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·Dr Andrew Murrison

   British Indian Ocean Territory

   What a pleasure it is to be called so soon, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am very grateful. My goodness me! I do feel sorry for the Minister, being wheeled out to defend the indefensible. I have to say, the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), has done a Trojan piece of work on behalf of the Government, and it is only fair that he should be given the day off. Every day is a school day when it comes to Chagos, is it not? We learn something new every day of the week, it seems. Perhaps the Government might like to reflect on whether, in that wonderful Keynesian way, when the facts change, we change our mind—apparently not. The facts have changed. The ground truth has certainly changed, not least the attitude of the United States; that is clear beyond peradventure. In February last year, the then Foreign Secretary said that without US agreement, the deal would be dead. But in recent days, the US commander-in-chief, no less, has said that the deal is “stupid” and “weak”. There cannot be any ambiguity in that. That is the contemporaneous view of our greatest partner and friend. Surely to goodness, that is justification for pausing the deal. We have learned about the Pelindaba treaty. I have to say that I was not aware of it until very recently, but it is a showstopper. Paul Bérenger, the Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius, recently said that there will be no nuclear weapons on Diego Garcia. He has been very helpful to the Government by laying out exactly what things will look like when Mauritius takes control of Diego Garcia. The Minister says, “Well, we cannot comment on that because it is operational,” but that is precisely what it is not. We are not talking about precise B-52s or Ohio class submarines going into Diego Garcia—I do not want to know about that. What I want to know about is the legal structure within which it is possible for these things to be in Diego Garcia and Chagos in general.

   Hansard source
2. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

   British Indian Ocean Territory

   That is precisely the case; it is as plain as a pikestaff, yet the Government persist with the policy. It is perfectly reasonable and respectable for the Government to say, “The facts have clearly changed, and all these things have come to light, so we will pause this. There is no hurry in this matter, nor any dishonour in saying that we need to consult on it more widely—potentially indefinitely. Nevertheless, we will continue the process and keep it open.” I appreciate that, to save the Government’s blushes, we cannot simply can it, but we can pause it. If the Minister wants more evidence that the Chagossians have been trampled all over during this process, she need only refer to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which said in December 2025 that we should pause the deal in order to ensure that the Chagossians’ voices are properly heard. She is being attacked from all quarters, and the unifying message from all those quarters is, “For goodness sake, let’s pause this—just think again.”

   Hansard source
3. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

   British Indian Ocean Territory

   My hon. Friend, who is experienced in these matters, makes an extremely good point. We need to keep our heads in all this. The Conservative party has been consistent in its opposition to this terrible, terrible surrender deal. The people out there honestly cannot understand why the Government persist with it. It is plainly not a matter of national security. I fear that all this is underpinned by the Government’s insistence on satisfying their post-colonial guilt. The Government need to get over that and understand that national security has primacy in this matter.

   Hansard source
4. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

   British Indian Ocean Territory

   I do not have any insight into the hon. Gentleman’s conversations with Labour Members. As a former Foreign Office Minister, I would say that there are negotiations and then there are negotiations, and sometimes we can use negotiations as a tool to keep certain parties happy, while having no intention of agreeing to what they are demanding of us. Furthermore, a lot of the pressure for all this comes from the advisory note by the ICJ. In this country, we think of judges as upstanding and impartial maintainers of our legal system and the rule of law. That is not necessarily the case when it comes to supranational judicial bodies. We know, for example, that Patrick Robinson—one of the judges involved with the 2019 ICJ decision—has been demanding that the UK pony up £19 trillion in slavery reparations. Those are not apolitical, independent judicial figures. Many of them have an agenda, and it is one that is hostile to this country—as hostile, I would say, as some of the parties, like Russia and China, that we are currently trying to prevent from getting a hold on those islands. It is perfectly reasonable for the President of the United States, who I have to confess is not my cup of tea, to decide—belatedly, but nevertheless—that this is a disastrous measure and that he wants nothing to do with it. He has signalled that in his own inimitable fashion, and the Government should take note, pause the surrender treaty and come back with something better, if at all. This deal, surely, is as dead as the dodo.

   Hansard source
5. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

   British Indian Ocean Territory

   Does the hon. Gentleman see any parallel between the plight of Chagossians and the plight of Greenlanders? The Prime Minister has gone out of his way, correctly, to defend the rights of Greenlanders, but he is doing the complete reverse for Chagossians.

   Hansard source
6. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·David Simmonds

   Draft Cheshire and Warrington Combined Authority Order 2026 Draft Cumbria Combined Authority Order 2026

   It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I am sure you will be pleased, as will the Minister, to know from the outset that the Opposition do not intend to divide the Committee on these orders. However, I do have a few questions to put to the Minister that are relevant to both orders; where they are not, I will be more specific. The first question is about the agreement that the Minister may or may not have reached with the Treasury about the underwriting of the 30-year mayoral investment fund. One of the concerns that the Opposition have highlighted, which I know has been shared to a degree across parties, is that with the English devolution Bill there is scope, perhaps, for new mayoral authorities to raise significant precepts. The feedback from several authorities is that the big incentive is that central Government are making a significant additional level of discretionary funding available to mayoral combined authorities. Clearly, 30 years runs over multiple future Parliaments, so it would be helpful to understand how the settlement has been reached with the Treasury, whether it means that the funding cannot disappear because of future changes in Government circumstances, and if so what the methodology has been, so that authorities entering into an agreement have a sufficient level of assurance that the funding will continue. I would like to ask the Minister about data sharing, which is one of the new functions conferred by these orders. The authorities in question all have multiple statutory functions—they provide children’s services, adult social care and a variety of different services—but the primary focus of the orders is transport. What data ringfence is drawn around those new data-control and data-sharing measures so that residents can have a degree of assurance and clarity about what is to be shared on this footprint and what is not? I also have a question about the precepts themselves. We briefly touched on the point about the 30-year mayoral investment fund; clearly, with transport as the major focus, the underlying assumption is that the mayor will use the new precept to underwrite investment in those transport functions. A great deal of debate is going on about how transport functions across the country should develop. It would be helpful for the Committee to know what assumptions, if any, the Ministry or other parts of Government have made about the level of the precept, and where that sits against other sources of funding, some of which the Chancellor has referred to, to underpin other elements of public transport investment. To what extent is it an additional levy being funded through a mayoral precept versus what is coming from central Government resources, as has been announced so far? Finally, I have two questions specifically on Warrington. Members across the Committee will be aware that the Minister’s predecessor sent envoys into Warrington council last summer—it is an authority with a debt of around £1.8 billion. I appreciate that nothing in the draft order, of itself, will change the status of that debt as something owned by Warrington council, but the arrival into this combined authority of one council with such a comparatively large level of debt raises questions. The first question is whether there is a risk that the mayoral precept is effectively bailing out the debt of one of those authorities. Alternatively, given that Warrington will be required to contribute financially, will it be able to raise the necessary funds through its own arrangements, since it has envoys in place whose job is essentially to manage down that debt pile, which is extremely large compared with the overall turnover of the authority? With those observations, which are largely about the process for reorganisation in these individual circumstances—as opposed to the principle, which we very much support—I close for the Opposition.

   Hansard source
7. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·David Reed

   Defence Industry: Environmental, Social and Governance Requirements

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. We all know the world is becoming more dangerous. We talk about it all the time. We have these conversations in Parliament. We have them at home with constituents, family and friends, but we all know that words and conversations alone will not protect us. We need to make the hard choices now to ensure that the state fulfils its most fundamental role: protecting its citizens and its borders. Failing to do so puts the rest of our country at risk: our NHS, our education system, our markets and our way of life. That is why this debate is so important. I am genuinely thankful to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) for securing it, because it goes to the heart of a culture that must change rapidly if we are to stay safe. We must ensure that those countries that pose a threat to our democratic way of life are not inadvertently enabled by structures we have imposed on ourselves. There have been a number of fantastic contributions. My hon. Friend set the tone for the whole debate. The world is becoming more dangerous, and the system of international law that we have lived under, as well as the processes that underpin it, are disappearing rapidly, and we need to change to keep pace. He talked about challenging the culture and the need for the House to push that cultural change, so that money is flowing into the defence industry. He made a number of points about how ESG is being used in different ways, from university campuses to pushing back defence industries from job fairs. I think we can all agree that that needs to change. The hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) has deep knowledge of this issue. He has worked at the coalface of the industry to understand how these contracts are formulated across Government and industry. He talked about the distinction between funding for things that go bang—hard, single-effect capabilities—and for dual-use technologies. I thank him and the hon. Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) for their work on the “Rewiring British Defence Financing” report. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about how that is impacting the work on the defence investment plan. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) adds to defence discussions in the House on almost a daily basis. He spoke again about Northern Ireland and about companies, such as Thales and Harland & Wolff, which are at the heart of shipbuilding and aerospace defence. He spoke about how ESG is being used by those companies to ensure that they stay on Government frameworks. I would love to speak to him afterwards to understand how those policies may be impacting their business outputs. The hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) spoke powerfully about deterrence and about investing in defence now to keep us all safe. I think we can all agree that no one wants to go back to war. A number of the Members who have spoken in this debate are veterans who have experienced war, and they know that we do not want that for our country. To ensure deterrence, we must allocate capital to put ourselves in a strong position for the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) talked specifically about how ESG was used in the RAF to socially engineer certain outcomes, for which the RAF apologised. It should always be a meritocracy of the best man or woman for that job and nothing else should get in the way. She went into the nuance of the national legislation, the FCA and the red tape wrapped around companies. Lastly, I completely agree with the points raised by the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), about the need for the Government to give defence companies a firm contractual push so they know what is coming down the track. I would like to hear more about the bonds idea, which was raised in the Chamber two nights ago on Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill. When we asked where the money would come from and what budgets would need to be cut to repay two to three-year bonds, we did not get a clear answer, so I would like to hear more. Organisations that have a role to play in our collective national defence must recognise that investing in defence is both patriotic and necessary. Anything that prevents them from doing so should be stripped away. I truly believe that that cultural shift must begin in earnest in this place. The three pillars of ESG examine how a company treats the environment, manages relationships with stakeholders, and governs itself. At first glance, that all makes sense. It is easy to see why those pillars send a signal to the markets about an organisation’s priorities, but here is the problem: the framework has evolved in a way that increasingly treats national defence as a negative, somehow signalling a bad actor. Defence-focused investments have been lumped together with industries such as tobacco and gambling. The hon. Member for North Durham added pornography to the list. How did we reach a position where we have forgotten that spending on defence and providing deterrence is the foundation on which everything else we value in society rests? I often speak about this with my dad, who was born in 1942 in Plymouth, a city that was bombed heavily during the blitz. Some of his earliest memories are of being under the stairs listening to the drone of Luftwaffe bombs overhead. His generation was the last in this country to experience borders and national security as fragile and uncertain, but as was raised a few times today, if we fast forward a few generations, for young people, the idea that they might have to fight for what they love is an abstract concept at best. We have lost our emotive memory of war, which puts us in a precarious position. I also fear that we draw the wrong lessons from history. When we mobilised during the first and second world wars, we did so with an existing industrial base. Factories could be repurposed quickly and critical resources were within reach. Closer to home, the lessons from covid further muddied the water. A debilitating pandemic was high on the national risk register, yet it was not given the seriousness it deserved. What followed was denial followed by urgency. Companies such as Dyson switched to producing ventilators and we scrambled internationally to source protective equipment for our NHS. In great British fashion, we muddled through. With the risk of international conflict rising by the day, however, I do not want us to have to muddle through again. We all have a responsibility to ensure that the state fulfils its primary duty: keeping our countrymen and women safe. Everything else is secondary. I do not want to wait until we are punched in the face before we react. That is why this debate matters. It is about the practical steps, such as where the money for increased defence comes from and how we cut the red tape that is holding back our defence industry. We also need to look hard at how we better align the capital allocation industry with defence. The Chief of the Defence Staff warned of the £28 billion gap between our current resources and our defence ambitions, so we must get serious. Concerns have been raised that only a small fraction of recent defence contracts have gone towards weapons and armour, fuelling fear in the defence industry of an effective procurement freeze at precisely the moment we should be accelerating rearmament. The private sector and private capital are not a silver bullet, but they are a major part of the answer. The Government are reported to be exploring public-private partnerships, but those will not progress while markets continue to view defence as unethical or constrained by ESG stipulations. That must change through Government contracts removing such prohibitive clauses and the Government being seen as a reliable partner where returns can be guaranteed. That means having defence spending that matches the rhetoric, and contracts awarded at the scale required to meet the growing threats. It is encouraging to see parts of the defence investment space already working to shift that culture. The UK Private Capital trade association has had a defence working group for nearly a year to educate the capital allocation industry about what national deterrence, both defensive and offensive, really means—a point raised by the hon. Member for York Outer—and why investment must include hard capabilities that keep us safe, not just dual-use technologies at the edges. We must also be honest about the barriers that remain. Societal pressures and perceptions around defence, particularly under the S pillar of ESG, have led to real reticence. Many high-street financing providers maintain restrictive policies towards defence firms, often requiring higher levels of due diligence. Increasingly, investment funds are developing ESG policies that exclude defence under blanket terminology around weapons or nuclear and extend deep into the supply chain, rather than acting in a targeted way. These unregulated exclusions are inhibiting defence investment at exactly the wrong time. I acknowledge that work is in progress to address that. As referred to by the hon. Members for York Outer, for Strangford and for North Durham, industry has developed initiatives such as the UK defence ESG charter and the HM Treasury and ADS trade body joint taskforce. However, I believe that more parliamentary support is needed to help investors understand the realities of the sector and encourage responsible investments. The Government must provide clear demand signals for both industry and finance. The outcomes of the defence industrial strategy and the strategic defence review will be crucial in setting the tone for where, what and how the UK intends to spend with the defence sector. I do not want to fall into the trap of opposing the Government for opposition’s sake. I want Labour to do well. I want the Defence Ministers to do well. If they do well, the UK does well, and we should all be on team UK. That is why I offer the following comments constructively. I hope the Minister receives them in that spirit. My party has done some hard work over the last 18 months. We have set out clear plans to boost defence spending through a sovereign defence fund of up to £50 billion, funded by reallocating existing expenditure currently directed towards costly environmental projects. That would enable the procurement of drones and new technologies at a far greater pace and scale, transforming the capability and lethality of the British armed forces. Crucially, it would help to deliver the industrial capacity we need here at home. To enable that ramp-up in domestic production, the sovereign defence fund would mobilise billions in public and private funding to overhaul the defence industrial base. There are practical steps we can take: taking stakes in UK defence start-ups, investing in dual-use companies, and building resilient supply chains to reduce reliance on hostile states such as China. This is a fully funded plan based on repurposing existing Government expenditure towards this national priority. It comprises three elements. First, £6 billion would be reallocated from the research and development budget in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to the Ministry of Defence. As we all know, and has been touched on today, defence innovation has spillover benefits to other sectors, from communications to transport. Secondly, £11 billion would be ringfenced from the National Wealth Fund to become the national defence and resilience bank. That funding is currently allocated to a number of non-vital eco-projects; the remainder would stay focused on national resilience such as water and transport. Thirdly, approximately £33 billion would be mobilised from private finance through the same model already used by the National Wealth Fund, unlocking billions more in investment. We all know that other countries are doing this. Countries such as the United States and Germany are already allocating huge funds for defence and bolstering their domestic manufacturing and technological bases. We must do the same, because if we do not we will become prey to those who do not value our way of life. The Government must act with urgency, match words with action and help to drive the cultural shift that will allow our country to be properly defended. That is why this debate matters so much. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor again for securing it. I look forward to working with colleagues across the House to progress this agenda.

   Hansard source
8. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Damian Hinds

   Youth Unemployment

   There are many ways that we can express it, but none of them are good: youth unemployment is at 15.9%; it is up 10%; it is up 1.5 percentage points; it is up over 100,000 in the last year; it is at a 10-year high—higher than in the covid era. Let us be clear: this is not economic inactivity we are talking about; it is unemployment. The definition of unemployment is not about who is claiming benefits; it is about having had no income whatever—not having worked for a paid hour—in the reference week. It is about being available for work and actively looking for work. That is the number that has gone up. The increasing number of people who are both studying and seeking to work—for whom, by the way, zero-hours contracts are especially relevant—is a particular issue, and I will come back to that point. Unemployment overall has gone up, but it is young people who have borne the brunt; the rate of increase has been almost twice as high for young people as it has overall. To be fair, that is usually the case—when there is rising unemployment, it is always young people who feel it first and hardest. Why? Well, as the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), said, the first thing that employers do when things look uncertain or difficult is to stop hiring. A hiring freeze is the quickest way to cut down the payroll. Secondly, if companies have to let people go, I am afraid that redundancy is cheaper when it comes to younger people, so they sometimes deploy a LIFO rule —last in, first out. There is then the secondary effect that the more experienced workers can fill the vacancies. On top of that, we have the situation at the moment whereby sectors that disproportionately employ young people—in shops, restaurants, hotels and throughout retail, hospitality and leisure—have been particularly hard hit by the national insurance and business rates hikes. I said that youth unemployment usually tends to rise faster and be higher than overall unemployment. That is true, but historically it is not as true in this country as it is in the rest of Europe. There are exceptions—in Germany and the Netherlands, for example—but it is the case in southern Europe. After the crash under the previous Labour Government in 2007-08, there was talk of a lost generation in southern Europe as youth unemployment rates soared so high. Why should the situation in those countries be different from the situation in countries like ours? There is a fancy economics term for it: insider-outsider theory. That theory basically says that when there are economic troubles in a system that has very heavily regulated labour markets, very high levels of employment protection and the very heavy involvement of trade unions, all the help tends to go to the people in work, and it is those trying to get into work—the outsiders—who suffer as a result. Historically, our country has had more liberalised—although not totally liberalised—labour markets, which has meant that we have not had those problems with youth unemployment to the same extent as some of our near neighbours in Europe, and we have tended to recover more quickly when they do occur. Right now, we have the historical rarity—I am not sure it is unique, but it is certainly a rarity—that the ratio of youth unemployment to total unemployment in the UK is higher than it is in the EU. That is before we feel all the effects of the Employment Rights Act 2025; I am sure that some effects were there already, but we have yet to feel the full effect. That Act will discourage taking on new workers, especially new untested workers, and that is of course what youth unemployment is. Let me talk about one aspect of the 2025 Act: zero-hours contracts. These contracts have a special place in Labour mythology, which comes from the time when the last leader of the party, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), used to bring them up every week at Prime Minister’s questions, saying that they were an epidemic, ripping apart our country. At the time, the Conservatives researched how big a deal zero-hours contracts were, and it turned out that fewer than 3% of workers had a zero-hours contract for their main job. There were others who had one for a second job, including many working as bank staff in the NHS. There were also lots of students on them. It turned out that the average number of hours on a zero-hours contract was 25, and—here’s the bit that nobody could accept—the average job satisfaction of people on a zero-hours contract was higher than it was for workers overall. Those on the Government Benches have been grimacing a little, but I do not know how many of them know that the proportion of people on zero-hours contracts has gone up since the general election of 2024. They are just a part of our economy. They are also heavily skewed towards young people, such as students working in sectors like hospitality and other seasonal occupations. About 40% of people with a zero-hours contract job are under 25. I myself was once a young person with a zero-hours contract—I just did not know it was called that. If colleagues across the House think back to their first job, perhaps washing up in a restaurant or working shifts in a shop, they probably did not know at the start if they would be working exactly the same number of hours every week and so on; it turns out that a lot of us probably had our first opportunity in the world of work through a zero-hours contract. It will be true for people even after the Employment Rights Act—those with such a contract will have some extra guarantees included in nit. However, it will also be a bigger deal, from an employer’s point of view, and it will add some risk to taking on young people. What will be the balance for employers and employees? It is, for Ministers, a leap of faith.

   Hansard source
9. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Damian Hinds

   Youth Unemployment

   I am not making a political point. I think it is right and reasonable to give employees visibility, and all good employers who want to keep their employees will of course do the right thing and try to do so. The Employment Rights Act, however, does an awful lot more than just let people know some time in advance about the hours of their next shift. The effects we see from the Employment Rights Act, taxation changes and other measures will not be mass lay-offs; it will be people—young people—not being taken on in the first place. Why does that matter? The Minister said it herself: it matters because of the scarring effect of youth unemployment. We know from studies that if someone is out of work in their early 20s, they can still be suffering the effects 20 or 30 years later. There are things the Government could do to mitigate some of what is happening, including on the regulations coming out of the Employment Rights Act. However, I just wonder why they are doing it overall. I think it is because, in a world where there have been enough U-turns from this Government—actually, I do not think there have been enough yet, but there have been a lot—that legislation is something that Labour MPs can bring home and say, “This is a proper left-wing policy that we have enacted.” But do they really want to bring home higher levels of youth unemployment in their constituencies? That is what will happen. The Government have introduced a number of schemes to try to mitigate what is going on, some of which are welcome. All Governments introduce somewhat similar schemes. However, the 55,000 people who will be eligible for the jobs guarantee should be seen in the context of the more than 900,000 young people who are not in education, employment or training. The scheme is limited in the areas it covers and, I think, people are eligible only after they have been searching for a job for 18 months or more, which would obviously count out many young people. I welcome Connect to Work, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson), although I do not think it is meant particularly for young people; it might nevertheless be helpful for people who have been off on long-term sick. I thought the timings sounded ambitious when the Government first announced it, though, so I would welcome the Minister telling us what they expect the numbers to be at the end of this financial year, including in my county of Hampshire. I know that I have already spoken for 10 minutes, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I just want to set the record straight on apprenticeships, which have come up a number of times. I hope I can help the House with a non-partisan description of what has happened in relation to apprenticeships over the past 20 or more years. The truth is that under the previous Labour Government, and under the first few years of the coalition Government, many tens of thousands of young people were doing an apprenticeship without even knowing they were doing so, so thin and flimsy were those apprenticeships. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) may screw up his face, but that is true; the research evidence is available. The previous Government therefore reformed apprenticeships to be a minimum of one year, with a minimum of 20% time off the job, end-point assessments and qualifications designed by employers themselves, overseen by an independent Institute for Apprenticeships. Yes, when we did that, the number of apprenticeships went down, and the numbers that the Minister was quoting were all from after that change. Making the specifications of a qualification considerably more exacting will of course have an effect on the numbers. But guess what the new Government are doing? The minimum length for an apprenticeship will now be eight months. Try telling a German captain of industry that it is possible to do an apprenticeship in eight months. Will the numbers go up? Of course they will! I recently met hairdressers in my constituency and was reminded of how all this comes together. Hairdressers, like hospitality businesses and others, bring people into our town centres. They are more than just employers, and their businesses cannot just move online. They are now facing seriously higher employment costs, including national insurance contributions and, in many cases, much higher business rates, and that is before we get to the looming impact of the employment regulations. Hairdressers also have a very strong tradition of taking on large numbers of young people and apprenticeships. My worry is that, with the increase in costs, it will be simply unaffordable for them to take on young people in nearly the same numbers. The same is true for pubs and many other employers. We are seeing the early effects of Government policy in today’s youth unemployment numbers, and I take no pleasure whatsoever in saying this, but I am afraid that they are going to get materially worse. I ask the Government to take that seriously and to act, not by delivering some short-term programmes but by rethinking their approach in order to make it easier and less costly for companies to take on young people so that they can start their careers and build their futures.

   Hansard source
10. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Damian Hinds

    Youth Unemployment

    It was about the Minister’s projection for the Connect to Work numbers by the end of this financial year, its first year in operation.

    Hansard source
11. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Damian Hinds

    Youth Unemployment

    Would the Minister apply that principle to bank staff working in the national health service who have what is in fact a zero-hours contract—a bank staff contract—to top up in other roles in the NHS when that support is needed?

    Hansard source
12. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Youth Unemployment

    This has been an excellent and engaging debate, in which I think everyone has recognised that this is an important issue to which we should be dedicating time. Indeed, it is a crisis, because youth unemployment is rising faster here in the UK than anywhere else in the G7. We have had some fantastic contributions from those on the Conservative Benches. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), a former employment Minister, spoke in an extremely well-informed way. He also incorporated some very practical things into a call to action. We had a passionate speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), who talked specifically about The Greyhound as an exemplary business in her constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) made a very apposite comment: that the best welfare programme for young people is a job. In an outstanding speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) shared her deep experience of working in a family business and the importance of those jobs in our retail and hospitality sector to teaching young people reliability, communication and resilience.

    Hansard source
13. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Youth Unemployment

    My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. My right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) spoke extremely eloquently about the importance of the Dog and Duck in his constituency and about how terrible it is for the local community that it has closed because of all the extra costs. My right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) was absolutely on the mark about some of the statistics and the fact that we have seen this film before. We have learned about the importance of the ladder of opportunity that is built by good intentions. We need to create those jobs in the private sector; we cannot regulate our way to prosperity. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), in a speech that was very practical and befits his background in both the private sector and local government, had some very sensible points to make.

    Hansard source
14. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Youth Unemployment

    My hon. Friend is spot on, because it is that foundation of private sector prosperity that will create the tax revenues that we can use to pay for excellent public services. A similar point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford)—and I agree that the House is shocked to learn that he will be 40 next week. He illustrated the importance of business and of the private sector. At times—I hope you will permit this, Madam Deputy Speaker—a quote from Mark Twain came to mind: “lies, damned lies, and statistics.” I cite it to summarise some of the contributions. I want to set out for the record some statistics. Youth unemployment is now at 15.9%. There has been a rise of 2.5% on this Government’s watch. As we have heard in a range of speeches, 729,000 young people are unemployed in this country. That is a scandalous 103,000 more than the previous year. That number does not even include those who were signed off as long-term sick. Indeed, nearly 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training, and that is up by 25,000 since this Government came to power. Many of them are university graduates. The Centre for Social Justice has warned that over 700,000 university graduates are now out of work and on benefits, and many are fleeing the country, looking for opportunity elsewhere. Last year there was net emigration of 59,000 people under the age of 24.

    Hansard source
15. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Youth Unemployment

    As we have seen so often in this debate, that is a tragedy. Every young person deserves the chance to move into the world of work. What we are seeing from those statistics is that this is not a blip, but a trend—and a trend that is moving in the wrong direction.

    Hansard source
16. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Youth Unemployment

    I certainly hope that we will hear a plan of action to tackle this alarming crisis, and a less selective grouping of statistics than we heard from the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson) when she opened the debate. This Government have made it more expensive, burdensome and risky for businesses to hire young people. That is not a view that I am expressing from a partisan point of view—[Interruption.] I will try to follow the example of the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) and not be partisan, by quoting from external organisations. The Federation of Small Businesses warns that many firms are now scaling back recruitment, with young workers the most exposed. The highly respected and neutral Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned of a worrying rise in unemployment among young workers, citing policy-driven increases in labour costs. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research has highlighted a cooling labour market with disproportionate effects on young people. How in their first 18 months have the Government managed to have such a terrible impact on our young people? First, there is the national insurance rise. The Institute of Directors has described the national insurance rise as a direct disincentive to hiring. Young people are the least experienced, the least established and the most vulnerable to cost cutting, and when it is made more expensive to hire, employers hire fewer people. It is not complicated. Secondly, we have Labour’s increase in the minimum wage. Since the 2024 general election, the cost of hiring a full-time minimum wage worker has risen sharply across every age group. For over-21s, the annual cost has increased by 15%, but for 18 to 20-year-olds, it has jumped by 26%, despite the fact that there is no employer national insurance to pay for that age group. For apprentices, it has risen by 25%. In fact, since Labour got into government, it now costs £4,000 more a year to hire an 18-year-old full time.

    Hansard source
17. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Youth Unemployment

    I am sad to see that the hon. Gentleman does not recognise that that young person will now be standing next to another young person who is unable to get a job. Surely he must agree that the level at which people are being paid has had an effect on the fact that there are fewer people in these jobs.

    Hansard source
18. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Youth Unemployment

    Government Members do not have to listen to me; they can listen to the Federation of Small Businesses, which said that those wage rises risk pricing young people out of the labour market. That is not me speaking; that is the Federation of Small Businesses, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree with it.

    Hansard source
19. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Youth Unemployment

    I have news that will perhaps come as a bit of a shock to the hon. Gentleman: it is his party that is in power, and it should be his Front Benchers and the Chancellor he should be having that conversation with. Labour market economists at the Resolution Foundation—not normally considered to be right-leaning, by the way—have noted that when minimum wages rise faster than productivity, employers tend to favour experienced workers, disadvantaging young applicants. The very people Labour claims to champion are the ones being priced out of the labour market. Thirdly, Labour’s business rates reforms have piled pressure on our high streets. As we have heard time and again in this debate, it is hospitality, retail and small firms that traditionally give young people their first job. Indeed, my first job was behind the bar at a now defunct pub; it taught me an enormous amount, and I was very grateful for the opportunity. The Confederation of British Industry has said that rising business rates “suppress investment and hiring”. When fixed costs for employers increase, their capacity to hire is reduced. Lastly, and perhaps most damaging of all, is Labour’s Employment Rights Act 2025, which introduces sweeping day one rights across the board. The Government’s own economic analysis of the Bill says: “higher labour costs could reduce demand for work, damaging the employment prospects of the same workers the package is trying to support…the risks are highest for workers with the weakest attachment to the labour market…and the youngest workers, since they are still gaining experience and skills.” This is not a partisan point—this is the Government’s impact assessment of their own legislation. According to the Youth Futures Foundation, “the risk profile of recruiting young people has increased”. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development reports that employers are already reducing recruitment plans, particularly for inexperienced workers, due to regulatory uncertainty.

    Hansard source
20. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Youth Unemployment

    My hon. Friend makes a good point. The third-party testimony I have been giving shows that for large firms, the legislation is a headache; for small firms, it is a deterrent to employing; and for young people in our country, it is a disaster. When employers are forced to choose between hiring an experienced worker or taking a chance on an 18-year-old with no track record, the Government have made that choice brutally simple. The result is fewer opportunities, fewer first jobs and a generation shut out before they have even begun working. The Labour Government’s policies are not pro-worker; they are anti-opportunity. They are killing youth employment with higher taxes, higher costs and higher risks for employers. Young people deserve better. They deserve a Government who understand how jobs are created, how businesses operate and how opportunity is built. They deserve a Government who will not price them out of the labour market. They deserve a Government who are prepared to reform the welfare system, so that they do not become trapped in welfare benefits dependency. The Conservatives will stand up for those young people. We will abolish business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure, benefiting 250,000 businesses and reviving our high streets. We will break Labour’s doom loop with our golden economic rule and save £47 billion. We will abolish stamp duty. We will introduce a £5,000 first jobs bonus, backing the next generation. We will repeal every job-destroying, anti-business, anti-growth measure in the Employment Rights Act. We will double apprenticeship funding by ending debt-trap university degrees. We will overhaul the sickness and disability benefits system. We will hold this Government to account, and we will fight for a jobs market that gives every young person the chance to succeed.

    Hansard source
21. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Claire Coutinho

    Topical Questions

    Nurses up and down the country, including the Darlington nurses and Jennifer Melle, are being hounded and harassed by the NHS simply for recognising that biological sex is real. I am grateful that the Minister has previously agreed to meet Jennifer and hope that she still will. The Minister takes up the cause of working-class women—these are working-class women, and they are being abused by people in positions of power—so will she go further by holding accountable those in the NHS, the Nursing and Midwifery Council and the unions who have harassed and victimised those hard-working nurses?

    Hansard source
22. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Claire Coutinho

    Topical Questions

    In the case of Gorton and Denton, we heard this week that the Muslim Vote has decided to endorse the Green party. This is overt sectarism in our midst, and we know that where we have sectarian politics, conflict and strife follow. Even one of Labour’s candidates at the last election was threatened with beheading, but nobody in the Labour party seems to be able to confront this problem. Will the Secretary of State call it out for what it is—sectarian politics that has no place in Britain?

    Hansard source
23. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    British Indian Ocean Territory

    That brings us to the Front Benchers. I call shadow Secretary of State James Cartlidge.

    Hansard source
24. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    British Indian Ocean Territory

    The hon. Member will know that it is entirely at the Minister’s discretion, as it would be for any other speaker, if he chooses to give way or not. It is not a matter for the Chair. I am sure the Minister has heard his comments.

    Hansard source
25. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    British Indian Ocean Territory

    I thank the right hon. Member for that point of order, which he will know full well is not a point of order.

    Hansard source
26. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    British Indian Ocean Territory

    I thank the hon. Member for his point of order and for having given notice of it. Mr Speaker has received no notice from Ministers that they intend to make a statement on this matter. Ministers on the Front Bench will, however, have heard the hon. Member’s point of order.

    Hansard source
27. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Youth Unemployment

    I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment tabled in the name of the Prime Minister.

    Hansard source
28. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Education Funding: Distribution

    Order. We must not refer to right hon. and hon. Members by name. Although the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern) was the Minister in post, we would still not refer to her by name.

    Hansard source
29. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Youth Unemployment

    The facts speak for themselves: the unemployment rate for those aged between 16 and 24 is 15.9%—that represents 700,000 people —and 946,000 young people aged between 16 and 24 are categorised as NEET. There has been an 11% drop in the number of job adverts in the 12 months between July 2024 and July 2025. Under this Labour Government, there has been a staggering 14.6% increase in the unemployment rate of those aged 16 to 17. When I go out and about in my constituency and talk to businesses—particularly small businesses in retail, hospitality and leisure, which are for many the first rung on the employment ladder—they make it known loud and clear that the Government’s tax rises, and rising energy costs and bureaucracy, are eroding not just their margins but their confidence. That is perhaps the most corrosive effect of all. Once those businesses are gone, the opportunities for young people to get on the first rung of the employment ladder are reduced. In listening to comments by Members from across the Chamber, I have been struck by what I consider to be the fundamental ideological difference between the two sides of the House—between my party and the Government—on the question of where wealth is created. Governments do not create wealth. They can play a role in catalysing the foundations of our prosperity, and it is right that they lean into that and create schemes where necessary, but at the core of this issue is the fact that empowering individuals and small businesses to take risks is what enables the economy to prosper. We see that time and again. It is noble that the Government want to intervene to support businesses in creating jobs, and to create routes for young people to develop their skills and enter the jobs of the future, but we are just not seeing enough hard action that acknowledges the reality of where wealth is generated.

    Hansard source
30. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Youth Unemployment

    The best welfare programme of all is a job; nothing else comes close, in terms of the earnings that people receive as recognition of and reward for their contribution, and the effect on their self-confidence. During this debate, we have not heard much, if anything, about incentives for people to take risks. Ultimately, every single business that employs people, whatever their ages, has been created by someone who has taken a risk because they have been empowered to put something on the line, be it capital or time. Every business, large or small, was started off by somebody taking a risk. Our economy is becoming increasingly risk-averse, and that is exacerbated by the pressure placed on businesses across the board, whether from rising employment costs, energy costs or bureaucracy. Many organisations that are experts in this field directly critique the Government’s policies. The Centre for Social Justice, the Institute of Directors, the British Chambers of Commerce and UK Hospitality all say that the choices made by the Government are having a detrimental and corrosive effect on the employment prospects of society as a whole, but particularly of young people. I urge the Government to focus less on work programmes, and to instead speak directly with those who take risks to employ people of all ages. The Government need to be less burdensome, to get off the backs of those who take risks, and to instead support them. When the Prime Minister gave his very first speech at 10 Downing Street following the election, he said that the Government would tread much more lightly on people’s lives. They are doing the opposite, and that needs to change.

    Hansard source
31. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Bob Blackman

    Engagements

    Q15.   I join the Deputy Prime Minister in commemorating Holocaust Memorial Day. Unbelievably, the organisation Palestine Pulse planned a protest outside Parliament today entitled, “Confront Power at Parliament: Anti-Zionist Rally”. The Jewish population of our country have had to put up with weekly protests in our towns and cities since 7 October 2023. Now we have protests outside Jewish businesses and restaurants, trying to close them down. The chants are antisemitic, the meaning behind them is antisemitic and we see where it leads: the massacre on Bondi Beach, what happened in the United States, and, unbelievably, two of our Jewish population murdered in Manchester. Lord Macdonald’s review will look at the issue, but the Jewish population of this country do not have two years to wait before this hatred is extinguished. Will the Deputy Prime Minister take concrete steps to ensure that antisemitism is driven out of our country?

    Hansard source
32. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    British Indian Ocean Territory

    Could the hon. Member clarify precisely how much of the cost of the Chagos islands deal will come from the Ministry of Defence budget?

    Hansard source
33. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    British Indian Ocean Territory

    So wrote the President of the United States only a week ago: “The UK giving away extremely important land is an act of GREAT STUPIDITY.” For once, he is not wrong. I have lost track of the number of times I have spoken about the Chagos deal in this House, but each time brings a new stick with which to beat the Government. It is genuinely difficult to see how the Government have got to this point, but their kamikaze negotiating tactics have led them to a situation where they can no longer even muster the collective energy of their Back Benchers to defend it. The dogged determination of the Government to capitulate to a 2019 advisory ruling by the International Court of Justice would be commendable, were it not so timid. The UN General Assembly adopted resolutions urging the UK to comply with the ICJ’s advisory opinion, but crucially, the US voted in support of the UK, clearly not fearing the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, of which it is not a member. As I am sure everybody here already knows, the United States’s support is significant because of the presence of the naval support facility, Diego Garcia. It is a strategically important location that is effectively a persistent aircraft carrier in the Indian ocean, critical for force projection in the southern hemisphere and across INDOPACOM—the United States Indo-Pacific Command. On Monday, the Minister of State responsible for the overseas territories, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth responsible (Stephen Doughty) was quick to imply that discussions regarding the deal with the United States were an almost daily occurrence. With that in mind, perhaps the Minister in his summing up could outline to the House what discussions the Government have had with their US counterparts regarding the limitations placed on operations by compliance with the Pelindaba treaty. This was the answer I received to a recent written question: “Both the UK and Mauritius are satisfied that our existing international obligations are fully compatible with the Agreement”, but what precisely does that exclude going forward? The African nuclear weapon-free zone treaty was signed by Mauritius in 1996 and prohibits myriad functions relating to nuclear weapons, including possession or control of nuclear weapons. There are obviously no intercontinental ballistic missiles based at Diego Garcia, but the US nuclear triad is designed to provide a second-strike capability that includes air-launched warheads. Naval support facility Diego Garcia is a strategic waypoint for the US air force bomber fleet, the B-1, B-2 and B-52 bombers. Following 9/11, the US used Diego Garcia for operations in Afghanistan, and subsequently during the start of the Iraq war. As recently as last May, the US air force had B-2 bombers stationed on the island. This is critical because the B-2 Spirit is the delivery method for the Mod 11 B61-12 thermonuclear gravity bomb, the primary weapon for the ground-penetrating mission. This capability matters, and while it will likely never be used, we cannot afford to let enemies in the region know that that will never be on the table. We should bear in mind that the Prime Minister is in China this week. Strategic posture across the Pacific, particularly in Taiwan and the second island chain, will surely come up in conversation. Ceding the Chagos islands to a country within China’s orbit is yet another strategic mis-step in the Prime Minister’s inability to deal with China robustly. On the ongoing issue of sovereignty, in note No. 25 between the ambassador of the United States of America and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, written on 30 December 1966, point (1) states very clearly: “The Territory shall remain under United Kingdom sovereignty.” This time last year, I asked the Government whether the 1966 exchange of notes would require amendment as a result of the change in sovereignty, and they answered: “The 1966 Exchange of Notes between the UK and US regarding the joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia has been subject to routine amendments and supplementation since signature. Any amendments resulting from the proposed agreement with Mauritius will be factored into this existing process.” Can the Minister outline what progress the Government have made? I asked that question on 5 February last year, and here we are, a year letter, with the treaty on the brink and no update from the Government, other than through a slightly churlish appearance from the Minister at the Dispatch Box in Monday’s urgent question. Crucially, the legislation was pulled from the other place that afternoon. Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have deflected, obfuscated, been dragged to the Chamber, given us the run-around on detail, gaslit us, and generally tried to force this deal through. The lack of speakers on the Government Benches is testament to the fact that Labour MPs simply do not want to put their name to this legislation. All it achieves is a weakening of our military options in the southern hemisphere, and the exemption of 80% of Mauritian workers from income tax. Kudos to Mauritian Prime Minister Navin Ramgoolam, clearly a savvier negotiator than our dear Prime Minister. “There is no doubt that China and Russia have noticed this act of total weakness”, said President Trump. Perhaps the Prime Minister could ask Xi Jinping about it before he offers him a state visit.

    Hansard source
34. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    British Indian Ocean Territory

    Could the Minister explain why the previous Labour Government entered into negotiations in 2009, when the first talks took place with the Mauritian Government, which were ultimately ruled out after being criticised for being a unilateral decision around the marine protected area?

    Hansard source
35. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Aphra Brandreth

    British Indian Ocean Territory

    Does my hon. Friend agree that British Chagossians will be given no say in how a trust fund is to be spent, and that it is simply wrong that they are being given no opportunity to have any personal say in the matters that will affect them and their futures?

    Hansard source
36. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Aphra Brandreth

    British Indian Ocean Territory

    On every level, this is a bad deal. From the absurdity of paying £34.7 billion for the privilege of ceding our own territory to the implications for defence, from putting at risk one of the most pristine marine environments in the world to the complete disregard shown to the British Chagossians themselves, there is so much I could focus my remarks on today, but I want to highlight two issues in particular: perception and national security. Perception matters in geopolitics. The messages we send, intentionally or otherwise, are read closely by our allies and by our adversaries. They carry very real consequences. I need not remind the Minister of the comments made by the President of the United States just last week. Those remarks materially change the context in which this House is considering the deal. The 1966 treaty between the UK and the US agreed to retain sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory. It is clear that any attempt to surrender sovereignty violates international law and I commend my Conservative colleagues in both Houses for delaying the Bill’s passage. But delay is not enough. The surrender Bill should be pulled in its entirety. The UK-US relationship is built on trust, particularly in defence and security. When the President states publicly that a deal will damage that relationship and should not proceed, that this deal is an “act of great stupidity”, the Government should listen and act. I am not suggesting that the United States sees the UK as an unreliable partner—we have stood shoulder to shoulder for decades—but this deal is different. If it proceeds, it will reduce the operability of UK and US forces in the region, diminish our strategic reach, and weaken our influence. Responsibility for that lies squarely with this Government. The Prime Minister is in China today. Beijing will also be watching closely. China will welcome any increase in autonomy in the region and, with it, the opportunity to decimate the marine protected areas surrounding the Chagos islands with its fishing fleet. We know that those vessels will not simply be there to fish. They will be there to gather intelligence, probe our defences and gain strategic advantage near Diego Garcia. The message this deal sends to our adversaries is clear: the UK is retreating, diminishing and weakening. That is not the message we should be sending in an increasingly hostile and unpredictable world. I want to make one brief point on national security, which I have raised in previous debates and on which we have heard from many Members today. Under the Pelindaba treaty, neither the UK nor the US will be able to store nuclear weapons on Diego Garcia. We now have confirmation of that from the Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius. That restriction significantly reduces our capability in a critical region, and weakens the security of both ourselves and our allies. Ultimately, the deal is not in the interests of the United Kingdom. It is not in the interests of protecting one of the most important marine environments on the planet, it is not in the interests of the British Chagossians, who have been ignored throughout this process, and it is certainly not in the interests of the British taxpayer. Those on the Labour Benches know that another U-turn is looming. The deal is indefensible. Today, Members have an opportunity to do the right thing, support this motion and bring this surrender deal to an end.

    Hansard source
37. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    Engagements

    May I start by echoing the Deputy Prime Minister’s comments about Holocaust Memorial Day? We must never forget. May I also associate the Opposition with the condolences expressed by the Deputy Prime Minister to the family of Captain Philip Gilbert Muldowney. I also offer the condolences of the House to the family of Lord Flight, one of my predecessors in Arundel and South Downs, who served in Parliament with distinction for more than two decades. After the Chancellor’s U-turn yesterday, can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that over 90% of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses will get nothing?

    Hansard source
38. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    Engagements

    The Deputy Prime Minister wants to talk about experience. I spent 25 years building businesses and creating jobs; he spent 25 years manufacturing grievance. If the Labour party knew anything about business, it would know that this is too little, too late. Our high streets—their high streets—are bleeding out, and the Chancellor is handing out—[Interruption.] Government Members do not want to hear this. Our high streets are bleeding out, and the Chancellor is handing out a box of sticking plasters. They cannot even U-turn properly. A senior adviser to Andy Burnham said yesterday: “The Chancellor just wants a cheap headline”. Meanwhile, our high streets are being decimated. He is right, isn’t he?

    Hansard source
39. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    Engagements

    You do not make young people better off by putting them out of work. The Deputy Prime Minister’s MPs are already banned from pubs. Where next? Shops, restaurants, hair salons—that might not make a difference to him or to me, but it would for many of them. They should back our plan to scrap business rates, but they have not got the backbone to cut welfare to pay for it. It is not just business rates; under Labour, the cost of hiring is up. Can he tell the House how much more it costs to hire a 21-year-old under Labour?

    Hansard source
40. 28 Jan 2026·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    Engagements

    Mr Speaker, you can feel the Deputy Prime Minister’s frustration. The Prime Minister is away, the Business Secretary is away, and here he is—left-behind Lammy, the designated survivor, having to defend the indefensible. It is very clear that he does not know the answer, so let me tell him. The cost will be up by £3,600 a year. Under Labour, businesses cannot afford to hire, and one in six young people cannot find a job. This Government are blocking people who just want to get on in life—ambitious people like Andy from Manchester, having his dreams crushed by Labour. Could the Deputy Prime Minister explain why unemployment has gone up almost every month that the Government have been in office?

    Hansard source