Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
I do not wish to prolong the debate, and no doubt that will be seen, by most, as an apology.
5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Puberty Suppressants Trial
We are only at the start of this urgent question, so I ask Members to reduce the temperature in the Chamber.
- Hansard source
Puberty Suppressants Trial
Order. I ask colleagues to keep their questions short and the Secretary of State to keep his responses on point. I call Health and Social Care Committee member, Josh Fenton-Glynn.
- Hansard source
Puberty Suppressants Trial
Order. If hon. Members do not keep their questions short, I will not get everybody in. The answers need to be just as short.
- Hansard source
UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations
Order. We have less than 45 minutes for this statement, so questions must be short.
- Hansard source
UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations
Order. I have only 20 minutes remaining, so Members must keep their questions short and answers just as short.
- Hansard source
UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations
Order. A tip for other questioners: the question does not require a preamble.
- Hansard source
Engagements
I thank the Prime Minister for his words on antisemitism. What happened at Bondi Beach was an atrocity, but words of solidarity are not enough. We know the evil we face. Islamic extremism is a threat to western civilisation. It abuses our democracies and subverts our institutions. It is incompatible with British values. It is not enough just to protect Jewish communities—we must drive Islamic extremism out of this country. I would also like to send my best wishes to our armed forces, the emergency services and everyone who will be working over Christmas. I would like to take this opportunity to wish you, Mr Speaker, the House staff and all Members of this House, including the Prime Minister, a very merry Christmas. It is the Prime Minister’s second Christmas in Downing Street, and by his own admission he is not in control. He says that nothing happens when he pulls the levers. Does he blame himself or the levers?
- Hansard source
Engagements
I am not sure exactly what that had to do with the question. The fact is that the Prime Minister promised economic growth, but the only thing that has grown is his list of broken promises. He promised to reduce unemployment, but yesterday unemployment hit its highest level since the pandemic—it has gone up every single month since he came into office. Why is that?
- Hansard source
Engagements
I do not know what planet the Prime Minister is living on, but unemployment has gone up every single month under him, youth unemployment is at record levels, and graduate recruitment is at its lowest ever. He promised that he would not increase taxes on working people, but he has. Last year he increased national insurance and last month he froze income tax thresholds, so will the Prime Minister finally be honest and admit that he broke his promise on tax?
- Hansard source
Engagements
The Prime Minister is talking about non-entities. Has he looked at his Cabinet? They are a bunch of turkeys; they could fit right in at a Bernard Matthews factory. He is one to talk. Last week, his MPs were calling him a “caretaker Prime Minister”; after what he has done to the economy, they should be calling him the undertaker Prime Minister. Let us look at what else the Prime Minister has promised. He gave his word that he would help pubs, yet they face a 15% rise in business rates because of his Budget. Will he be honest and admit that his taxes are forcing pubs to close?
- Hansard source
Engagements
What pubs has the Prime Minister been speaking to? Labour Members have been barred from all of them! [Interruption.] I do not know why Labour Members are shaking their heads; it is not my fault that they have nowhere to drown their sorrows. Let us look at another broken promise. The Prime Minister promised to end the doctors’ strike. He gave the doctors a 28.9% pay rise. What did he get in return? This morning, they have gone back on strike for the third time, in the middle of winter—in the middle of the worst flu crisis in years. This should not be allowed. We already ban strikes by the police and the Army, so why does he not put patients first, show some backbone and ban doctors’ strikes?
- Hansard source
Engagements
Of course the Prime Minister is not going to ban doctors’ strikes; he does not have the baubles! [Interruption.] Labour Members can shake their heads all they like, but we all know who is running their party, and it is not him. The trade unions did not just buy him for Christmas; they bought him for life. This matters for all those people out there facing a difficult new year. The Prime Minister has lost control. It is not the levers that do not work; it is him. He is breaking every promise he has made. He promised to bring down unemployment—it is up. He promised that he would not increase taxes—they are up. He promised to end the doctors’ strike—they are on strike, again. He said that his main mission was economic growth, but the economy is shrinking. With a year like that, is it any surprise that all his MPs want for Christmas is a new leader?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am too experienced to try to displease you in any way. For clarity, I was responding to the fact that the hon. Gentleman had accused—[Interruption.] Pardon me. He had accused my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) of saying something that, as Hansard will prove conclusively in the morning, he clearly did not say. If the hon. Gentleman and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, feel that that word was inappropriate, I withdraw it. However, I still believe that the hon. Gentleman was wrong.
- Hansard source
Engagements
Q9. As the ghost of Christmas past scoops up the Prime Minister from his slumber in No. 10 this year, I wonder what he will show him on Christmas Eve. Maybe it will be the devastated family farmer putting up the “For Sale” sign in the yard, or the children hugging each other as their independent school closes, or any of the 100,000 hospitality workers who have lost their jobs, or the millions of families who are trying to work out how they will pay their tax bills to fund the ever growing welfare state. Is it any wonder that the ghost of Christmas future has given up on this Prime Minister, and all that is left is for him to get his bag of coal from Santa and his P45 from his own MPs?
- Hansard source
Points of Order
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In a written answer on 9 December 2025 to a parliamentary question that I had submitted, the Treasury stated explicitly that it had not opened any new inquiries into child benefit eligibility in the context of the serious errors in a trial of data sharing between the Home Office and the Treasury. However, I have recently seen correspondence between the press team at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and journalists that directly contradicts the answer given through the Table Office, with HMRC’s press office stating that the programme was not paused and that therefore new inquiries were continuing. As both things cannot be true at the same time, can you give me advice and guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how the official record can be urgently set straight?
- Hansard source
UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations
We on the Opposition side of the House recognise the importance of giving young people educational opportunities, but it is vital—[Interruption.] Government Members clearly do not recognise the need for schemes to offer genuine value for money. The UK already had the opportunity to remain a member of Erasmus, but it was precisely because the Conservative Government recognised that the scheme did not offer value for money to the taxpayer that we chose not to. That is why the Conservative Government created the Turing scheme instead—a global programme for young people in the UK that did not require us, one-sidedly, to hand a blank cheque to Brussels. The Turing scheme delivered 43,000 placements around the world last year, 23,000 of which were to learners from disadvantaged backgrounds, at a cost of just over £100 million. Can the Minister confirm that his statement in no way undermines the future of the Turing scheme? Is that scheme guaranteed, or are those opportunities being sacrificed for a smaller number of opportunities available under Erasmus+? The Minister has confirmed that the UK will pay £570 million to rejoin Erasmus+. We understand that will be paid from existing budgets, but can he tell us where the money is coming from? Is that £570 million being added to the £6 billion special educational needs and disabilities black hole that the Office for Budget Responsibility identified in the education budget? Does the Minister expect more students to take part in the new scheme than the 10,000 previous participants in Erasmus+, or are we paying £570 million for essentially 10,000 placements a year? The Minister spoke about a fair contribution being a 30% discount. Of course, it is only a matter of weeks since the Government were briefing that a fair contribution would be a 50% discount. They clearly failed in those negotiations. Can the Minister assure us that while he says that he has a discount for the first year, a discount will be available in subsequent years? If those assurances have not yet been received and the EU does not offer a similar deal in future years, is he prepared to walk away? The Opposition have set out clear tests to ensure that the Government do not roll back on Brexit, including no backsliding on free movement. Can the Minister outline what protections will be put in place to ensure that rejoining Erasmus does not simply mean a return to free movement by the back door for young people? That is particularly important given his complete failure, when asked multiple times, to set out what size of cap he thinks would be appropriate for youth mobility. Rejoining Erasmus is the Government’s latest attempt to undo Brexit by stealth. That was clear from the outset of these negotiations, when the Government agreed to surrender UK fishing rights to the EU for 12 years, under the pretence that that would “pave the way for the UK defence industry to participate in the EU’s proposed new…defence fund”. Yet six months later that deal has collapsed after the EU’s extortionate demands for billions of pounds to join the fund, with no guarantee of any return on investment in the form of procurement. Can the Minister explain to our hard-working fishing industry why they will not be getting their fish back, even though that deal has fallen through? The British people made a clear decision to take back control in 2016. Despite the Government’s protestations, their approach shows an increasing disregard for that democratic decision.
- Hansard source
Asylum Reforms: Protected Characteristics
Thank you, Dr Huq, for chairing this debate. As we approach the end of the calendar year, I would like to acknowledge the work of Members who have participated in today’s debate, and those across the House who scrutinise the Government’s proposals on immigration and asylum. In the main Chamber, Westminster Hall and the various Committees I have been part of, there have been numerous robust debates considering the Government’s proposals. That has included significant work to put pressure on the Government, for example to ensure that the settlement period for those on British national overseas visas is continued. I recognise those contributions because what has typically defined those debates is the question being examined today: what does it mean to have a migration and asylum system that is fair to both the British people and those who want to claim asylum in the UK? Members will find it unsurprising that the Opposition’s view of what is fair to the British people is very different from some of the arguments passionately put forward today. We need an asylum system that ensures consistent and fair treatment for all those who present claims, and for all those who wish to claim asylum in the UK. To focus on one protected characteristic that has been mentioned today, sexual orientation, data from the Home Office in 2024 showed that the 2023 grant rate for claims where sexual orientation was part of the claim was 62%, similar to the grant rate for non-LGB asylum claims in that period. I believe that the country rightly expects us to treat these people as individuals and to ensure that our asylum system works for everyone. That means we must take steps to make changes to our existing system so that it acts at speed and provides answers for all people, including those with protected characteristics. That matters because, after almost a year and a half of a Labour Government, we have seen small boat crossings up nearly 50% on the same period before the election, asylum cases at an all-time high, and increases in asylum accommodation. At last, the Government have decided to set out some detailed proposals to crack down on illegal immigration. It is a necessary step, but one taken only after the problems in our immigration system have become much worse. To respond to comments that these problems emerged during the last Government, let me be clear: the Leader of the Opposition has stated from the outset that we are not only learning from the mistakes that were made in the past, but putting forward a new approach. That recognises that far more needed to be done. To quantify the impact of those changes, we can observe the scale of the challenges that emanate from illegal migration. The number of small boat crossings since the election has been well over 60,000 people, and this year has already seen 40,000 cross. In addition, 110,051 people claimed asylum in the UK in the year ending September 2025, which was 13% more than in the previous year and 7% more than the previous peak of 103,081 in 2002. For context, between 2004 and 2020, there were between 22,000 and 46,000 people claiming asylum in the UK each year. Members may imply that we should be cautious about tying illegal migration to the challenges facing our asylum system; however, they are clearly linked. Government statistics show that claims from small boat arrivals were at a record high in the latest year, with more than half of asylum seekers in the latest year having arrived in the UK through irregular routes, which typically means those who arrived in the UK in small boats. Another 38% of asylum seekers had previously entered the UK on a visa or with other leave with relevant documentation. Therefore, we as an Opposition agree that there is a case for significant reforms. When reforms were put to the House, my colleague the Leader of the Opposition said that the Home Secretary “seems to get what many on the Labour Benches refuse to accept, and she is right to say that if we fail to deal with the crisis, we will draw more people to a path that starts with anger and ends in hatred.” The current system “is not fair on British citizens, it is not fair on those who come here legally”, and it is often not fair on the many people we are discussing today: “those in genuine need who are pushed to the back of the queue because the system is overwhelmed.”—[Official Report, 17 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 513.] That is why the Opposition have promised our support to the Government to get elements of the proposals passed. It is also why our own borders plan sets out systematic changes across our asylum system, which would apply a consistency, so that all individuals who cross the channel and those who are in the UK illegally will be removed at speed. In doing so, we will go back to the original principles that we signed up to in the 1951 refugee convention, so that the Home Secretary will grant refugee status only to those whose countries’ Governments are trying or threatening to kill, torture or persecute them for a reason set out in the convention. It would not, for instance, apply on the basis that the welfare state in a country is less generous than the UK’s. It is a tough plan, but one that I believe is truly fair to the British people and would still allow the UK to create a much more effective asylum system. If we could end the mass scale of illegal migration, we could look at implementing limited discretionary non-asylum humanitarian schemes such as the Ukraine scheme, which the last Government created. We have said clearly that any such scheme would prioritise women and children who are in genuine need. That would be in stark contrast to today’s data, where over 72% of asylum claims in the past year were submitted by men. That overrepresentation should be a clear sign that our asylum system is skewed in the wrong direction when it comes to protected characteristics, with many women and children being pushed aside. Ultimately, I think we can all recognise why people want to come to the UK. Our policies towards Ukraine and Hong Kong demonstrate how open and welcoming the UK can be to those under threat. I want our country to be able to demonstrate those values, but they must be accompanied by an end to illegal migration. The number of asylum applications are in excess of historic trends, and we should support changes that adapt our system to deal with the problems we continue to face. Although the Government have often said they will take no lectures from the Opposition, it is clear they have moved towards many of the ideas set out by our party and rejected by the Government during the passage of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025. As we move forward, the most positive impact the Government can make is to implement proposals that create changes to our asylum system as quickly as possible.
- Hansard source
Draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I recognise that any changes linked to animal testing will always be an emotive topic. Every effort must be made to prevent the unnecessary suffering of animals. The Minister will be well aware of the feelings expressed by many campaigners in advance of today’s debate, and of the strong views on the changes that the Government intend to implement. I welcome the fact that the number of scientific procedures in Great Britain involving living animals decreased between 2023 and 2024, and were at the lowest level since 2001. Under the last Conservative Government, through the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research, £90 million was invested in research, and a further £27 million was invested in contracts, through the “CRACK IT” challenges innovation scheme for UK and EU-based institutions. Furthermore, last year, the then Science Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), announced that UK Research and Innovation would double its investment in research to £20 million per annum in the fiscal year 2024-25 in order to achieve the 3Rs and develop non-animal alternatives. It is important that we acknowledge and take further steps to reduce the use of animals in research—this statutory instrument is inexorably linked to such procedures—but, as the Government noted in their recently published strategy, the use of animals is still needed in certain circumstances. Given the continued protests around those sites, and the importance of maintaining a world-leading life sciences sector, that undoubtedly poses difficult questions. Finding the right balance between respecting people’s right to express themselves freely and maintaining law and order is complex. As I am sure the Minister recognises, such decisions should never be taken without serious consideration. Although there was disagreement at the time—some continue to disagree—I believe that the Public Order Act 2023 has broadly struck a fair balance between those rights. It is therefore essential to ensure that any additions to section 7 of the Act remain proportionate and in line with the original intention of ensuring that key national infrastructure is protected. It is self-evident from this debate that the life sciences sector was not in scope of key national infrastructure provisions under the Act. In fact, I understand that the Minister, who was then in opposition, said in the Bill Committee of that Act that she and her colleagues had problems with the scope of the clause relating to such infrastructure on the basis that much of what was listed was already protected in law under existing police powers, and that there were loopholes and inconsistencies. Furthermore, although there is some explanation in the accompanying documents to the draft regulations, such as the assertion that the police believe powers under the Public Order Act 1986 and the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 are insufficient, it does not go into great detail on why those powers are unable to address the challenge identified by the Government. Accordingly, will the Minister explain what steps have been taken to use those powers in practice, and what analysis has been done of the differences that this legislation would make for the life sciences sector? Can she point to any examples of how specific protests may have been treated differently? The economic note estimates that there could be around 40 charges, but it also acknowledges that that figure is highly unpredictable, so can the Minister share any more in-depth analysis of the impact of the proposals? It also notes that, without such measures, the life sciences sector risks withdrawal—that is a significant risk. I would therefore appreciate an understanding of what the sector has said to the Government about the extent to which that could happen. Ultimately, the ability of businesses and organisations to go about their activities lawfully is essential in our society, and we must find an appropriate balance in protecting public order. As such, I would be grateful if the Minister set out any further detail.
- Hansard source
Draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025
When in opposition, the Labour party said that this stuff was already covered by the legislation. Now, Labour is saying that we need to extend that legislation. Are there any examples of protests that will be covered by this measure that are not covered by existing legislation?
- Hansard source
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill
I have to say that it is a joy to yet again be locking horns with the Pensions Minister on a topic that is important to us all: saving for our retirement. And it is important to note that there are many things that we agree on. We all acknowledge there is an impending issue with pension adequacy: when 50% of savers are projected to miss a retirement income target set by the 2005 Pensions Commission, we agree there is a problem that needs dealing with. We also all acknowledge that UK pension funds are not investing into the UK equity market to the extent that we would all want, although I would caveat that with a fundamental disagreement: on this side, we want to understand the problem; the Minister wants to tell fund managers what they should and should not be doing in terms of where their investment goes. But we also agree with the noble aim of delivering growth in the UK economy, even if the Government are making a little bit of a mess of delivering that aim— growth slowing, inflation up, unemployment up—but we hope they get the hang of it in due course. But that is why the Chancellor’s Budget is disappointing. For pensioners, she has flown kites about the tax-free lump sum, frozen the personal allowance threshold, and forced millions of pensioners to start paying income tax. Those are her choices. For savers, she has reduced the cash ISA limit to £12,000, scrapped the lifetime ISA for new investors, and increased tax on dividends and savings by two percentage points. Those are her choices. For hard-working people, this Government have reduced real household disposable income, pulled millions more people into paying the higher rate of income tax, and created perverse incentives that make some better off on benefits. These are her choices. So it is no wonder that this Budget has been dubbed the smorgasbord of misery. It has now got to the stage where our economy has never been taxed so much, and it will get worse. When coming into office, the tax take was 36.4% of GDP. By the time Labour leaves office in four years’ time, it will be 38.2%. It is worth looking at examples of how it is levied. For example, a basic rate taxpayer earning £100 will pay 20% tax, but they will also pay 12% national insurance—an actual tax rate of 32%. Add to that their employer’s contribution, and for a headline basic rate taxpayer on up to £50,000, for each £100 they earn, the taxman takes £47. For a higher rate taxpayer, the marginal rate goes to 57%. The taxman takes more than the employee. Given the hit to payrolls, both at the employee and employer level, it is no wonder that saving into a pension through salary sacrifice has become popular. Even the Government think it is a brilliant idea, using it for 10% of government employees. It is no wonder, therefore, that people use incentives such as salary sacrifice to make the most of their money, to do the right thing, to save a little bit more, to take responsibility for their futures, and to not rely on the state in their retirement. It is no surprise then that 7.7 million people take advantage of that. Here we are with something that is popular and that incentivises the right behaviour, and the Government say, “No, we don’t like it.” The Government’s proposal, which we are discussing today, is a tax on 3.3 million people and 290,000 employers—those in the highest levels of pay. How much are they being asked to contribute? How much are we going to whack savers? Some £4.48 billion. That is right—if you do the right thing, if you work and save, this Government will come after you. The Office for Budget Responsibility gets it. It realises—unlike, apparently, the Government—that this will change behaviour and so the tax take drops to £2.6 billion in the second year because people will change their behaviour. Even the Government lose out. The Government’s contradictions are legion. The financial inclusion strategy, published recently, stated very clearly: “Our aim is to create a culture in which everyone is supported to build a savings habit, building their financial resilience in the long term.” A brilliant idea. [Interruption.] Thumbs up from the Pensions Minister! But even after that very clear message, the Government reduced the cash ISA limit, scrapped lifetime ISAs for new investors, and introduced a 2% increase to dividend tax and, the icing on the cake, a £4.8 billion tax on pension savers.
- Hansard source
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill
Absolutely. The Government are really keen to get people to save for their futures and then they do everything they can to try to stop them doing that. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We are just going to kick another problem down the road. By the way, when the Minister talks about hip replacements and so on, it is savers’ money. It is just that they are taxing them less. At the same time as the Government look to improve pensions adequacy, they will be taking £4.8 billion from savers and employers. They identify a problem, say they will work to make it better, and then make it worse. Surely, when they were writing the Budget—I know the Pensions Minister has been a significant penholder in that process—they must have seen the extraordinary contradictions in their proposals? The House would expect me to bang on about this—I am the shadow Minister and that is my job—but let us listen to the verdict from a few experts about the policy we are debating today. Pensions UK stated: “Any change to salary sacrifice would inject uncertainty into a system that needs long-term trust, not sudden shocks…Introducing a cap would weaken incentives to save when we are facing a generation retiring with inadequate retirement savings.” The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales stated: “This cap will make it more complex for employers to offer a simple and flexible solution for retirement savings.” The Institute and Faculty of Actuaries stated: “The decision to impose a £2,000 limit…will undermine current efforts to improve retirement outcomes for individuals. In doing so, the act of saving into a pension will now be more expensive, more complex and less attractive to both employees and employers.” Evelyn Partners stated: “Restricting this sensible tax benefit that makes private sector saving more attractive adds insult to injury in a two-tier pension system”. PwC stated: “In a bid to bolster the public purse…Budget risks reducing employees’ take-home pay while placing additional pressure on businesses through rising employment costs”. Hargreaves Lansdown stated: “Restricting salary sacrifice on pension contribution could cause long-term damage to people’s retirement prospects. We could see employees less likely to increase pension contributions beyond auto-enrolment minimums”. The Society of Pension Professionals—it goes on and on. Are the Government proud of this rousing endorsement by the industry? It is absurd. When I was quizzing the Minister about this last week at oral questions—he will remember it well—he proudly held up the report that was commissioned under the previous Government—
- Hansard source
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill
Indeed—our report, though it was published in May this year. It is a weighty tome. Even its title is pretty dry: “Understanding the attitudes and behaviours of employers towards salary sacrifice for pensions”. The Minister proudly told us that this document underscored the rationale for—[Interruption.] Oh—because it is important stuff. He told us that it underscored the rationale for capping salary sacrifice. However, having read the report, I can tell the House that it actually concludes that: “All the hypothetical scenarios explored in this research”, including the £2,000 cap, “were viewed negatively” by those interviewed. The changes would cause confusion, reduce benefits to employees and disincentivise pension savings. The report the Minister is using tells him not to do this. The report also goes into why salary sacrifice for pensions is used by employers in addition to the incentive of paying into a pension, stating that extra benefits include: savings for employees, so that they have more to spend on essentials, tackling the cost of living crisis; savings for employers, which they can then invest back into their business and staff; and incentives for recruitment and retention. These are all good things—this is the stuff of delivering growth and the basis of creating a savings and investment culture. Why would this Government want to take it away? The report came to the conclusion that of the three proposed options for change, the £2,000 cap is no more than the least terrible option. [Interruption.] The Minister talks about it being a secret plan—it is a published document. What is he talking about? It is the most extraordinary thing. He refers to it in terms that none of us recognises. But he has brought this in—this is the point. Is the Minister chuffed that his choice comes down to the least worst option for everyone? Here is the truth: it was the Chancellor’s choice to introduce this policy, and this Government are the ones implementing it—they are the ones who are in government. Let us get to the measures and the impact of the Bill. To be fair, it is a very even Bill; there is something in it for everybody to hate. Take middle-income earners, who are typically in their 30s, and who earn on average a touch under £42,000 a year. This is the target area where the attack on savings starts. This is right at the point in life where people should be doing their very best for their future retirement. It is a perfect target market for the Government’s savings ambitions. However, it does not stop there. In total, at least 3.3 million savers will be affected, which is 44% of all people who use salary sacrifice for their pension. These are all people who work hard—people on whom the Chancellor promised not to raise taxes. In fact, middle-income employees will be affected more than higher earners. According to the Financial Times, under the Bill, an employee who earns £50,000 and sacrifices 5% of that will pay the same amount in national insurance contributions as an employee on £80,000. If the contribution rate is doubled to 10% of their salary, the disparity grows even further, meaning that an employee earning £50,000 will pay the same amount in national insurance contributions as an employee on £140,000. How is that fair? The Government keep telling us that this policy will affect top earners, but the reality is that those on middle incomes will be disproportionately hit—the very people we should be encouraging to save more. The Bill will also potentially hit low earners. Somebody who is lucky enough to get a Christmas bonus will not be able to add it to their salary sacrifice, taking advantage of any headroom, because the accounting looks at regular payments, not one-offs. [Interruption.] I am slightly worried, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the pairing Whip has a rather bad cough; I hope he gets better. This will potentially hit the 75% of basic rate taxpayers the cap supposedly protects. Finally, the Bill hits employers. In the previous Budget, the Government absolutely hammered business. They increased employer national insurance contributions to 15% and, at the same time, reduced the starting threshold to £5,000. Businesses reacted and adapted. They were reassured by the Chancellor’s promise that she would not come back for more, yet here we are discussing further tax rises on businesses. Let us look at the actual impact this raid on pensions will have on employers. According to the Government’s own impact assessment, it will hit 290,000 employers. A business highlighted in the 2025 report that “If salary sacrifice were to go away, it would be additional cost of £600,000 to £700,000 per annum to the company in national insurance”. While the Government are not abolishing it altogether, 44% of people currently using salary sacrifice—[Interruption.] I am worried; the pairing Whip is coughing. Anyway, there is going to be a cost, and that money will be taken away from businesses. This is going to be—[Interruption.] The Minister is chuntering from a sedentary position; he is obviously proud of what he is doing to the pensions industry. Furthermore, the change will create administrative burdens for employers. With the current system, there are few administrative issues; the only thing that businesses have to bear in mind is ensuring that their employees’ pay does not fall below the national living wage—that is it. So what do the Government do? They go for the most complicated option that the report considered. That was explicitly stated by those involved in the research. As a pensions administration manager for a large manufacturing employer said, “We’d have to reconfigure all our payroll systems and all our documentation. It would be a big job.” The National Audit Office estimates that the annual cost on business just to comply with this Government’s tax system is £15.4 billion, yet the Government feel that the time is right to put more costs on businesses. I have to ask, what happened to the Chancellor’s pledge to cut red tape by a quarter? I think I will move on to my conclusion in order to save people. [Laughter.] There was some great stuff in this speech, but I understand that people want to get away and wrap their Christmas stockings—particularly the Pensions Minister who, like the Grinch, is taking a lot of money away. To conclude, the Government should think again on this policy. People are simply not saving enough for their retirement. We need to do more to encourage them to save for their retirement. I know that the Minister would agree with that, so I hope that he hears the genuine concerns I have raised on behalf of a lot of people. Many people and businesses and are very worried about this policy, and he needs to take it away and think carefully about it. Fundamentally, we are taking away something that is beneficial to the individual while also being tax efficient for business. Instead of encouraging the creation of incentives such as salary sacrifice or pensions, we are reducing the number. It is the wrong policy, and it sends the wrong message at the wrong time. All it does is add to the ongoing narrative that, “If you work hard to make a decent income, you will lose out. If you work hard as an employer to grow your business, you will lose out. If you try to save towards dignity and retirement, you will lose out.” It is the wrong policy to pursue and we will definitely vote against it tonight.
- Hansard source
Digital ID System
Last night in the Strangers Bar, I bumped into a very influential Labour Back Bencher who told me with great authority that digital ID simply is not going to happen. That is good news, of course, because it is going to 1.8 billion quid we have not got, and it is deeply unpopular in the country. Why does the Secretary of State not give us all an early Christmas present and simply announce that she is ditching the policy today?
- Hansard source
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill
The Minister seems to have co-opted the amount of money spent on the Royal Air Force into his argument. Is he aware that absent the defence investment plan—it was promised in the autumn, and the House rises tomorrow—we have no idea about the size, shape and cost of the Royal Air Force, because the Government are late with their homework?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
Ministers are making very big claims about the pharmaceuticals deal with America, to make up for the billions lost in life sciences investment under Labour. Life sciences firms are telling me that unless the Government reveal what is actually in the deal, those claims are completely hollow. Can the Secretary of State reveal—she could not tell us this two weeks ago—how much the deal is costing the NHS and when she will publish the full legal text, so that we know the details of what the most favoured nation mitigations actually are?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
If we are making Christmas jokes, I think this deal is all tinsel and no tree. The problem is that Labour trumpets about these deals and is then completely sketchy about what has actually been agreed—just like the US-UK tech deal: we now find out from President Trump that he has put that deal on ice. Can the Secretary of State confirm that, despite all the golden carriage action in September and the Prime Minister honking on about his negotiating skills, the Prime Minister has actually nailed down none of the key details on pharma, no zero-tariff pact on steel and no deal on tech?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
Will the Secretary confirm whether the remedial order will have to be voted on in the other place?
- Hansard source
INEOS Chemicals: Grangemouth
It would be churlish of Opposition Members not to recognise the importance of these 500 jobs or welcome their being saved, as it would for Government Members not to acknowledge that we are seeing a sort of self-licking ice cream here—a self-perpetuating system whereby the Government have to intervene in industries that are being damaged by their own policies. Industry that is hanging on by the skin of its teeth will not take well to the news of cheaper energy prices in due course—years down the line—because it is almost at the edge of going out of business. Instead of measuring ourselves against expensive Italy and France, should we not be looking at the much cheaper prices in the United States and China?
- Hansard source
Membership-based Charity Organisations
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. It is also a pleasure to take part in this important debate on Government support for membership-based charity organisation. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) for securing such an important debate and for her opening remarks. It was apparent on hearing my hon. Friend speak just how important some of our national treasures are, what it is to be British, and how those treasures are entrusted to—and very often in the care of—membership-based charities. As someone who used to work for a charity for six years before entering this place, I know the amazing work they do in all aspects of life. Many charities, particularly those in the cultural and heritage sectors, continue to be some of the largest membership-based organisations in the UK. Museums, galleries and libraries also contributed over £1.1 billion in gross value added to the UK economy in 2023 and employed nearly 100,000 people in 2024, while civil society contributed £18.5 billion and employed nearly 1 million people. However, many membership-based charities are now facing growing financial challenges because of impending regulatory changes, the knock-on effect of Government cuts to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s budget and the continued effect of Labour’s increases to employer’s national insurance contributions. One of the most immediate challenges facing membership-based charity organisations is the impending changes to subscription contracts as a result of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—as we have heard—and the Government’s failure so far to close a loophole that was identified when that Act was taken through Parliament. The introduction of a 14-day cooling-off period jeopardises the future value of membership as a sustainable income as it will create a loophole allowing people to gain access to venues, exhibitions or creative content and then cancel their membership after enjoying all the benefits within the first 14 days. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport articulated that problem perfectly. Those cancelled memberships also mean that charities will lose their ability to claim gift aid on membership income. As I said, that problem was identified when the Act was going through Parliament and the last Conservative Government committed to solve it by introducing regulations to close that loophole. Multiple times throughout the year, Ministers in the current Government have announced their intention to amend Gift Aid rules to ensure that charities can continue to claim it on membership subscriptions after the DMCCA comes into force. However, it is disappointing that legislation to that effect is still yet to materialise a year and a half after the change of Government. Can the Minister therefore confirm whether new legislation will in fact be necessary? If so, when we can expect to see it? In July, some of the UK’s most prominent charities and cultural organisations, including the National Trust, the Tate, the Victoria and Albert Museum, Historic Royal Palaces, the Royal Horticultural Society, the Royal British Legion and the Wildlife Trusts, wrote to the Prime Minister to highlight the impact of the problem on their valuable work. Has the Prime Minister replied to the letter, and what action have the Government outlined to remedy the issue? Although the Government have consulted on the implementation of the new subscription contracts regime, the consultation closed almost a year ago and those who contributed are still waiting for a response. The uncertainty for charities and cultural organisations, which need to set their budgets and make plans for next year and beyond, is having a chilling effect on some of the most cherished organisations in our country. Can the Minister therefore confirm whether the Government intend to waive the cooling-off period for cancelling a subscription for membership-based charities? When will they introduce legislation to do that if they consider it necessary? Shortly before the Chancellor’s jobs tax took effect—which the National Council for Voluntary Organisations warned would cost charities £1.4 billion—we in the Opposition warned about the crushing effect of these new taxes. It is disappointing that the Government chose to press on with them, which has forced charities to reduce their staff numbers and scale back their services. Ministers have so far declined to outline what assessment, if any, the Government have made of the effect of their tax increases insofar as they affect the charity sector. I urge the Minister to use this opportunity to provide much-needed and long-overdue certainty for membership-based charities on how the Government will support them and ensure they are not taken advantage of as a result of the new subscription rules. I endorse all the questions put to the Minister by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport.
- Hansard source
Puberty Suppressants Trial
The Secretary of State said earlier that there is an extremely high bar for him stepping in and stopping these tests using puberty blockers. What bar could be higher than a Government protecting children from being tested on with drugs specifically to stop or alter their sexual development? There is not a unified clinical view on this. It is his choice; he is the Secretary of State. These tests are on him.
- Hansard source
Digital ID System
12. What discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on the potential impact of a nationwide digital ID system on levels of digital exclusion.
- Hansard source
Digital ID System
The parliamentary petition against digital ID has been signed by more than 3 million people, including many in my Gordon and Buchan constituency. It is the fourth most signed petition in history. Why does the Minister think digital ID is so unpopular?
- Hansard source
INEOS Chemicals: Grangemouth
First, like everyone else, I welcome 500 jobs having been secured, but 500 jobs a fortnight are being lost from the oil and gas sector because of this Government’s policies. The Minister has spoken about the supply chain, but those jobs and skills in the supply chain are being lost and will not be there for the transition because of the energy profits levy. The Government have defined what a windfall is. There are no longer windfall prices or windfall profits, but there is still a windfall tax. When will the Government get rid of the windfall tax to protect the supply chain, the oil and gas sector and our vital industries?
- Hansard source
Housing Development: Cumulative Impacts
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), my constituency neighbour, for securing this debate. Housing and planning are among the issues I hear about most from my constituents across Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages. I do not hear about it in the abstract or as a theory, but in the very practical terms of pressure on schools, GP surgeries, roads and the character of their towns and villages. As my right hon. Friend said, this debate is not really about whether we need more homes. Of course we do; it is about where, how and at what cost. Targets that ignore local reality do not solve the housing problem; they export it. In my constituency, which spans East Hampshire and Waverley councils, housing targets have more than doubled under the Government’s planning framework. Councils are left with a stark choice: rewrite their local plans at speed or have them overridden by the system. In East Hampshire, the annual requirement has jumped from around 570 homes a year to well over 1,100. In Waverley, it has risen from over 700 to nearly 1,500 homes a year. That is not gentle growth; it is a near doubling of development in a predominantly rural or semi-rural area. The consequences are entirely predictable. Schools are already full. GP practices are struggling to recruit. Hospitals are under strain. Roads designed for villages and market towns are now expected to function like urban arteries. Yet the infrastructure is simply not there. We are being asked to build the homes first and hope that the roads, schools and GP surgeries turn up later. What makes matters worse is the sheer imbalance in where this pressure is being applied, as has already been mentioned in this debate. In London, housing targets have been significantly reduced, in some cases by around half, despite London facing the greatest housing demand in the country. Cities are best placed to absorb growth—higher density, established public transport, major hospitals and universities, and the ability to scale infrastructure alongside development. By contrast, market towns and rural districts are being told to carry a disproportionate burden. That does not fix the problem; it just shifts it on to communities that are least able to cope. Take East Hampshire. Around 57% of the district lies within the South Downs national park, which means the remaining land outside the park is absorbing an ever-greater concentration of development. Places like Liphook in my constituency are being stretched to breaking point, and even towns that are ripe for development, such as Whitehill and Bordon, are under pressure because housing development is accelerating faster than services can keep up. Protected countryside on one side, relentless development on the other—that is not planning; it is pressure cooking our communities. If we are serious about meeting housing need, targets must be fair, realistic and aligned with local capacity. Growth should go where infrastructure already exists, not where it is weakest. There is also a serious issue of public confidence. Where councils cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, the Planning Inspectorate almost invariably sides with the developers, regardless of the strength of local objection. In those circumstances, residents rely on their local authority to defend them robustly. I was deeply concerned when a controversial development in Haslemere was approved on appeal, despite well-documented objections and its location within the Surrey hills national landscape. What compounded that concern was the response of the Liberal Democrat leadership of Waverley borough council, which wrote to residents telling them to “move on” before all reasonable avenues to challenge the decision had been explored. That is simply unacceptable. When residents are fighting for their community, “move on” is not leadership; it is surrender. Labour’s new targets risk collapsing trust in the planning system, rather than restoring it. Councils that claim to stand up for local people must actually do so when it matters. We will not build the homes we need by riding roughshod over communities, overwhelming infrastructure and eroding faith in our local democracy. We need a planning system that is credible, balanced and rooted in reality—one that builds homes in the right places and at the right pace, with the infrastructure alongside them. If we fail to do that, we will not just fail to meet the housing need, we will leave communities paying the price for decades to come.
- Hansard source
Local Government Finance
The Minister said in her statement that she did not want to look the other way, but in reality this Government are looking the other way when it comes to rural communities. I listened carefully to the answers she gave to my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), but the fact is that, with the exception of adult social care, rurality has been taken out of formula decisions. Can she come to the Dispatch Box and say how areas such as Buckinghamshire, which I am lucky enough to represent, are going to be properly funded, given our rural nature?
- Hansard source
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill
It strikes me that it should not be particularly controversial that a Government should be encouraging people to save for their retirement, to take responsibility for their future and to feel secure in later life. Therefore, although we are dealing with a short Bill that appears to be purely procedural in nature, its practical consequences are profound, because it takes us in precisely the wrong direction. Beneath the layer of technical language lies a troubling choice. It is a choice to tax aspiration, penalise prudence and chip away at the very habits that ensure financial security in our later years. The Government have sought to assure us that this only affects high earners and that most will not be affected, but that is not how it will feel to the majority of people in the real world. One in five people—approximately 20%—rely on salary sacrifice. Those are people who are doing the right thing; they are choosing long-term security over short-term consumption. Yet under the Bill, to save means to pay more. That is not positive pension reform; it is a stealth national insurance rise, dressed up in the cloak of technicality. At a time when businesses are struggling under huge wage bills, regulatory uncertainty and sluggish growth, the Bill quietly imposes on them yet another burden. I remind Government Members that fairness cuts both ways. It is not fair to tell people to save for their future and then tax them more for doing so, it is not fair to talk of fiscal responsibility when penalising prudence, and it is not fair to build long-term public finances on short-term revenue grabs. There is a moral component to this, because women will be disproportionately affected. Many women, on returning from maternity leave, increase their contributions to cover for that career break. The proposals as drafted will result in those who plan responsibly being encumbered with higher additional national insurance charges.
- Hansard source
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill
The Minister is right that people should be putting into their pensions and we should encourage them to do so, but we should not put forward legislation that disincentivises that. In respect of women, it is a fact that they are more likely to take career breaks and, by virtue of that, they may want to make up their contributions. This legislation will disadvantage those individuals. The salary sacrifice scheme has become the bedrock of the modern pension system in the workplace. By decreasing gross pay, it decreases employer national insurance contributions and allows firms to invest more in their people. That is a positive step. My fear is that, as a consequence of this piece of legislation, many employers may scale back those contributions, cut other benefits associated with work or even discontinue schemes entirely. If we want a country that values responsibility and rewards work, and in which people make long-term plans for their economic security, I am afraid that the Bill takes us in entirely the wrong direction.
- Hansard source
Puberty Suppressants Trial
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on the pathways puberty blockers trial.
- Hansard source
Puberty Suppressants Trial
I must first declare my interest as a consultant paediatrician who has looked after children with gender dysphoria in the past and is likely to do so in the future. We must remember that we are talking about vulnerable children. The first and most obvious question is: why? Why have this Government chosen to fund experiments with puberty blockers on physically healthy children? Despite saying he was comfortable with this trial in a briefing to MPs, the Secretary of State told the media on Friday and the Select Committee this morning that he is in fact uncomfortable with it. Why is it even being considered before the data linkage study is complete? Some 9,000 children went through the Tavistock clinic, and many of them came out regretting being encouraged to irreversibly damage their bodies. We should look carefully at those outcomes before we make the same mistakes. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to secure the data from the Tavistock and have it analysed? What steps is he taking to hold to account those obstructing access to data linkage information? What assessment has he made of the motivations of those obstructing that data, when this is a study to safeguard children? And what of the trial itself? We know that 226 children will go through this trial. Is that a limit or a target? Those children will be randomised to get puberty blockers now or in a year’s time, and all will be analysed at two years. They will still be children. They might be only 11 years old. How can the results demonstrate a meaningful outcome? The control group is not properly randomised, but chosen from the Horizon intensive trial group. Is the Secretary of State concerned that this will introduce bias? The criteria for getting puberty blockers in this trial require just one parent to consent and the clinician to think that it will benefit the child, but on what basis will the clinician decide? The Cass review said that the vast majority of children with gender dysphoria would recover, with only a few persisting with trans identities into adulthood. It is not possible to predict which those children will be, so does the Secretary of State accept that the vast majority of children in this, his Streeting trial, who will be given drugs will be physically healthy children whose distress would get better without any puberty blockers, and that the vast majority of the children in this trial are therefore being unnecessarily experimented on with risky medications under his leadership?