact on jobs for young people, and in a powerful contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) spoke about solar farms and the shocking information about self-swab rape kits. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) spoke about rural businesses and rural deprivation, and made an outstanding contribution on turning things around for his constituents in Mid Norfolk. Turning to the King’s Speech, what do we see? We see a King’s Speech full of more intervention, more regulation, more taxes and more uncertainty. There is even—I am not making this up—a regulating for growth Bill: more compliance burdens dressed up as protections and more top-down control from Whitehall. Labour Members describes it as growth coming from an interventionist Government, but they are wrong. Growth comes from entrepreneurs who take risks. Growth comes from businesses that invest and hire. Growth comes from workers who strive and succeed. That is why we have set out a clear alternative: a serious plan, a credible programme.
I am going to make a bit of progress on our serious, credible plan—a pro-growth alternative King’s Speech, with 16 Bills designed to get Britain working again. First, we will give people jobs and hope with our get Britain working Bill. We will repeal the job-destroying elements of Labour’s Employment Rights Act, saving businesses up to £5 billion a year. We will restore flexibility in the labour market, and reintroduce minimum service levels to protect essential services from strikes. That means more jobs and lower hiring costs—a labour market that rewards work. Secondly, we will back our communities with our back our high streets Bill. We will introduce permanent 100% business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure, which will support 250,000 of the smallest businesses with lower bills, leading to stronger high streets and protecting jobs. While Labour targets family businesses and farmers with punitive taxes, our plan is simple: we will scrap the family business and family farm tax, and back those who grow our food, create jobs and create wealth. Thirdly, we will cut red tape with our deregulation of business Bill. We will scrap unnecessary environment, social and governance reporting requirements, which cost businesses millions every year—less bureaucracy, more time to grow and more investment. Fourthly, we will restore industrial competitiveness with our save British industry Bill. We will repeal the Climate Change Act 2008, establish a monitoring and reporting mechanism for the offshoring of emissions, axe the carbon tax, which pushes up energy bills, and repeal the zero emission vehicle mandate. That will lower costs and lead to stronger industries—jobs kept in Britain. Fifthly, we will tackle energy costs—many hon. Members raised energy costs in their contributions today—with our cheap energy Bill. We will cut electricity bills for businesses by 20% and household bills by £200 by taking VAT off energy bills, axing the carbon tax and scrapping the Energy Secretary’s renewables subsidies. That will give businesses immediate relief and greater competitiveness, and lead to stronger growth. Beyond those Bills, we have plans to scrap stamp duty to get the property markets moving, to properly fund our armed forces, to reform welfare, to get people back into work and to approve new North sea licences for energy security. Because growth is not achieved through slogans—
Is the hon. Gentleman going to achieve growth through a slogan?
I am afraid it is the historical role of my party to clean up the mess that Labour Governments leave behind. Growth is not achieved through slogans; it is delivered through serious and sustained planning. In conclusion, the debate comes down to a clear choice: Labour’s approach—
The hon. Member mentions Liz Truss from a sedentary position. Is he not aware that gilt yields are now higher than at any time during that brief period? I am sure he will be welcoming the higher taxes and more borrowing that his Government have caused, the higher energy costs imposed on his local businesses, the more regulation that has led to less growth—or he could adopt the Conservative approach: lower taxes, lower costs and less regulation. [Interruption.] The Business Secretary says “More growth” from a sedentary position. He may be referring to the first quarter of this year when the biggest thing that happened for growth in this economy was vehicle repair. I call that the pothole growth strategy, and I am afraid that that is the reality if we dig into the growth numbers. Our approach is less regulation and more growth. Ultimately, this is about values. Labour has the wrong values. It is for “Benefits Street”, and we are on the side of people who work, people who strive, people who save. Only the Conservative party has a plan to reduce costs and deliver the growth that we all want. Only the Conservative party is ready to govern. Only the Conservative party will back great British businesses to build a stronger economy for the future.
Order. I remind Members that if they have intervened in a debate, they might like to have the courtesy to wait a while before departing the Chamber.
Order. We have been here for two years; you have to stop using “you” and “your”, because it refers to me. It was not me who was dealing with civil servants.
Order.
I appreciate what the Justice Secretary wants to achieve on reducing the rate of recidivism. He said in his statement that “custody will always be necessary for the most dangerous offences”, but went on to say that there will be “an intention to reduce the use of short custodial sentences.” Will he add some more detail around the length of sentence that he considers to be a “short” custodial sentence? In relation to knife crime, he will know that the minimum sentence for threatening with a knife can be as little as six months. Young people already do not have much fear about being searched for a knife or facing the criminal justice system. If they know that they will not receive a custodial sentence at the end of the process, what deterrent will there be to their carrying or using a knife?
The Secretary of State mentions crocodile tears; what would he say to the hospitality businesses in my constituency that have been impacted by the rise in national insurance contributions, the minimum wage rise and the business rates that he just talked so effusively about? What message would he give to them as they struggle to deal with the outcome of the Budget?
On Friday, I opened the new Premier Inn in my constituency—a project that was passed under the last Conservative Government—but many businesses in my constituency are failing because of increased costs and regulation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is an absolute travesty for our country?
Does the Secretary of State not concede that GDP per capita is down? Can he tell me that a single one of his constituents, apart from those on welfare, feels better off under this Government?
I will begin with an issue where the Government have promised action time and again but have failed to act: solar mega-plants. If rural communities are to host nationally significant energy infrastructure, we must be compensated fairly for doing so. An entire parliamentary term has passed, and yet the Government have still not regulated mandatory compensation, despite promising to do so. The consequences are real. In Rutland and Lincolnshire, a 2,100-acre industrial plant with 10-foot solar panels will fence in some of our villages on all sides for the next 60 years—a decision that the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband) happily signed off on in his first 24 hours as Energy Secretary. Mallard Pass has subsequently been purchased by Quinbrook Infrastructure Partners, a company with a global transaction value of $30 billion. Last Friday, I convened a meeting with Quinbrook and the affected parish councillors from Rutland and Lincolnshire. I had to intervene just to get the executives in the room, and what they put on the table was an insult. They have refused to honour the promises made during the application process to pay per megawatt generated, reinterpreting it to mean only energy exported—a sleight of hand that will cost my communities £44,000 a year. Let us put this in plain terms. A solar plant is estimated to generate annual revenues after finance and operating costs of £10 million to £15 million a year, and yet the company claims it can afford to give my communities only a paltry £96,000 a year.
My right hon. Friend is completely right. What is breathtaking about this offer of £96,000 a year is that in a previous meeting—in a statement the company now disavows—we were told that paying compensation any higher would make the project financially unviable. That is to say that a project generating £15 million a year would be made financially unviable if it upped its offer to £144,000 a year in compensation. I wonder how Quinbrook’s investors and shareholders would feel if I asked them why margins are so narrow and whether they can have confidence in Quinbrook. I give notice today that if that offer is not substantially improved, that is precisely what I intend to do: I will name every investor and every shareholder on the Floor of this House, and I will write to them and ask whether they are comfortable with what is being done to my communities in Rutland and Lincolnshire. Quinbrook is offering less than 40% of the rate being offered on comparable developments in the east midlands. In fact, the only national programme offering less than Mallard Pass is Cleve Hill, which—surprise, surprise—is also owned by Quinbrook. Over the two years of construction works, Quinbrook issued a good-will handout of £200,000 as a one-off donation—not for each year, but across the two. Some residents’ homes have already lost 70% of their value. My question is: when will the Government stand up for us? I intend to amend the Government’s energy independence Bill to make community compensation mandatory for solar developments and to backdate it, but the Government could act first. The King’s Speech also contained no measures to ban SLAPPs—the use of aggressive, unfounded legal threats to silence whistleblowers. I will use parliamentary privilege today to expose one of the most stomach-churning examples I have encountered. I hope this will shame the perpetrator into silence and similarly force the Government into action. The company, which is called Enough, sells self-swab rape kits to women and children, and it does so on the back of a series of lies: that the kits are admissible in court—they are not; that women are more likely to be raped than to get cancer—they are not; that 430,000 people are raped in the UK every year—they are not; and that owning of its devices will deter a man from raping you—as if it is my responsibility as a woman to stop a man raping me. More than 40 sexual assault charities have urged against use of the kits. The National Police Chiefs’ Council has also spoken out against them. The Advertising Standards Authority is investigating the company, as is Trading Standards. The kits prevent proper evidence collection and stop perpetrators’ DNA being checked against police records. A case has already collapsed because of the use of one such kit. In a debate on Times Radio, I told one of the founders, Katie White, that I had seen the threatening letters that Enough had sent to rape charities and young women across our country. When asked if this was true by the journalist, Katie said, “No, not true.” This was also a lie.
My hon. Friend has enormous experience, and it is exactly the MHRA that we need to look at. This is not a medical device, yet it is being treated as such. I want to pay tribute to the brave young girl who has shared with me the letter sent to her by Enough. She is not a journalist or a campaigner, and she does not have the protections that I enjoy as a Member of Parliament, so Enough thought it could silence her. The first letter, signed personally by both founders, Katie White and Tom Allchurch, told her that she had seven days to comply, or they would pursue “injunctive relief, damages for defamation, and recovery of legal costs.” They accused her of scaremongering. Then—and I want the House to hear this clearly—they said to a young woman who had simply dared to raise concerns: “Carefully consider the long-term consequences of continuing this campaign…you not only risk serious legal considerations, but also lasting damage to your personal reputation, career prospects, and future opportunities.” They threatened to destroy her future because she posted questions on Instagram. A week later, to ensure there was no ambiguity, they sent a second letter, explicitly calling it a cease and desist. This is predatory, and it is not a one-off. A rape charity has also shared with me a letter it has received from Enough—lawyers threatening a rape charity into silence. I will tell Members what that letter said. After once again threatening legal action, Enough had the audacity to write: “Our client considers such an approach to be in the best interests of survivors.” Citing the best interests of survivors—said by a company that lies to survivors. Enough’s targets are rape charities and young women. It has tried to make their lives hell. I urge the Government to ban self-swab rape kits, and I urge them to honour their promise to legislate against SLAPPs. I am speaking out because Enough has intimidated people into silence, and rape charities are quiet because they do not have the financial means to take legal action—legal action that would distract them from their duties to survivors. What I have described today is a window into how our legal system is being weaponised to silence the vulnerable and punish those with the courage to tell the truth. We in this House, and the Government, must choose the side of victims and rape charities and make sure that individuals who commit rapes face the justice they deserve, instead of it being stolen by a company selling lies to women. It must end.
First, I thank the Leader of the House for his unfailing courtesy at the Dispatch Box, and for the meticulous manner in which he refers Members’ concerns to the appropriate Ministers. Whoever emerges as the leader of the Labour party, I very much hope that he will remain in his post.
I would not wish that on him. Given the Labour party’s manifesto commitments, some of us had rather hoped we might find in the King’s Speech a Bill to ban the proceeds of trophy hunting, something to do with hare coursing or improving farm animal welfare. The sad fact is that there was no such mention of any animal welfare issue whatsoever in the King’s Speech, and I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman addressed that. While I am on my feet, could I also say that, with the hospitality industry on its knees, now is not the moment to introduce a tourism tax?
Next week, can the Leader of the House produce a Government statement in response to the Hallett review on covid-19 vaccines? Lady Hallett recommended major reform of the vaccine damage payment scheme. The Government said that they were considering the matter, but it is now more than five years since thousands of people suffered severe loss, or in some cases bereavement, as a result of covid-19 vaccines. Justice must be done sooner rather than later.
It might be him!
Madison Chilcott is a student midwife from Bridgwater. She pays fees of £9,500 a year, and must complete a minimum of 2,300 unpaid clinical hours. She works 12-hour shifts at nights and weekends, while her protected learning time is routinely overridden to fill staffing gaps. Despite that, she and many student midwives face graduating into unemployment. This is happening during a national midwife shortage. Can we have a debate in Government time on the graduate guarantee made by the Health Secretary in August 2025, which induced many midwives to start training with what appears to have been a false guarantee of employment?
Twelve months ago, the Secretary of State’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), attempted to cut the welfare bill and was sent packing by Labour Back Benchers. In the autumn, the Government had to get rid of the two-child benefit cap because of Labour Back Benchers. Is the truth not that the Secretary of State is incapable of reforming the welfare system because he does not have permission from his Back Benchers?
It is a privilege to close this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I praise all Members for their contributions; while I did not agree with all of them, I recognise the passion with which they were delivered on topics that Members care about. In particular, I praise my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) and for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths). I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that Labour is taking this country in the wrong direction, which is a sentiment agreed with by the newly former Health Secretary, who said in his resignation letter that “where we need vision, we have a vacuum. Where we need direction, we have drift.” That is a damning indictment of a Government who are saying that they want to get Britain working again. The Conservatives are absolutely committed to getting Britain working again. We got a record 4 million more people in work between 2010 and 2024, which allowed millions more people to have the security of their own income, empowering them to own their own home and look after their families. [Interruption.] The Minister chunters from a sedentary position, but we created 800 new jobs a day in those 14 years. The situation has taken a dire turn since the change of Government. Since Labour took office, unemployment has risen to 5.2% and payroll jobs have reduced by 110,000. The Office for Budget Responsibility has even raised the unemployment rate forecast for 2026, 2027 and 2028. There is only one conclusion: Labour is letting people down and consigning more people on to welfare instead of good, honest work. I will focus particularly on young people and their prospects, where unfortunately an even bleaker picture is being painted. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire, who said that this Government are failing young people. I have heard a lot of Members talk about getting young people back into work, but the youth unemployment rate is 15.9%—up by 2.7% since the Labour party took office. It has been in power for two years, and that has been the consequence. One in six young people are now unable to find a job. This Government are pushing more young people on to benefits, which has deeper long-term consequences. There are now nearly 1 million 18 to 24-year-olds not in education, employment or training. Among graduates, the Centre for Social Justice estimates that around 700,000 people are out of work and claiming benefits, and the impacts of that cannot be overstated. Every month spent out of work means that people take more than they give to the state. I have been campaigning in local elections across Meriden and Solihull East, and I can tell hon. Members that young people want to work, because there is dignity and hope in work. Every month that a young person spends out of a job makes it harder for them to get back into employment. While their peers are developing critical skills in the workplace, those out of work fall behind. It also weakens their ability to save and put money away for the future, making it harder—for example—to save for their first home, for their family or for their retirement. The number of young people out of work is a calamity, and the Government must do much more to address it, but nothing they have set out has reassured me that they understand that. The Employment Rights Act, passed in the previous parliamentary Session, has already started to have a catastrophic impact on the jobs market. That disastrous piece of legislation has increased costs for businesses and discouraged hiring, especially of young people. Having listened to the previous speech, I say to Labour Members that business owners are not just there to be squeezed until their pips squeak—they are the ones who take the risk, invest and create the jobs. I will, of course, also challenge the Government in the educational space, because I believe they have been completely ineffective. Just this week, the Prime Minister has made new pledges on apprenticeships and skills in an effort to turn his failing premiership around. Perhaps he recognises what I do, because from the data on apprenticeships, the picture is mixed at best. The Department responsible for work should be a shining example of the Government’s commitment to more apprenticeships, but regrettably, it is far from it—the number of apprenticeship starts at the DWP has actually fallen. The Government’s broken promises on apprenticeships are best shown in relation to level 7 qualifications, which are high-quality pathways—[Interruption.] I am talking about level 7 qualifications; the Secretary of State may want to pay attention. Those high-quality pathways allow people to get into professions such as accountancy, engineering and architecture without accumulating the same debt as graduates. However, the Government continue to restrict level 7 funding for those over 22, meaning that they are missing out on those opportunities and also putting level 6 apprenticeships at risk. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is very audible. In opposition, when she was shadow Education Secretary, she promised graduates that they would pay less under Labour. That has turned out to be nothing but another broken promise, because not only is it now harder for graduates to get into work, tuition fees have gone up twice. Those who are paying those fees are now doing so with no promise of valued work at the end of it all. I also want to address the SEND Bill—the education for all Bill—proposed in the King’s Speech. Given the time I have today, I do not have the luxury of asking all the questions that parents have wanted me to pose to the Government, but there are a couple of questions that I do want to ask. [Interruption.] I am happy to take an intervention from the Secretary of State.
The Government have claimed that the Bill will make generational reforms to the SEND system. The outlines of those proposals have been included in the White Paper, but parents are none the wiser. I have met a lot of parents, and despite the Government’s rhetoric, I see parents with more anxiety, not less. Just this Monday, I met a number of SEND parents from my constituency. All they want is for their children to have a chance at life, so I will ask the Minister a question that has been put to me by parents—perhaps she will address it when she responds. The consultation does not sufficiently address what will be done to help those 16 to 19-year-olds who can work to get into work. With all that is going on outside of the Chamber and in No. 10, if the Government are consumed by leadership contests and machinations, when will the legislation come before the House? This chaos will only further exacerbate the anxiety and anguish of parents and their children. I was told yesterday that the Government have actually been distributing briefing documents to their MPs to get supportive responses to their consultation. If the Government’s proposals for reform are so good, why are they trying to stack their own consultation?
I do not think the hon. Member was paying attention. What I said was that I worry that the consultation is being stacked, but parents want to see the legislation, because there is not enough clarity in the consultation and they do not have the answers to the questions they are asking. I certainly hope that the parents the hon. Member meets make that clear to him. With little indication that the Government will set out comprehensive plans to support young people, the Opposition have been busy drawing up their own proposals for an alternative King’s Speech. We have laid out comprehensive plans to help recruit thousands of new apprentices. Our apprenticeship guarantee will remove the funding cap for apprenticeships for 18 to 21-year-olds. This will ensure that employers have fully funded access to training, helping 100,000 extra young people into work every year. In addition, we would encourage more employers to take on 18 to 21-year-olds by introducing a business rebate for investment in training and skills, or BRITS scheme. It would provide a new incentive of up to £5,000 for businesses to take on 18 to 21-year-old apprentices. In the higher education space, the Conservatives have clear plans to rebalance the system. We have a proud record of expanding higher education, but we also recognise that more needs to be done to address the growth of low-value courses. Some degrees have ended up becoming a poor deal for both taxpayers and graduates. They do not help young people into work and the bill ends up being footed by taxpayers, some of whom have not benefited from a university education. That is why our alternative King’s Speech lays out plans to get more people into apprenticeships using money saved from cutting low value, low outcome degrees.
We created more than 5 million apprentices. If we want young people to be hired, we need an economy that works for the businesses that hire them. I am sure that the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, Paul Bristow, will be doing an excellent job in making sure that there is more investment in education and in young people. Alongside rebalancing the system, we are also looking to abolish real interest on plan 2 student loans, ending the unfair cycle whereby higher interest rates mean graduate debt rises faster than graduates can pay it off. Our proposals are much more comprehensive than those laid out by the Government. Labour’s plans to cap student loan repayments at 6% will leave graduates ripped off, paying interest above inflation. It shows that the Government do not have a plan for young people and will continue to tinker around the edges rather than make genuine, bold change. I will finish where I started, because the constant speculation about the Prime Minister’s future means that his Ministers will not be spending time looking at how to make a better deal for young people, whether that is boosting home ownership, reducing youth unemployment or getting the economy growing. In fact, just yesterday, I read reports of the Minister for Children and Families, the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), asking the Prime Minister to set out a timetable for his departure. Now that the Health Secretary has resigned, I ask this Minister: does she support the Prime Minister?
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to recognise the wonderful work that the Doorkeepers do around this House. I do not think they get enough credit, and I would like to ask for your wisdom on how I can put that on the record.
I call the Minister.
Thank you for bringing to our attention the fantastic work that the Doorkeepers do. I would personally like to put that on the record, mostly because I would not be able to do my job unless I acknowledge the work that they do. That is absolutely the right thing to do. Has the Minister finished her speech?
Has the hon. Member sought all the appropriate permissions?