Youth Unemployment
Is that for this financial year?
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
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
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
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
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
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
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
Youth Unemployment
I give way to a Member from the governing party.
- Hansard source
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
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
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
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
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
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
British Indian Ocean Territory
That brings us to the Front Benchers. I call shadow Secretary of State James Cartlidge.
- Hansard source
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
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
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
Youth Unemployment
I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment tabled in the name of the Prime Minister.
- Hansard source
Youth Unemployment
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
- Hansard source
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
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
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
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
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
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
British Indian Ocean Territory
rose—
- Hansard source
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Engagements
The thing that the Deputy Prime Minister did not want to say is that every Labour Government leave office with unemployment higher than when they arrived. There is a reason for that: they do not understand what it takes to be an employer. They do not understand business. The Government are strangling business with their red tape, and they are about to make things infinitely worse. Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us his Government’s own estimate of the cost to business of the unemployment Act?
- Hansard source
Engagements
I do not know what is in the Deputy Prime Minister’s head; it is our party that is getting stronger. Overnight we learned that the former Deputy Prime Minister has got 80 names. On Sunday we learned that the Health Secretary’s allies claim he has got 200 names. Oddly, 50 Labour Members want the Mayor of Greater Manchester, who is not even an MP. They are supposed to be running the country. Once again, small businesses across this country will see that the Deputy Prime Minister did not answer the question, so I will tell him. The burden to businesses of the Government’s Bill is £1 billion a year. There we have it: they have no answers for small business, and there is no relief coming. They do not care about high streets, hotels, restaurants, farmers or young people. Will the Deputy Prime Minister not admit what the Members behind him are thinking: that it is not the Prime Minister going to China that is the problem; it is the fear that he might come back?
- Hansard source
Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill
Let me start by saying at the outset that—
- Hansard source
Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill
No, I am most definitely not defecting. In the spirit of being constructive, I will start by saying that the Opposition support the principle behind the Bill. Doctors trained in Britain and funded by the taxpayer should have a fair, clear and consistent route to progress in our NHS. Britain trains some of the best doctors in the world, yet too many are leaving—not because they want to, but because they cannot access the training places they need. That wastes talent, damages morale, and ultimately affects patient care. However, support in principle is not a blank cheque; the Bill must work in practice, not just look good in a headline. We should also be honest about why we are here. Much of what is in the Bill has been promised by the Government since their election in plans, reviews and ministerial statements, and the fact that it is only being brought forward now suggests that this is catching up, not leading. The first test is delivery. We cannot solve a shortage by changing the queue. Unless the Government deliver the 4,000 new specialist training places that they have promised, including the 1,000 places that are needed early, the Bill will not fix the bottlenecks; it will simply shift frustration from one group of doctors to another. That is why we are proposing constructive amendments to the Bill that we believe are workable and fair. The next test is clarity. The real impact of this Bill will be determined by the rules that sit beneath it—who qualifies, how experience is assessed, and how decisions can be challenged. We welcome the focus on foundation training; prioritising UK and Irish graduates for foundation training is sensible, as it strengthens the pipeline and improves workforce planning. However, it will only work if there are enough placements and the system is transparent. That is why amendment 8 would clarify that a UK foundation programme must mean a programme in which the majority of training takes place in the United Kingdom. That is a necessary safeguard against loopholes. Amendment 9 would ensure that from 2027, British citizens on UK foundation programmes are prioritised in a meaningful way. Prioritisation must apply not only at the final offer stage, but at interview, which is where selection decisions are often made. The amendment addresses many of the points that Labour Members have been raising, so I encourage them to support amendment 9 when we divide on it. We are also concerned about doctors serving overseas with the armed forces. I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State talk about them, since they certainly should not be penalised because part of their training takes place abroad on service. As such, amendment 10 would expand the definition of a UK medical graduate to include those undertaking placements as part of an armed forces posting outside of the British Isles. I hope the Secretary of State will consider accepting that amendment to give reassurance to our armed forces, which I know is something he cares about. These are practical changes that would improve fairness and operability, and we hope the Government will adopt them. We also support new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), which would make clear that once priority groups are established, training places should be allocated on merit. That allocation should be based on academic achievement and clinical performance, rather than a lottery or a computer-generated ranking divorced from real performance. Again, I hope the Government will seriously consider the new clause. When the Minister for Secondary Care sums up, will she put on record that merit will remain central to selection? Another issue that cannot be ignored is the impact on medical schools, especially those that rely on international students. New clause 3 would require an annual report to Parliament on the number of international students at UK medical schools and the financial consequences flowing from the Bill’s provisions. International students pay higher fees and help sustain our universities. If those numbers fall, what funding model would replace them? When she sums up, will the Minister for Secondary Care outline what assessment has been made of the impact on medical school finances? How many international places do the Government expect to fund in future, and on what basis? The Bill cannot stand in isolation. Workforce planning depends on more than allocating training posts; it requires enough trainers and clinical supervisors, viable rotas that support learning and facilities that make training possible. The revised NHS workforce plan must set out how those needs will be met, and how the extra training places will be staffed and supported. With NHS England set to be abolished in April 2027, we need to hear from the Government who will lead workforce planning and accountability thereafter. Our approach is straightforward. We will support measures that are fair and practical, that strengthen patient care and that respect staff. We will press the Government where we feel that proposals are rushed, underfunded or left vague. Backing doctors means giving them a route to progress and ensuring that the system is properly planned and properly resourced. I repeat that, in principle, we support the Bill. We want doctors trained in Britain to build their careers in the national health service. That brings me to enactment. As we have heard, the Government propose that the Bill should take effect when the Secretary of State decides, rather than on the date of Royal Assent. When he said that he wanted to introduce this Bill, and that it would be urgent, I said that we encourage that and support it. However, if this Bill is truly urgent, and if Ministers want it to affect this recruitment round, why would they not commence it immediately? The Secretary of State should not be playing politics with people’s jobs. It is not right for doctors, including those not involved in industrial action, to be treated as bargaining chips, and it is not right for Parliament to be treated in this way to give him the tools that he needs because he did the first set of negotiations so badly. Will the Government support amendment 1, so that the Bill takes effect on Royal Assent? Will they commit to enacting the Bill as quickly as possible? When does the Secretary of State intend to commence the Bill? If the Minister for Secondary Care cannot give the House a date today, what makes the Bill so urgent that it needs to be pushed through Parliament in a single day? Will the Government proceed with this legislation, even if no agreement is reached with the BMA? If industrial action is paused, will the Government still honour their commitment to prioritise UK medical graduates? Many doctors took industrial action because they felt that their career progression was blocked. This Bill could play a part in rebuilding that trust, but that will only happen if Ministers deliver, publish the detail and follow through. They must be straight with the House. If this Bill is urgent, it should commence on Royal Assent. If implementation takes time, the Government should publish a timetable and the steps required to deliver it. To do anything else, frankly, would be discourteous to Parliament.
- Hansard source
Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. I said right at the outset that we would be constructive, but we have heard from many who are anxious about their future and do not know what will happen. The sooner that we can give them that certainty, the better. That was the premise on which we offered to support the Bill. I am grateful to him for making that point. I am conscious that others want to speak, so I will end by saying this. Prioritisation without capacity will not fix the workforce crisis. Promises without delivery and headlines without planning will not retain the doctors whom our NHS needs. The Government must fund the extra places, set out the operational detail, and begin this reform without delay, because that was the premise that the Secretary of State identified. When he came to Parliament just a few weeks ago, he said that we needed to get on with this urgently, and that he would encourage business managers to provide the time. Well, if that is the case, let us get on with the job.
- Hansard source
Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026
Can the Minister explain why his impact assessment says opposite things on the same page? In respect of the £92 million direct net cost to business, on the one hand, it says: “our working assumption is that all costs are incurred to business, with no indirect impacts to households.” In the very next paragraph, it says: “we estimate that cost-pass through for most sectors could feasibly be at 80-90%”. Both those things cannot be true, can they?