5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

   British Indian Ocean Territory

   My hon. Friend will have heard the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), list the preconditions before treaty ratification can take place. I am pretty sure that I asked about America, and she said that there needed to be an exchange of letters. The position of the American Administration is that the Chagos deal as proposed by His Majesty’s Government would be “an act of GREAT STUPIDITY”. We seem quite a long way from getting American agreement and acquiescence. Does my hon. Friend, like me, foresee that we would need a protracted period of negotiation with the United States of America to get its acquiescence to this deal?

   Hansard source
2. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

   British Indian Ocean Territory

   It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell). With his final words on self-determination echoing in my ears, I have no doubt he will be reflecting on whether he is going to afford the people of Romford the same rights that he is demanding for the Chagossian people.

   Hansard source
3. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

   British Indian Ocean Territory

   I thank the hon. and gallant Member for his intervention. If he wants to do so, I suggest that he takes it outside, as they say. I am very time-constrained, but I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches who have informed the debate with incredibly detailed research and knowledge. I have been delighted to see the Minister’s PPS running backwards and forwards from the officials’ Box, because I was rather hoping that the summing up would not simply be a reheating of the opening remarks made by the Minister with responsibility for the Indo-Pacific, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra). There have been substantive points made from these Benches, which I hope will be answered in the summing up. I am very time-constrained and a lot of points have already been covered. In search of inspiration I was wondering what I might add to the debate, so I will read out a piece of casework which, although not relevant to the Chagos islands, is an interesting comparator. It comes from a member of the public who had written to his bank manager. I suppose I owe it to him to anonymise him, so I need to come up with some sort of pseudonym. I will call him Mr Powell. Mr Powell wrote to his bank manager: “Dear Sir, a number of years ago, I inherited a large seven-storey home in Mayfair. I am incredibly lucky and I acknowledge that fact. It is far too big for me to live in. I live solely in half of the ground floor. For as long as I can remember, I have had Americans living on the other floors. I like these Americans, so they live there rent-free. What I am proposing, sir, is that I give you, the bank, this house. I then propose to pay you, the bank, rent above the market rate not only for me, but for all the Americans who live upstairs. I would be very grateful for your advice on this issue.” The bank manager wrote back to Mr Powell: “Dear Mr Powell, are you okay? I am concerned for your mental state, because what you are proposing would appear to be an act of GREAT STUPIDITY.” [Laughter.] The bank manager went on to make the following four points: “First, you do not need to do this at all. Secondly, it will cost you a fortune. Thirdly, you do realise that at the end of all this you will have given away your house? Fourthly, on a personal note, were these arrangements ever to become public, I fear that your neighbours would laugh at you. Yours, the Bank Manager.” I simply leave that analogue there, to let my colleagues in so that we may wrap this debate up.

   Hansard source
4. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

   Youth Unemployment

   As we have heard, the number of young people not in education, employment or training is at its highest level for more than a decade. Astonishingly, the most recent figures show that 946,000 young people are in that position, which is almost one in every eight young people across the country. We can all agree that this situation is completely unsustainable and damaging to our society, but despite their promises, the Government’s actions have only made it harder for young people to find jobs. To the surprise of no one, apart from the Chancellor and her Back Benchers, increasing the cost of employment through the rise in national insurance has led to more unemployment. Last month saw the biggest monthly fall in the number of payroll employees since the pandemic, and the unemployment rate across the United Kingdom is 5.1%. What is the Labour Government’s response? They just keep increasing benefits. Welfare spending will rise by £18 billion this year, and is on track to increase by another £73 billion over the next five years. The biggest driver of that increase is spending on working-age adults. The number of new claimants for the personal independence payment is 78% higher than pre-pandemic levels, and 110,000 graduates under the age of 30 now claim at least one benefit without being in work. Why would a young person today take on the risk of their idea and start a business, or put hours of effort into a job, when they see more and more of their peers getting by on Government handouts? I come to this issue with the very simple belief that the best form of welfare is a well-paid job, and that must be our country’s guiding principle.

   Hansard source
5. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

   Youth Unemployment

   My right hon. Friend makes an incredible point, and that is precisely what businesses tell me. As I have said, it comes as no surprise to any of my constituents or businesses in Broxbourne—it is a surprise only to the Chancellor and the Labour party—that if the Government tax jobs more, there will be fewer jobs. The Opposition have been making that point. I am always surprised when Labour MPs come out and say that they have spoken to businesses in their constituency and everything seems fine. They should speak to businesses that have a Conservative MP, because they would hear a completely different message. More people in decent, sustainable employment and a life off benefits is better for our economy and our public finances. To show young people that there can be a better future, we must change the economic model to reward employment properly and change our education system so that young people are prepared for the world of work. We should be more creative about what we are asking young people to learn at school. Countless employers in my constituency have told me that, when they hire school leavers, they lack important skills such as writing an email, speaking with customers over the phone, and understanding basic finance and the language of contracts. It is not that young people today cannot or will not develop those skills, nor is it the fault of our brilliant teachers; the curriculum simply is not geared to preparing young people for work in the modern world. We should be inviting local businesses, entrepreneurs and employers into schools more regularly so that they can share their knowledge and experience to encourage students to think about how they can get their ideas off the ground and what it takes to run a viable business. When I asked about this issue before, I was told by a Government Minister from the Dispatch Box that it is the Government who create economic growth in this country. Let me say gently to the Government that it is not they, nor us as MPs, who create economic growth in this country; it is all our constituents across the United Kingdom who take a risk, put their ideas forward, create jobs and economic growth locally, and employ lots of people. In school, students could learn about marketing, economics, maths and law, all without knowing that they are actually learning those skills and all without a textbook in sight. That sort of system would help our young people to navigate the crucial period after leaving school and make them more attractive to employers. I have seen fantastic work at the Broxbourne school, which teaches a business T-level in which students go out into the world of work and have an apprenticeship alongside learning in the classroom. That is what we need to gear our education system towards: preparing young people better for the world of work in the 21st century. I went through my whole education in the United Kingdom under new Labour and Tony Blair, and I remember Tony Blair saying that he wanted half of all young people to go to university. University might be the right choice for some young people in this country, but it is not the right choice for everybody. When I was choosing what I would do after school, the word “apprenticeship” was not even in the school’s vocabulary. There was no offer of an apprenticeship. School leavers then either went to university or fell off the edge of a cliff and did nothing. That record, from when new Labour was in power, is not one that I would be proud of; I think Labour Members need to reflect on what they did last time they were in government, because it clearly did not work then and it is not going to work now.

   Hansard source
6. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

   Youth Unemployment

   Of course I am pleased about that target, but anyone can stand at the Dispatch Box, set a target and make it sound good. We want action on the ground. The Government have been in power for 18 months, and when I speak to my constituents, including young people, they say, “We don’t see action.” We need to move faster and further on this.

   Hansard source
7. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

   Youth Unemployment

   I would gently say to the hon. Lady that her party colleagues had 13 years to come up with a plan for government when they were in opposition. That paper should have landed the day after the general election; that is when the Government should have been getting on with it, not 18 months down the line. My message to the Government is clear: yes, make the obvious tax changes that businesses from all our constituencies are crying out for, but also show that you are serious about creating economic growth, tackling youth unemployment and bringing forward fundamental changes to education.

   Hansard source
8. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

   Youth Unemployment

   My hon. Friend does not look a day over 30, so it cannot be his 40th birthday coming up. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to go further? Of course we need economic growth. We need to tax jobs less and let the people outside create that economic growth, but we also need to look at the education system so that we prepare young people better when they leave education for the world of work. That is what employers are crying out for.

   Hansard source
9. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Katie Lam

   Defence Industry: Environmental, Social and Governance Requirements

   It is a pleasure, Ms McVey, to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) for securing this important debate. It is often said—including by my hon. Friend in his opening speech today—that we are living in an ever more dangerous world. In fact, it is the most dangerous world in my lifetime or that of my hon. Friend, although he never tires of reminding me that he is a year younger than me. The Government’s own 2025 strategic defence review stated: “The threats we now face are more serious and less predictable than at any time since the Cold War”. Clearly, therefore, we should do everything in our power to ensure that our armed forces are well-staffed and well-equipped. The defence of the realm is the first duty of any Government. However, for that to mean anything, defending our nation must take priority over other aims. Yet far too often we have seen our armed forces and the companies that supply them being forced to put social value requirements ahead of their existential duty to keep us safe. As crazy as that sounds, it is no exaggeration or hypothetical concern. In 2022, the Royal Air Force paused recruitment of white men to try to raise its proportion of women and ethnic minorities. The RAF quite literally and explicitly would rather have hired nobody to defend this country from the air than hire a white guy. That is lunacy. Cruel or unpleasant behaviour towards women is repulsive and clearly should have no place in our armed forces, their suppliers, or indeed any workforce. Where women want to jobs that have historically been filled by men—where they can do them; many roles in the armed forces have physical requirements that cannot be compromised—there should be no barrier to them doing so. I applaud those women, as I applaud the men who are willing to risk their lives for our freedom. However, to abandon our defence of the skies in the name of diversity quotas is completely and utterly mad. The RAF has since apologised for its decision, but I mention it today because it is crucial in the context of this debate. It shows the climate in which British companies that want to supply equipment to our military must operate. As has already been said by many hon. Members, in order to trade in the UK, defence companies must comply with the general ESG regulations set out under the Companies Act 2006. If they wish to sell their equipment to the British Government, they must comply with the rules set out under the Ministry of Defence’s climate change and sustainability strategic approach. That includes the publication of a carbon reduction plan and compliance with rules designed to minimise environmental impact. If the firms wish to be publicly listed, they must wrangle the Financial Conduct Authority’s rules on ESG ratings. Generally, defence companies are not considered to be an ethical investment, meaning that they are often scored badly for the purposes of ESG ratings, as my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and several other hon. Members have already said. Given that the FCA has consistently pushed funds to focus on ESG-compliant investments, that is clearly a significant cause for concern. Just last year, some of the country’s largest investors, including the National Employment Savings Trust, which is the workplace pension scheme set up by the Government, reiterated their determination to refuse to invest in defence stocks, in the name of “ethics”. What exactly is ethical about shunning those companies that dedicate themselves to equipping our defence forces and protecting our freedom? As the FCA moves to standardise rules for ESG ratings providers, we still have no clear indication about how it intends to treat defence companies for the purpose of ESG ratings. In pursuit of secondary aims, we are making life more difficult for British defence companies and, in turn, for the armed forces that we expect to keep us safe. One way or another, our armed forces will need to procure the equipment they need to do their jobs. While ESG requirements continue to stifle the British defence industry, we are forced into choosing one of two options, neither of them good. We could pay over the odds for equipment produced in this country. The compliance costs created by ESG rules and the disincentives to private investment created by the ESG ratings regime could force many defence firms to put up their prices, meaning higher costs for the British taxpayer, should we wish to rely on military equipment produced here. This situation also makes our kit more expensive and therefore less desirable to our allies; having fewer customers will drive up prices even further. Alternatively, we will have to rely on equipment from overseas, leaving us dependent on other countries. Neither of those outcomes is acceptable. The status quo is bad for our armed forces and bad for the British taxpayer. The answer, of course, is to reject this dichotomy entirely. We should unleash the natural strength of the British defence industry, including by scrapping those ESG requirements that make life more difficult for British defence firms. It would be remiss of me not to mention that, as heavy manufacturing firms, British defence companies are also likely to be disproportionately damaged by the energy policy that the Government are pursuing, which has produced the highest industrial energy prices in the developed world. We know that our defence industry has the capability to be one of the best, if not the best, in the world. As recently as 2013, this country’s defence industry was second in the world in the export of military equipment when measured by total value of new orders. Today, partly thanks to the growth of the regulatory burden on defence firms, we have fallen to seventh. That is bad for our own military, which must now choose between importing its equipment from abroad or paying over the odds for equipment produced in this country, and it is bad for our interests overseas. After all, militaries around the world will always need new equipment. I would much rather they were able to buy British than from competitors in Russia or China. It is clearly true that the problems the British defence industry now faces did not begin under this Government, or even under the previous Government. But it does, of course, now fall to this Government to address them. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us whether the Government have any plans to exempt defence firms from existing ESG regulations or to make changes to those regulations for all companies. I hope she will also be able to offer us some insight into whether the Government have engaged with the FCA about the classification of defence firms for ESG purposes ahead of the consultation deadline on 31 March.

   Hansard source
10. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Joy Morrissey

    Youth Unemployment

    I appreciate that all Members across the House care about youth unemployment, but the way it is tackled is very different depending on from which party a Member hails. We have rising youth unemployment, and the issue is taxation. Our businesses are facing an increased national insurance rate, and business rates on the high street are high. Hospitality and retail businesses are being taxed to the point where they cannot take on another employee, and usually that employee is a young person who is being given their first opportunity. The Government are making the job market so rigid and protecting workers’ rights to the point where there will be no jobs available by the time young people are looking to get into employment. The Government are making it so restrictive that businesses do not want to take on new employees. First, they are not able to afford to and, secondly, there is so much restriction when they go to hire a new employee that they just will not do it. That will not be dealt with, and youth unemployment will continue to rise. I have had a young person come to me who has just finished a degree in mathematics from Cambridge but cannot find a job. Someone else’s son did a law degree but cannot find a job. I have people from every sector coming to me with their concerns: businesses are saying that they cannot take on a new employee because they simply cannot afford it, and parents are desperate to get their child into any job. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said, apprenticeships and zero-hours contracts were an opportunity for a young person to get their first job, for example in hospitality or retail. Working in those environments, with other people, teaches young people lessons that they can take forward in life to other jobs and opportunities. That is what young people need. I would like to provide some historical context to the Minister’s speech. In 2010, the Conservatives inherited from Labour youth unemployment at 20%, and nearly a million young people were out of work. Before the pandemic hit in 2020, the Conservatives had nearly halved it to just 12%. When we left office in 2024, despite the pandemic’s effects, the level was just 13%. That was the result of our fixing the economy, driving up education standards and making work pay.

    Hansard source
11. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Joy Morrissey

    Youth Unemployment

    That intervention leads me to the statistics that we have today. Nearly 16% of young people—that is 729,000—are out of work. That figure is a staggering 103,000 higher than a year ago, and a further 2.88 million young people are economically inactive. Just to point out: that is more than when Labour took over from us. That is statistically accurate.

    Hansard source
12. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Joy Morrissey

    Youth Unemployment

    This is a youth unemployment crisis of Labour’s own making. It is because of the national insurance tax hikes and the restrictions on business—

    Hansard source
13. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Joy Morrissey

    Youth Unemployment

    I will make some progress. The crisis will continue to be a problem that this Government face—mark my words. Turning to my constituency of Beaconsfield, Marlow and the South Bucks villages, we have an incredible restaurant in Beaconsfield called The Greyhound. I strongly urge everyone to go to eat there. It has a wonderful apprenticeship programme that helps young people get their first job in hospitality, providing them with an incredible opportunity. I went to speak to them and they said, “This is great. I wasn’t enjoying school and I now have an opportunity for a career in hospitality. I am trained in every level of hospitality.” They gave me a tour of the wine cellar and everything in between. They love it and are passionate about it. The Greyhound tells me, however, that many businesses, and not just The Greyhound, cannot continue their apprenticeship programme because of the backdrop of the national insurance tax raid and an eye-watering hike in their business rates. They simply cannot continue the very successful programme that has changed young people’s lives. This is a Government who failed to listen to the urgent calls of businesses to stop their Employment Rights Act, which will destroy jobs while creating rights for jobs that will no longer exist. Young people need businesses to be able to create jobs for them and not be hamstrung by tax and employment policies that force employers to curtail opportunity. This is also a Government who sow utter chaos in our apprenticeship system at every turn. With Labour Governments, rising youth unemployment —indeed, all unemployment—becomes a sad inevitability. Yet different choices can change that course for our young people and create a better future. Lowering business taxes to enable businesses to create jobs will help tackle the problem, as will putting evidence before ideology in education so that standards rise and do not collapse, and scrapping business rates on the high street. We will see many people coming back, many businesses coming back and many young people being employed. It will be a tremendous win for this Government if they try that. The Government should also try reducing the tax burden for anybody under the age of 25. If they scrap the national insurance contribution for under-25s, this Government will see a tremendous rise in young people taking their first job with a business, because the risk is reduced for that business. Instead, we are forcing over-regulation on to businesses, crippling and closing them, and curtailing opportunities for young people. We should create an apprenticeship system built on aspiration that is about employment choice and stability, so that we continue to build on the great work that had already started and give young people an opportunity to get their first job and start their career. That is the future our young people deserve.

    Hansard source
14. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·John Lamont

    Engagements

    Q7. The Scottish press is full of stories about the plot by Scottish Labour MPs to bring down the Prime Minister. One Scottish Labour MP said he is terrible, another Scottish Labour MP said the handling of the Budget had been incompetent, and yet another Scottish Labour MP predicted that Scottish Labour will be slaughtered in May’s election. They are not wrong, are they?

    Hansard source
15. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    British Indian Ocean Territory

    My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, which contains more detail than the Government’s contribution. In a nutshell, is the fundamental problem not that when we give away British sovereign territory to another nation, we are vulnerable in perpetuity—whatever agreement we have sitting around it—to that agreement being torn up, disagreed with and not implemented?

    Hansard source
16. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Youth Unemployment

    My hon. Friend talks about the differences between those on the two sides of the Chamber. As we have heard today, most of the Government’s answers are: “We have a Government programme for that.” Does he think that most young people would prefer a re-branded Government programme or a job?

    Hansard source
17. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·James Cartlidge

    British Indian Ocean Territory

    This is a fundamental point. The most sensitive part of our military is the nuclear deterrent; it is critical to the defence of ourselves and our allies. The United States is also nuclear armed. We are a naval nuclear nation, and the base at Diego Garcia is a critical naval base in strategic terms. Yesterday, it was reported that the Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius, Mr Bérenger, had declared that nuclear weapons could not be stored on Mauritius if sovereignty is restored to Mauritius. Does the Minister understand that to be the case?

    Hansard source
18. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·James Cartlidge

    British Indian Ocean Territory

    May I begin by offering the Opposition’s condolences to the family of Captain Philip Muldowney of the Royal Artillery, who tragically lost his life training with the British Army this week? It is a pleasure to close today’s debate on the Chagos islands, and to hold the Government to account for the total meltdown of their attempt to surrender sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory without opposition. Well, today they are getting that opposition, and they are getting it from the Conservatives, because it is we who have exposed the total fallacy of the legal argument used to justify this crazy deal. And let us be clear: it is a truly crazy deal—one of the worst ever proposed to this Parliament. As every single one of my colleagues said in their excellent speeches, this deal involves our hard-pressed taxpayers, struggling as they are with an ever-growing tax burden since Labour came to power, handing over another £35 billion to lease back land that we already own freehold. It is our land, over which we have sovereignty, the ultimate guarantor of legal security in a dangerous world. Given that we need that money for our own armed forces; that billions of pounds is to be given to Mauritius, and will be used to cut taxes for its people; that Labour knows that the threats that we face are growing, and that we need Diego Garcia more than ever; and that the policy treats the Chagossian people with contempt, the public will be scratching their heads, and will ask a simple question: why are the Government doing this? To be fair to the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, last September, he tried to spell out the reasons, and I will quote exactly what he said to justify this crazy deal: “Had we not signed the treaty, we could have faced further legal rulings against us within weeks...Further legal rulings might have included arbitrary proceedings against the UK under annex 7 of the UN convention on the law of the sea, known as UNCLOS.” He went on to say that such a judgment would ultimately threaten operations on the base, because it would “impact on our ability to protect the electromagnetic spectrum from interference”—[Official Report, 9 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 741.] It is bad enough that the Government’s case rests entirely on rulings that “could” and “might” be made; worse still, the Government are failing to take into account our clearcut ability to reject any such hypothetical ruling. We understand that the Government are afraid of legal action relating to the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, but article 298 of UNCLOS states very clearly: “When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State may, without prejudice to the obligations arising under section 1, declare in writing that it does not accept any one or more of the procedures provided for in section 2 with respect to one or more of the following categories of disputes”, including, under (b), “disputes concerning military activities”. On operational threats to the base, the Government’s argument is that hypothetical action by UNCLOS might lead to further hypothetical action by the International Telecommunications Union, leading, hypothetically, to a threat to the electromagnetic spectrum on the base at Diego Garcia. Well, article 48 of the “Constitution of the International Telecommunications Union”, which is entitled “Installations for National Defence Services”, states, under section 1: “Member States retain their entire freedom with regard to military radio installations.” To clarify further, the telecoms Minister, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), who is always a helpful soul, confirmed, in a written answer from last February to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), that “Individual countries have the sovereign right to manage and use the radio spectrum, within their borders, the way they wish, subject to not causing interference with other countries…The ITU cannot challenge the UK’s use of civilian or military spectrum.” A slam dunk! Now we have it: we can challenge UNCLOS, where military bases are concerned, and the ITU cannot challenge our use of electromagnetic spectrum. Is it not therefore the truth that there is no threat to this country if we maintain our sovereignty over Diego Garcia, but there is a massive threat if we surrender it? There are, for ourselves and the United States, clear and unambiguous threats to the most sensitive and critical things relating to our military operations—those that relate to our ability to use nuclear weapons and deter the most serious threats to our nation. Yesterday, it was confirmed that the Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius, Paul Bérenger, has stated that nuclear weapons could not be stored on Diego Garcia if Labour’s deal went through. That is crystal clear. That is because Mauritius is a signatory to the Pelindaba treaty, prohibiting the stationing of nuclear weapons across Africa, including all the territory of Mauritius. We repeatedly warned Ministers of the threat arising from the Pelindaba treaty, but they dismissed our concerns, and today they could not answer the questions at all. Can the Minister tell us if anyone in Government has discussed the storage of nuclear weapons on Diego Garcia with the US Administration? In particular, has the Prime Minister at any point discussed this matter with President Trump? Is it not another example of the total madness of Labour’s crazy Chagos deal that we, who rely on a naval nuclear deterrent to keep us safe in a dangerous world, are surrendering sovereignty of one of the most vital naval bases in the world to a nation that has signed up to a treaty outlawing the stationing of nuclear weapons on that territory? We have had some absolutely fantastic speeches today. I have to pay tribute to the hon. Members for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), and for Rugby (John Slinger), for answering the distress flare from their Whips Office. Labour had two more contributions today than it did in the urgent question the other day, when not a single Labour MP stood up in support of the Government. We Conservative Members, however, showed real passion, because none of us supports this deal; we have consistently opposed it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) said, what does it say about our strategic priorities? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) said, this is a Government without a strategic policy on China, so what message does the deal send, especially when we have agreed the Chinese super-embassy? I have to give special mention to my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), who gave an absolutely brilliant speech that totally demolished the Government’s case around the financial position—not a flesh wound in sight after that. He referred to the sketch with the Black Knight, but increasingly we think of another Monty Python sketch. The Government think that this treaty has been paused—that it is merely resting—but we increasingly suspect that this treaty is pushing up the daisies, and I can assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we will campaign with every bit of fight we have to ensure that it is an ex-treaty.

    Hansard source
19. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·James Cartlidge

    British Indian Ocean Territory

    I do not think the hon. Gentleman quite understands. We did not sign a deal; we would not sign a deal, because the terms were totally unacceptable, and they have got an awful lot worse since then—35 billion times worse. The cost is £35 billion—that comes from a freedom of information release from the Government themselves. That is an absolute disgrace, and it is why we will vote against the deal.

    Hansard source
20. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·James Cartlidge

    British Indian Ocean Territory

    The hon. Member knows that we have opposed this deal, but on self-determination, I would like him to ask his party leader, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), if he believes in the self-determination of the people of Ukraine, who have been invaded and brutally bombed by Russia. His leader still says that that was provoked by NATO. The hon. Member should be ashamed of that, if he believes in self-determination. To conclude, I asked why the Government were surrendering land that we own freehold, only to lease it back for £35 billion. Is it not the same reason why they are surrendering our brave veterans to a new era of lawfare? Is it not the same reason why Labour gave up our fishing grounds, the most critical possession of an island nation, to access an EU defence fund from which it has not had a penny? We have a weak Prime Minister who always fails to put Britain’s national interests first. If Labour was strong enough to put our national interests first, surely it would stand up to Mauritius and reject this deal. After all, if the Government did that, they could spend the money that they saved on our armed forces, at a time when rearmament at home is on hold, precisely because Labour has failed to fund defence properly. If there is one silver lining to having such a weak Prime Minister, it is his habit of constant U-turns. We have had 13 U-turns to date from this Government. Would the best thing for our national security not be for Labour to recognise that the game is up, to turn the pause on the Chagos Bill into a permanent full stop, and to scrap this terrible deal?

    Hansard source
21. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·James Cartlidge

    British Indian Ocean Territory

    The Minister is very kind. I have a very specific question. That annex does not mention nuclear weapons. We have asked about this repeatedly throughout the debate today. It is a matter of critical national security. The Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius has clearly stated that nuclear weapons cannot be stored on the base. Is that correct—yes or no?

    Hansard source
22. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jack Rankin

    Local Authority Children’s Services

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) for securing this important debate, and for his powerful and thoughtful contribution, particularly in relation to the tragic case of Sara Sharif. We have heard thoughtful contributions from right across the House this morning. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) spoke passionately about her city, about sharing best practice and about the importance of the first 1,001 days of a child’s life, which are critical. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) talked about the variation in children’s services around the country and how it is a postcode lottery, and in particular about the difference between London and the south-west. It is heartening to hear that services in his Devon constituency are improving. There were calls for joined-up thinking from right across the House, led by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). The hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) supported the hon. Member for Woking by raising concerns on behalf of her constituents regarding the quality of care from Surrey county council. I was particularly moved by the personal commitment to looked-after children by the hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby), who brought his experience to bear. Themes we have heard from right across the House include support for kinship carers, the need for long-term funding, the lack of places, and the fact that we need processes in order to learn the vital lessons of the past. I associate His Majesty’s loyal Opposition with those themes and, in particular, with Members’ tributes to frontline staff. There may be systemic issues, but we know that frontline staff do their best under difficult constraints. They are overworked and underpaid, and deserve all of our support. I think the nature of need in the country is shocking. Local authorities in England are supporting around 400,000 children in need. That is roughly one in 30 children. As of the end of March last year, around 49,000 children were subject to child protection plans, and more than 80,000 were in local authority care. Those figures should give us pause; one in 30 children is the equivalent of a child in every classroom. But this debate is not about numbers; it is about children—the most vulnerable, at-risk children in our communities. It is not about statistics, but about lives—and, in the case of Sara Sharif, a life lost. Sara was living in Woking when she was murdered by her father and stepmother. The hon. Member for Woking has rightly been a passionate advocate for change, particularly since the publication of the local child safeguarding practice review. I commend him for that work. Nine of the 15 recommendations in the review were wholly or partially local, and I echo the call for Surrey county council to implement them swiftly but thoroughly. It is our responsibility in this place to ensure that where national recommendations are made, children’s services are properly equipped to meet their statutory duties. I welcome the work that has begun, but there is more to do. Nationally, the scale of pressures on children’s services is clear. According to the Local Government Association, the number of children in care is 18% higher than a decade ago. Councils now carry out more than 600 child protection investigations every single day. But despite increased budgeted spending, councils have been overspending on children’s social care by an average of 14% each year, and planned budgets for 2025-26 show a further 10% rise in costs. At the heart of this lies a fundamental problem: a shortage of high-quality placements for looked-after children. Demand continues to outstrip supply, driving up costs and putting intense pressure on social care, SEND services and care leaver support. Under the previous Conservative Government, the proportion of local authority children’s services rated good or outstanding rose from 24% in 2015 to 60% in 2024, according to the Institute for Government. That progress matters, but it is equally true that around a third of local authorities still require improvement or are judged inadequate. This is about children’s safety. Having listened to hon. Members from across the political spectrum, I hope I speak for many in saying that we all want the Government to succeed in this area. Getting children’s services right underpins so many outcomes and, most importantly, helps prevent tragedies like Sara’s from ever happening again. The hon. Member for Woking may know that part of my constituency is in the Surrey county council area. The council has committed to implementing all the local recommendations in full. I share some of his concerns about the culture in that team and the need for joined-up services, so that children do not fall between the cracks. Encouragingly, Ofsted’s most recent inspection, in 2025, highlighted some improvements at the front door of services. Inspectors noted that referrals to the children’s single point of access received “timely and proportionate” responses, and that there was effective partnership working with the police, particularly in cases of domestic abuse and missing children. Multi-agency strategy meetings were found to be “timely and well attended” leading to considered decisions. Those are vital steps forward and I welcome them. I have met the new lead member, Councillor Jonathan Hulley, to discuss this matter. I have a great deal of personal confidence in him, and he recognises the scale of change required in this area. I was heartened to see that a motion calling for an independent expert review of the improvements made at Surrey county council following Sara’s death was passed unanimously by the council last month, with cross-party support. That independent scrutiny is essential to providing confidence that reforms are effective, lasting and properly focused. I will be watching closely for its outcomes, as I know the hon. Member for Woking will be, and I hope that we can all embrace the cross-party approach of our county colleagues across Surrey and within the council to drive sustained improvement. As well as Surrey, in my constituency I also deal with children’s services delivered by the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead and by Slough borough council—I do not know whether I am unique in having three different children’s services. Ofsted rated the royal borough’s services as good in October 2024. By contrast, Slough has been inadequate since early 2023, although subsequent focus visits, including in July 2024, found that children in need and those on child protection plans were receiving timely and appropriate services. These neighbouring authorities illustrate a simple but uncomfortable truth: children’s services remain a postcode lottery. Where services are well led, outcomes can and do improve under the existing framework; where they struggle, the causes are often leadership, capability and delivery on the ground, not the absence of legislative powers. That is why we should be careful and cautious about assuming that more legislation on its own will necessarily lead to better outcomes for children. I wish to talk briefly about the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which continues its passage in the other place. I welcome the Government’s acceptance of several amendments responding to the recommendations from the Sara Sharif review, particularly proposals to pilot meetings with parents before deregistration from school, and the option of a visit within 15 days of a child starting home education. However, there remain serious concerns. As drafted, the Bill would not fully address the specific safeguarding loopholes identified in Sara’s case. Baroness Barran is doing excellent work in the Lords to close those gaps, and I hope that the Government will think again on some of those issues. I welcome the Government’s introduction of unique child identification, as we previously called for. More broadly, the principle of a register of children not in school, as raised by the hon. Member for Woking, has long enjoyed cross-party support. I would be interested in the Minister’s comments on that. Education matters and school attendance should be the norm, but parental choice also matters. Elective home education is a legitimate option for many families. As it stands, the Bill does not strike the right balance. I have received numerous representations from constituents concerned that the proposals would place excessive and unnecessary burdens on responsible home-educating families. The requirement to detail exact hours of education, on pain of breaking the law, is particularly intrusive and fails to reflect the reality of flexible home-based learning. Safeguarding measures must be proportionate and focused on identifying genuine risk, not on creating layers of bureaucracy that stigmatise families who are doing the right thing. I urge the Government to go further in tightening the conditions under which a local authority may withhold consent for elective home education. Government amendment 120 to the Bill, which would apply where a child has been on a child protection plan within the past five years, does not go far enough. Local authorities should also consider whether a child has ever been subject to care proceedings, even where those proceedings did not result in a care order, as tragically was the case with Sara. If the Bill is to honour its stated purpose, it must focus relentlessly on protecting children at genuine risk, not on sweeping up responsible families into an overly prescriptive system. Getting this right matters; as we have heard today, children’s lives depend on it.

    Hansard source
23. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jack Rankin

    Defence Industry: Environmental, Social and Governance Requirements

    I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of environmental, social and governance requirements on the defence industry. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank the Minister and hon. Members for making time to attend what I hope will be a consequential debate. Last week, we all heard the Canadian Prime Minister speaking at Davos. He is not quite my flavour of politics, but he spoke a truth: we live in a much more dangerous world and we cannot rely on the international rules-based order to protect us. We are quickly learning an ancient truth that hard power is the most material reality. If we continue to play by imaginary rules while our enemies, and sometimes even our allies, are playing a different game altogether, we are destined to lose, with disastrous consequences for our country and for our children. Sadly, many of those old assumptions are embedded and entrenched in our financial services industry, universities and politics. In turn, that is having a deeply damaging effect on British defence companies and ultimately on our ability to defend ourselves.

    Hansard source
24. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jack Rankin

    Defence Industry: Environmental, Social and Governance Requirements

    The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point about Leonard, which builds helicopters in his constituency, and I am sure the Minister has heard his pointed remarks. Parties of both colours have pledged to increase defence spending. This Labour Government have committed to an uplift of 3% in the next Parliament, but when will we see it? What proportion of it will simply make up historical military pensions? How much is actually going to cutting-edge research and development? Currently, only 4% of defence spending goes to small and medium-sized enterprises, which often lead the way on innovation. What if I told the Minister that there is billions of pounds in funding waiting to be unlocked that would cost the taxpayer nothing, be a huge boost to the economy and improve our national security? It is sitting in the private sector. The importance of private investment was recognised in the strategic defence review, but we are not properly utilising it. Right now, British defence companies are deprived of much of that potential investment because funds of various descriptions prioritise sustainable investment or environmental social governance —ESG—regardless of return. Sometimes those funds actively rule out defence, explicitly or implicitly, in the rules they set.

    Hansard source
25. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jack Rankin

    Defence Industry: Environmental, Social and Governance Requirements

    I am delighted to correct the record; it is good to see that parties of all colours are backing increased defence spending in a more uncertain world. The ESG system implies in some sense that defence investment is unethical, but there is nothing less ethical than sending British sons and daughter into battle under-equipped. That is not a blue, red or yellow party political point; I am proud to represent the parts of Slough borough not covered by the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), we have discussed this very point, with which I understand he and his Committee all agree. Many on the Government side of the House also see the problems of ESG. In March last year, a group of 100 Labour Members of Parliament wrote to banks and fund managers urging them to prioritise defence investment and class British defence investment as ethical. I welcome the presence of the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) in the Chamber today; I know he has discussed this matter both directly and with the Financial Conduct Authority, and I look forward to his substantive contribution in the debate. I gently point out, however, that some of the ideology is pushed by some of those on the left who might take woolly views on certain conflicts, specifically Gaza. We should do what we can in this place to challenge that culture, and I suspect that there are many of those naive rules made in this place—perhaps under different geopolitical circumstances—that we should reassess. To fix this problem, we must first acknowledge just how bad things are in some instances. I am a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee, and a few weeks ago we were able to question Warrick Malcolm of ADS Scotland, which represents Scottish defence businesses, about the chilling effect that progressive authoritarianism has had on the businesses they represent. When he attempted to host a Scottish parliamentary reception to highlight science, technology, engineering and mathematics apprenticeships —broader than just defence—200 protesters shut down the Parliament, allowing no one in or out, and essentially cancelled the whole event. Those people who did squeeze through the melee outside, many of them apprentices in their young 20s, came in in tears because of the abuse they faced. Sadly, only the Scottish Conservatives supported the reception, while all others steered clear. What message does that send to those in the industry, those hard-working constituents of Members of the Scottish Parliament, when their representatives have no time for them and effectively shun them. Mr Malcolm also talked to the Committee about how a company he represented was vandalised, reducing its capacity by 75%. How will that business remain viable? We can think of careers fairs at universities being shut down, and damaging the attractiveness of defence as a sector to work in; it is a sector that keeps us safe, but it is often not one that employees feel safe to work in.

    Hansard source
26. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jack Rankin

    Defence Industry: Environmental, Social and Governance Requirements

    Of course the hon. Member is right. We have a collective responsibility to advocate for these businesses, as he just did, but as a nation we must also face down this pernicious culture. To return to the point about financial institutions, the culture we set in Parliament influences them. We do not need to look too far from ourselves to see where the problem is—our own parliamentary pension fund de facto excludes British defence companies by investing in sustainable funds. Its single largest equity holding, the BlackRock low carbon equity fund, fully excludes nuclear weapons, which in reality excludes nearly all defence. What does our pension fund invest in instead? Tencent Holdings, the parent company of WeChat, which largely considered to be part of China’s surveillance state. That is the very nub of the issue, and illuminates the great irony of the situation. The FCA will unequivocally say that there is no conflict between ESG and defence; while that might sometimes be technically true, the reality often paints a different picture. We just need to follow the money. The Devon county council pension fund—which I picked because I thought the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) might have been the Minister responding to the debate, and it covers his constituency—states clearly that it prioritises return on investment and does not impose ethical exclusions. However, if one follows its investment down the rabbit hole to its pool provider Brunel Pension Partnership, which handles 93% of the council’s pension funds, we find Paris-aligned pooled funds with carbon thresholds and controversial weapon screens. As we can see, the system is set up against the defence industry. In that system, smaller companies have no chance, because the filtering happens long before capital ever reaches them. It may well be that pensioners also end up short-changed, given that major British defence companies BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce and Babcock have made returns of 50%, 100% and 146% respectively this past year. This issue extends to our most sensitive areas. While I hope we never need it, I think most sensible people in this country support the backstop of our nuclear deterrent, and ESG potentially threatens that. We currently have retained EU law that adopts the Paris-aligned benchmarks that exclude nuclear as a controversial weapon. For a fund to be considered Paris-aligned, it will have to meet that benchmark and, by retaining that law, we are encouraging that. Although the Government nominally prioritise Trident, around 1,500 businesses in the supply chain are implicated and will therefore be potentially excluded from finance. As long as we continue to tolerate this madness, we are fighting with one hand behind our back. We have discussed access to capital, but that is useless for SMEs without a bank account. Defence companies in this country are being debanked. I first came across the issue when meeting a defence SME in my constituency, which had been debanked three times by high street banks. That business makes ammunition for Ukraine. Think of the message that sends to a defence start-up: an entrepreneur just would not go near it. Some of the problem is being driven by the B Corp certification, and I urge the Minister to look at that. “Know your customer” and anti-money laundering operation checks are also a huge issue that needs to be addressed. All that is downstream of the same negative approach to defence that I have described. This culture has, at least in part, been brought about by successive Government policy, and can also be reversed by it. As a start, the Government should insist that all publicly managed funds should not be investing in funds that explicitly exclude defence. That would be a clear statement of intent about the Government’s expectations, and it would encourage others to do the same. We should also have clearer rules about the exclusion of nuclear so that the SMEs vital to the Trident deterrent are not unfairly cut out. Much as it pains me to say it, perhaps we could even learn from France, which treats the defence sector as strategically vital. The Chancellor could write to the FCA today and change its remit. Just imagine the change if we were to approach defence as we have approached climate policy over the past 20 years. I am aware that the Government passed legislation in October to permit the FCA to regulate the ESG sector from 2028; although that might seem like a positive step, it could simply entrench the concept legally and say that ESG is sanctified by the Government. If we are serious about rebuilding our defence infrastructure and about national security, we must get serious about the self-harm that ESG culture has done, and is doing, and be prepared to take steps to address it.

    Hansard source
27. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jack Rankin

    Defence Industry: Environmental, Social and Governance Requirements

    I thank all hon. Members from across the Chamber for their considered contributions, and particularly the hon. Members for York Outer (Mr Charters), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam). Speakers have emphasised slightly different things, but we all support a safe and confident Britain and understand that the first responsibility of His Majesty’s Britannic Government is the defence of the realm. Investment in defence is patriotic, it is necessary and it helps to make war less likely. I thank the Minister for her comments. Given the increasingly dangerous world we live in, we should take action today. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the impact of environmental, social and governance requirements on the defence industry.

    Hansard source
28. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Helen Whately

    Youth Unemployment

    I beg to move, That this House regrets that both youth unemployment and the numbers of young people not in education, employment or training are rising as a result of the Government’s policies, such as increasing the rate of employer’s National Insurance contributions, reducing business rates relief for 2025-26 for retail, leisure and hospitality businesses, and passing the Employment Rights Act 2025; notes that these policies have heavily impacted the retail, leisure and hospitality sectors where young people often have their first job; further regrets that the Government’s inability to reform the welfare system will mean that young people struggling to find work are more likely to become trapped in welfare benefits dependency; and calls on the Government to back business, scrap business rates for pubs and high street shops, and back job opportunities for young people. This afternoon we are here to talk about young people—the young people who wake up every morning with nowhere to go: no classroom, no workplace, no sense that today will be different from yesterday. It is part of our job to put ourselves in other people’s shoes. Today, those are the shoes of a young man or woman who has just left school, college or university, and is setting out on real life in the world of work. That should be a moment of liberation, trepidation and excitement because the world is at their feet, but right now, for hundreds of thousands of young people, it is not. Just a few days ago, I was with a constituent who has just finished school. She is great; she has GCSEs and A-levels, she has done work experience, and she is charming and presentable. She has been applying for jobs day after day, but can she get one? Not a squeak—and that is in the bustling and vibrant economy of the south-east of England. She told me that it can be lonely being stuck at home all day applying for jobs, but she is not alone; she is in the company of many thousands of young people. Over 700,000 young people are unemployed—more than the entire population of Sheffield—and the figures are getting worse. Our youth unemployment rate is rising faster than that of any other G7 country. Nearly 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training, and over 700,000 university graduates are on out-of-work benefits. Those are not just statistics; they are lives knocked off course—young women and men putting in hundreds of job applications and getting hundreds of rejections. They are getting knocked back again and again, and signing on to benefits because they see no other way. They are missing out on the chance to have money in their pockets that they have earned themselves, on the first step towards independence, and on the experience gained in the early years in work, on which future working lives are built. Forget saving to buy a first car or home; dreams and ambitions are being shot to pieces. These people are becoming Britain’s lost generation.

    Hansard source
29. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Helen Whately

    Youth Unemployment

    I am glad that the hon. Lady has some sympathy with the position of young people who are struggling to get jobs. My party halved unemployment; her party’s record is of unemployment going up and up. Since Labour has been in power, unemployment has gone up every single month. What is going on? What is going on is them: the Labour Government. Same old Labour—in they come and up go taxes and up goes unemployment, every single time. They put taxes up by £36 billion in their first Budget, and not just any old taxes. Their national insurance hike was specifically a tax on employment—literally a jobs tax. If you tax it, you will get less of it. That is not rocket science; it is basic economics.

    Hansard source
30. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Helen Whately

    Youth Unemployment

    My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Summer and holiday jobs are important ways for young people to gain experience before they leave education and seek full-time jobs, but there has been a shocking decline in the availability of such jobs because of this Government, who have increased regulation and the cost of employment—that is exactly the problem. On exactly the point about regulation and red tape, the Employment Rights Bill is making it harder for businesses to employ people. Labour says that it wants to achieve growth, but its policies are obviously going to achieve the exact opposite. The problem is that Labour Members do not understand business. Have they any idea how hard it is to break even, let alone to make a profit; any idea how hard it is for people who have started a business to bring in enough to cover the payroll each month, never mind pay themselves; or any idea how hard it is for business owners to make their staff redundant because they cannot afford to keep paying them? Of course they do not, because how many Labour Front Benchers have worked in a business—I am not counting union officials—let alone run one?

    Hansard source
31. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Helen Whately

    Youth Unemployment

    I am perfectly well aware of the policy on national insurance. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point that some Labour MPs do have business experience, but if we look at Labour Front Benchers, particularly those in the Cabinet, we will see that they are few and far between. If he has been talking to businesses—he clearly knows some—he will hear them say, as they have said directly to me and many of my hon. Friends, that it is the Labour Government’s policies that are making it so hard and so expensive to employ people, particularly young people. Even if Government Members do not have business experience, they could and should listen to what businesses have been telling them. For instance, Kate Nicholls of UKHospitality said that Labour’s 2024 Budget did “unthinkable damage” to the sector. She was backed up by her colleague, Allen Simpson, who said recently that if the Government continue their approach, “we will only see job losses and business closures accelerate.” That sector has shed over 100,000 jobs under this Government. Jane Gratton, from the British Chambers of Commerce, said that Labour’s policies are “deeply worrying for employers. They will increase employment costs, complexity and risk for firms, particularly SMEs…Government needs to help not hinder businesses”. That is the crux of the matter: Labour sees businesses as a cash cow, not as the engine of the economy, and young people in particular are suffering as a result. Before businesses start letting people go, they generally stop hiring, and that is what they are doing. And when they stop hiring, who gets hit hardest? Young people. By hitting hospitality—all those pubs and cafés where people get their first jobs—the Government are hitting young people again. The simple fact is that there are fewer jobs for young people under this Government. This unemployment disaster for young people is not something that has just happened on this Labour Government’s watch—it is a disaster of their making.

    Hansard source
32. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Helen Whately

    Youth Unemployment

    My right hon. Friend makes the point so clearly. It is so obvious to the Conservatives, as the party of business, that if the Government keep taxing business, there will be fewer jobs—but they just do not seem to get it. Labour Members do know that they are in trouble, though. That is why they are talking up their youth programmes, youth hubs and youth guarantees—[Laughter.] Labour Members are laughing, but they should listen. The hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race) says from a sedentary position that it was our programme —exactly that! Most of these things are just rebrands of programmes that the Conservatives started. We started youth hubs. Changing the name of the youth offer to the “youth guarantee” does not solve the problem. Of course there is part to play for training programmes and work placements in helping people to bridge the gap between school and work, but Government programmes are not the answer to the fundamental problem. Young people want jobs, and this Government are killing jobs.

    Hansard source
33. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Helen Whately

    Youth Unemployment

    I enjoyed the way in which the hon. Gentleman led into his question with a bit of flattery, but I will not be drawn on his attempt to make me talk about the minimum wage or down the routes that he asks me to take, as much as he may love me to do so. However, I will talk about our record in government. We halved unemployment. We got record numbers of people into work. We backed businesses to create 800 jobs for every day that we were in government. We reformed welfare to make work pay. We brought down the benefits bill. None of those things are on the cards under this Labour Government. They are crushing businesses with taxes and red tape, destroying jobs and driving up unemployment. They U-turned on welfare savings and put up taxes on working people by £26 billion at the last Budget to pay for the ballooning benefits bill. I will not argue that we got everything right. Some of the graduates struggling to get jobs have degrees that are not actually of any help to them, and they took those degrees when we were in government. Under us, through the pandemic and afterwards, the number of young people dropping out of work and on to benefits because of their mental health went up. We wanted to end the stigma around mental illness, but the consequences have been far-reaching. Our welfare system was not designed to support people with milder mental health problems or milder neurodiversity, or for a time when a quarter of people report themselves as disabled. The system is not working; instead, it is funnelling people off work and on to benefits. Now, with the Government’s failure to reform welfare, young people are stuck in a benefits trap—they are better off on benefits and fearful of losing them if they get a job. Let us add to that the stress and misery of trying and failing again and again to get a job, because jobs are fewer and farther between. Most young people I have spoken to do not want to be on benefits, but that is where they are ending up.

    Hansard source
34. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Helen Whately

    Youth Unemployment

    If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would have heard me say that there is a place for programmes that support young people into work, particularly if they find that they do not have the skills needed to do the jobs in their area. When we were in government, we had programmes like that, and those programmes are being continued under this Government. However, there is a fundamental problem with the idea and concept of a youth guarantee, which has wobbled a bit at different announcements and different times. The problem is that the Government are trying to guarantee somebody a job, but destroying the jobs that businesses are creating. The right way to solve the problem is to back businesses to create jobs, not take some kind of socialist, communist or even Marxist approach and create a job with taxpayers’ money so that somebody is in work. The situation is looking pretty bleak. That is a disaster for a generation of young people and our economy, but it does not have to be like this. Even in a world of artificial intelligence, there is another way. It starts with backing businesses, because they are the ones that create jobs, and cutting taxes, cutting red tape, scrapping the swathes of regulation that stop businesses giving young people a summer job or a Saturday shift, and getting government out of the way so that young people can get on. I welcome the Government’s U-turn on probation periods—many businesses told me that that policy would have deterred them from taking a chance on a young person. I also welcome the Government’s latest U-turn on business rates for pubs How many U-turns are we on? Is it 13? What about the rest of hospitality? Why not adopt our policy and scrap business rates, not just for pubs, but for high street shops too? I ask the Minister not just to send young people off on more training courses or work experience schemes. What young people want now is jobs. Why not adopt our policy to double the number of apprenticeships and end debt-trap degrees, too? We do not have to have a lost generation, but we need a Government who will make different choices—who will back businesses to create jobs, scrap degrees that do not pay back, reform welfare so that it pays to work, help this generation make their way in life, and get our country working again.

    Hansard source
35. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Firearms Licence Holders: Mandatory Medical Markers

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I usually respond to matters related to the Department of Health and Social Care, but it is a pleasure to be here to debate a more rural point. I represent Farnham and Bordon, which is a semi-rural seat. It will be no surprise to hon. Members that I must declare that I am a supporter of the Countryside Alliance and a member of the Conservative Rural Forum. I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing this debate and for her expositions of very many tragic cases, especially her powerful remarks about the appalling case of Emma and Lettie Pattison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) for his very practical approach to this debate; I think the Government should take on board the number of issues he raised. Likewise, my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) discussed the synergies between gun licences and other licensing regimes—in his case, for pilots. I look forward to him taking me on a trip at some point. I also thank the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) for her, as ever, interesting contributions, drawing on her rural experience. Whenever we decide to create new rules that restrict the behaviour of the many in response to the actions of the few, we must be extremely careful. Where genuine loopholes exist because of data silos, or because of how long-standing rules interact with novel cases, it is right that they are closed. As has been mentioned, while the firearms marker is not mandatory, a digital version has been rolled out to all general practices in England, with implementation completed in May 2023. The key point that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell mentioned was that the Government must continue to monitor the efficacy of the current system to ensure that only those who are suitable are able to hold a firearms licence and, more especially, to publish the data surrounding that. As has been mentioned, many organisations are supportive of mandatory markers, and I have a lot of sympathy with that, but we must have the data to take an evidence-led approach. Protecting the integrity of the firearms licensing system is essential for public safety, but any measures must remain proportionate and avoid placing unnecessary burdens on medical professionals or responsible licence holders. As we have seen so often in recent years, the net result of successive, well-intentioned changes to the law can be a system that makes life unduly difficult for the vast majority of law-abiding people, while failing to stop the criminal minority. Unfortunately, under this Government, we have seen a renewed assault on civilian firearms ownership, which is set to directly punish those in rural communities who rely on firearms as tools of the trade. For farmers, land managers and pest controllers, firearms are part and parcel of everyday life, and access to those tools is vital. Without them, it would be impossible to protect livestock and manage the local population of certain animals, as farming communities have done for centuries. None the less, without any particular justification, and without ever proving that it would actually prevent criminals from getting hold of firearms, the Government have announced that they plan to regulate section 2 firearms, such as shotguns, under the more stringent regime that previously applied only to section 1 firearms. We have heard vague gestures in the direction of public safety, but no clear case has been made for the substantive measures proposed, and we certainly have had no indication from the Government that they have considered the particular needs of rural communities. If shotguns are to be regulated like long-range rifles, how do the Government expect farmers and pest controllers to continue their work? Given that, as we have heard, many police firearms licensing departments are overwhelmed by the volume of applications, has there been any consideration of the delays that extra work for these departments would create? One of my constituents recently submitted a renewal application within the timeframe recommended by the police, allowing more than six months for processing. The only response received was, by return of post, an extension of the existing licence, as the department acknowledged that it would be unable to issue a new licence within the six-month period. The routine use of licence extensions is concerning because it allows firearms to remain in circulation without a timely, full reassessment of suitability. Meanwhile, some of the Government’s proposals will not help with public safety, but will put additional burdens on the police force or make them more likely.

    Hansard source
36. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Firearms Licence Holders: Mandatory Medical Markers

    My hon. Friend is entirely right. It seems to me that this is a knee-jerk reaction from the Government, without them understanding the logistics or the mechanics of the difference between the long-range rifles and shotguns used by our rural communities—[Interruption.] And, as my hon. Friend says from a sedentary position, without actually seeing the evidence for it. Whether we are talking about medical markers or the changes to the shotgun licensing regime, the key thing is that it must be done on the basis of evidence. I therefore ask the Minister: has there been any consideration of the disruption that these delays will cause to those in rural communities who rely on firearms for work? Have these questions been asked at all within the Home Office or, as in so many other cases, have the Government simply failed to consider the needs of rural communities? It is clearly true that, wherever possible, our firearms licensing rules should prevent weapons from falling into the hands of those who wish to use them only to do harm to others, but any new changes to the law must account for the fact that life in the countryside is very different from life in our largest cities. We must afford some space for discretion and for recognising the particular needs of certain communities. We must also always be sure that new rules would actually make life more difficult for wrongdoers, instead of allowing good intentions to lead us into making life more difficult for the law-abiding majority. Far too often it is the law-abiding who are punished by rules that are created in this place, even when those rules were designed with the most sincere intention of targeting the criminal few. Can the Minister provide clarity on when we can expect the consultation on the proposed changes to shotgun licensing? Can he assure us today that the final verdict of the consultation will take full account of those across rural Britain, whose livelihoods will be rendered impossible by these proposals? Can he further assure us that, before considering any new regulations, the Government will first consider a renewed focus on enforcing the law as it already stands? I think there has been clear agreement in this debate on the need for a licensing system that protects the public, does not overburden the police or the NHS, stops and punishes wrongdoers, and recognises the special need that people in rural communities have for responsible gun ownership. Therefore, I urge the Minister to approach this issue with an evidence-based, proportionate and fair attitude, protecting the public and protecting our rural way of life.

    Hansard source
37. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Firearms Licence Holders: Mandatory Medical Markers

    I do not want to prolong the debate, but I do want to impress something upon the Minister. When he spoke about the uses of shotguns, he talked about target shooting and hunting. I gently say to him that these firearms are needed for far more than sport; they are used for land management and for farming. I encourage him, if he has not already, to meet the organisations that represent rural communities to understand how vital shotguns are for rural land management.

    Hansard source
38. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    British Indian Ocean Territory

    Like my right hon. Friend, I am proud of the role that Conservative peers have played in this, but can we also take a moment to pay credit to Back-Bench Labour MPs? I think it is important to note that they are not here. Practically the only Government Member present, scribbling away, is the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger), whom I admire a great deal, but who is loyalist to his very core. If he is the only Member prepared to speak up, the truth is that Labour MPs have voted with their feet, and they now agree with my right hon. Friend that this deal has to go.

    Hansard source
39. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    British Indian Ocean Territory

    On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister said that she would address the issue of whether nuclear weapons could go to Diego Garcia, and now she says that she cannot comment. Is that—

    Hansard source
40. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Youth Unemployment

    UKHospitality says that we could be seeing the death of the great British summer job, and even Labour’s own Alan Milburn has warned that there is a long-standing decline in the number of 16 and 17-year-olds getting Saturday jobs. Previous Labour Governments always shoved up youth unemployment, but never before has Labour threatened to destroy the great British summer job. That is much to be regretted, and it is about time that the Government turned around their jobs tax and Employment Rights Bill policies.

    Hansard source