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

1. 15 Dec 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

   Women Veterans

   My constituent Katie has served in the RAF for 25 years. In preparation for her return to civilian life, she secured an MOD rentals tenancy to provide housing stability before she receives her pension next year and can buy a house of her own. At short notice, that tenancy was withdrawn, leaving her and her family facing potential homelessness, in clear violation of the armed forces covenant. Despite repeated appeals and over 28 days of silence from the Ministry of Defence, no resolution has yet been offered. Will the Minister please review this case urgently and the letter I sent to Ministers on 5 December to ensure that female veterans like Katie are properly supported during their transition back to civilian life?

   Hansard source
2. 15 Dec 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

   Employment Rights Bill

   I am extremely grateful. My hon. Friend is setting out a powerful case. We are puzzled, because a system designed for ordinary workers that has a sensible cap is now being opened up to the very CEOs who, as has been highlighted, would not have previously used it. We have a Labour party in hock to the unions yet strangely proposing a measure that was not included their manifesto which can only help the rich. What happened to the Labour party?

   Hansard source
3. 15 Dec 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

   Employment Rights Bill

   We did not hear it from the Minister, so could the hon. Member please explain the case for removing the cap?

   Hansard source
4. 15 Dec 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

   Employment Rights Bill

   On that very point, does the hon. Member believe that it is totally pragmatic to have disregarded her objections to the removal of the cap in return for additional places for the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords?

   Hansard source
5. 15 Dec 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

   Employment Rights Bill

   Labour colleagues shake their heads as my hon. Friend lays out the blindingly obvious. That goes to show why introducing a measure at the last minute during ping-pong is inappropriate and precisely why the House of Lords is right to say that we must consider this fully. It is quite obvious that Labour Members do not want to understand it; they obviously do not understand the implications.

   Hansard source
6. 15 Dec 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

   Employment Rights Bill

   Has the Minister conducted an impact assessment? If so, how much does she think this change will cost? How many uncapped awards will be made? These are the kinds of big, important decisions that the other place has concerns about, as do Conservative Members. If she has that evidence, she could put this to bed tonight by simply providing it to us so that we can make an informed decision.

   Hansard source
7. 15 Dec 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

   Employment Rights Bill

   I am conscious that we are debating a particular point. Is the hon. Member voting for or against the cap? That is the essence of what we are looking at today.

   Hansard source
8. 15 Dec 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

   Employment Rights Bill

   I was listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but he tailed off when he was talking about a problem, and it did not quite go through. I think that he was talking about the fact that there would be a delay because of the consultation. In 1999 and 2015 there were consultations on the very issue of a cap. Why have the Government not done that?

   Hansard source
9. 15 Dec 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2025

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the purpose of this statutory instrument. Having reviewed it, the Opposition will not be opposing the instrument this evening. Each amendment is limited in scope and responds to specific gaps that have been clearly identified. One of the clearest areas where that is the case is the provision for self-employed individuals and those employed directly by private individuals. As the explanatory memorandum explains, the final report of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse recommended enabling self-employed people working in sensitive roles with children to obtain checks against the DBS children’s barred list. I understand that the Government’s subsequent progress update confirmed that, by the end of 2025, self-employed people and those employed by private individuals will be able to access high-level DBS checks. We fully recognise the importance of those recommendations, and I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed whether they are still on track for that. Forgive me if those checks have already been made available, but if they have not, are we on track for the end of the year? At present, an individual carrying out a role within an organisation can be subject to the appropriate enhanced or barred list check, while a self-employed person doing identical work cannot. That inconsistency is neither sensible nor safe. It is also worth recognising that this direction of travel is not new; the previous Conservative Government accepted the principle of the IICSA recommendations and began the process of reviewing the supervision exemption and considering widening access to barred list checks. The changes relating to electronic monitoring contractors are justified and a proportionate response to risk. Staff working with monitoring technology occupy positions of trust, and allowing fuller disclosure checks will help to reassure the public that the system is robust and that those carrying out that important work meet the necessary standards of integrity. Likewise, enabling the Department for Work and Pensions and its contractors to require disclosure of spent convictions for registered healthcare professionals reflects the sensitive nature of the work that those professionals undertake. They are individuals who assess vulnerable claimants, often with access to personal and medical information; it is appropriate that they are subject to the same safeguarding standards expected in the NHS and other comparable roles. Taken together, these changes strike the right balance between supporting rehabilitation and ensuring public protection. They are targeted, proportionate and consistent with public expectations and existing safeguarding frameworks. My questions for the Minister are about the implications for the volume of checks that we might expect as a result of more people being suitable for them, and whether he can update us with important contextual information. In my local area, for example, some people experience significant delays and sometimes wait so long for checks to be completed that job offers fall through. We support these changes, but while they might be well intended and sensible, the Minister is introducing yet more checks into the system, so it is important that he outlines whether there are any issues in the current system—which I think there are—with people getting checks. If he is introducing more, he needs to keep them on a tighter rein. I know that the process is devolved to each local police force, but it would be good if the Minister gave an overview of how well he thinks it is currently performing.

   Hansard source
10. 15 Dec 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2025

    Will the Minister write to me, in conjunction with the Home Office colleagues, with an overview of where he thinks performance is across the different areas?

    Hansard source
11. 15 Dec 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Jimmy Lai Conviction

    I, too, pay tribute to the bravery of Jimmy Lai and his family. The reality is that we are engaged in a battle over what form of state will dominate in the coming decades: states like ours that try, imperfectly, to balance the rights of individuals and the state, or authoritarian regimes such as China, which want unfettered state power. Those sorts of regimes respond to strength. The Foreign Secretary has talked about how we feel and said that the Government feel upset and angry, but those sorts of regimes respond to strength. Given that, does she agree with me that it would be a disastrous decision to allow the super-embassy to go ahead?

    Hansard source
12. 15 Dec 2025·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Defence Spending: Economic Growth

    Most of our allies and our industrial competitors have a system of offsetting to support their domestic defence capability, economy and jobs, and traditionally this country has had global by default. When will we see the detail in the defence industrial strategy that states that the Government intend to bring forward a programme of offsetting to match our competitors?

    Hansard source
13. 15 Dec 2025·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    NHS: Winter Preparedness

    Will the Health Secretary ensure we have clarity on advice regarding the use of face masks, particularly where they are mandated? He will be aware that conflicting advice is issued by various agencies, which confuses people and reduces confidence. Will he ensure that advice is rigorously evidence-based?

    Hansard source
14. 15 Dec 2025·Parliament·David Simmonds

    Employment Rights Bill

    We are addressing the specific issue of the removal of a limit on the cap. Of course, while this will have a big impact on businesses, it will also have a huge impact on our public sector. Large organisations that employ significant numbers of high-paid professionals, such as the NHS, will see their insurance costs driven up significantly by this measure, so it is all the more surprising that no consultation or impact assessment is before the House when we are asked to make the decision this evening. We must reflect on the real-world impact of this measure, alongside the package of measures in a Bill that worthily deserves to be scrapped in its entirety. One of the proudest achievements of the last Conservative Government was that when we left office, youth unemployment was half what we inherited from the previous Labour Government. A huge share of those 4 million new jobs went to younger people. Today, the number of young people not in education, employment or training has hit over 1 million. The Resolution Foundation said, on this issue specifically, that “young people are bearing the brunt of Britain’s jobs downturn”. Most of us will have heard from businesses in our constituencies that all the measures in the Bill are significantly raising the barriers to entry for new workers into the market at a time when there is a double whammy. Our demographics as a country make it much harder to recruit them compared with older, more experienced workers, simply because there are fewer young people in our population. Imposing new measures like this that make it more expensive and harder for young people to get their first foot on the ladder is a dereliction of our duty to our economy. We must not forget that for our young people, many of whom we hope will end up as those high-paid professionals, getting and keeping a job is the thing that is most important in their lives—to their health, their mental wellbeing, their wealth and their long-term life prospects. In addition, it is our economy that pays not just for those people’s wellbeing, but for the public services on which so many other people depend. In conclusion, while the whole Bill deserves to be scrapped—it is shocking to see the craven capitulation of the Liberal Democrats, rather than fighting the corner of British workers—let us at least vote to support this small change that has come from the other place. Let us show that somebody in this Chamber is on the side of jobseekers, wealth creators and those who will create future opportunities for our economy, our country and our people.

    Hansard source
15. 15 Dec 2025·Parliament·David Reed

    Defence Investment Plan

    The NATO Secretary-General, our service chiefs and intelligence leaders have warned repeatedly about the growing risk of conflict with Russia, yet the recent Budget did not reflect that reality. In fact, the MOD is cutting £2.6 billion in-year, and we have discovered this week that it is cutting overseas training just to try to balance the books. When the Minister speaks to service chiefs about the defence investment plan, does he ask them to plan for credible deterrents, or simply to accept that there is no cash behind the Government’s rhetoric?

    Hansard source
16. 15 Dec 2025·Parliament·David Reed

    Employment Rights Bill

    When I look to the other House, across the political divide I see captains of industry—people who have led businesses small and large. Does the hon. Member see any merit in their arguments?

    Hansard source
17. 15 Dec 2025·Parliament·David Reed

    Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill

    I thank the Minister. Just on a point of clarification—I am sure that this will be hammered out in Committee—we have heard about the assistance that the Government have given over the past 15 months to UK Steel, Jaguar Land Rover and others, but it is important to talk about the significant cyber element. Jaguar Land Rover was hit by a big cyber-attack, and we saw a step change when the Government stepped in and essentially made British taxpayers the insurance company. Does the Minister see any risk in the Bill, and what message does it send to adversaries such as Russia, which he just mentioned?

    Hansard source
18. 15 Dec 2025·Parliament·Dame Karen Bradley

    Violence against Women and Girls Strategy

    I can see how frustrated the Minister is, and I share her frustration. The Home Affairs Committee stands ready to work constructively with her. I gently say that I can imagine what she would say if she was standing here and I was at the Dispatch Box saying that I will announce the strategy on the last day of term—I do not think she would be terribly happy with me. From talking to organisations that work in the sector, we know that there have been real problems with getting services commissioned because of the uncertainty that the delay has caused. Can she set out what she has been doing as a Minister to reassure commissioners that they can commission services and that the strategy will not block them from doing so, so that these services can continue their great work?

    Hansard source
19. 15 Dec 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill

    I am delighted to respond on behalf of the Conservatives, who have always championed British businesses. We believe very much in the ingenuity of our entrepreneurs, the skill of our engineers and the global reputation of our exporters. The Bill amends Acts dating from 1982 and 1991, and we believe that, time and again, our companies have shown that, with the right conditions, they can compete and win on the world stage. Updating those Acts will ensure that the Government have the tools to support our industries and exporters. We should take pride in the extraordinary success of British exporters. The latest UK Export Finance annual report shows the scale of their achievements. Rolls-Royce and Airbus have together secured guarantees worth £165 million for supplying Ethiopian Airlines, £102 million for Avolon in Ireland and £66 million for Emirates in Dubai. That gives the House a flavour of the kind of deals supported through this finance. Defence exports remain significant too, with BAE Systems and MBDA receiving over £120 million per major contract, including support for the very important air defence systems in Poland. These figures demonstrate the global demand for British engineering, aerospace and defence expertise. However, as the Minister pointed out in his opening remarks, beyond the headline numbers, 80% of firms supported by UK Export Finance are small and medium-sized businesses, which often supply the more global contracts. With their innovation and resilience, they are the backbone of our export economy, and they also deserve support and visibility. The UK has a leading export and finance sector, and it can usually cover the commercial risks involved in exports, so UK export finance should be deployed only when no private sector solution is available. Generally, we are in favour of reducing subsidies, rather than increasing them, so we do not support additional taxpayer funding for the industrial strategy until the Government get the fundamentals of energy prices, tax and regulation right. Without tackling those basics, no amount of subsidy will ever deliver the competitiveness that our businesses need. I have a few questions for the Minister. Can he assure the House that UK Export Finance will continue to be deployed only where no private sector funding can be secured? If this Bill is to meet its aims, export assistance must be spread across the regions. We saw from the autumn “Santander Trade Barometer” that three quarters of businesses that want targeted export support are beyond our capital. Optimism is high in sectors such as technology and media, but firms in Scotland and energy, construction and engineering companies are much more cautious. So there are regional disparities in economic outlook that the Government must address. UK Export Finance is there to guarantee exports when the private sector cannot, and we would expect it to focus on countries where credit risks are higher. What new markets is the funding likely to be used for, and will some of the additional capacity be reserved for small and medium-sized businesses? Can the Minister reassure the House that none of this finance would ever be used to support exports to countries that could allow such goods to get around the sanctions on Russia, and that they are not used to export to any country that would wish us harm? Can he also reassure the House that, as the Foreign Office undergoes a restructuring, our fine network of embassies and high commissions are made aware of this so that we make the most of this export finance opportunity and have the right teams in place to support UK plc? Those are my opening questions for the Minister.

    Hansard source
20. 15 Dec 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill

    I would like to pick up on some of the points made in today’s interesting debate and to reiterate that, as Conservatives, we have always stood shoulder to shoulder with Britain’s businesses and great exporters. In my opening remarks, I asked some questions of the Minister, and I look forward to hearing his replies. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) and the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) for all the work they are doing as trade envoys to the west and south of Africa. I remember when I was Africa Minister thinking how enormous the potential is for us to do more business with these nations, so it is interesting to hear how that work is moving forward. A number of Members highlighted the excellent export work done by small and medium-sized businesses, and we heard some excellent examples from the north-east in particular. We also heard the case made by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) for the importance of small and medium-sized businesses. I reiterate to the Minister, so that he is aware, the importance for the House of this money not just getting swallowed up by some of the larger household names, such as Rolls-Royce, Airbus and BAE Systems, but it giving that fighting chance to some of the smaller exporters. I want to pick up on the point that the hon. Member for Maidenhead made about the customs union. The House will recognise how much work was put in to getting landmark trade agreements with 70 countries that give UK exporters preferential access to markets worth trillions of pounds. It is work that the Minister continues energetically around the world, and he will no doubt in his closing remarks point to the India and US free trade deals, which are important pieces of work that he has been involved in. Those free trade agreements that the UK has managed to negotiate would not be possible if we were in the European Union customs union. I challenge the hon. Member to point to where the research is on this fabled £25 billion. In conclusion, the words of Ronald Reagan keep popping into my head during debates in this Parliament. He famously said: “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” I hope to hear from the Minister at the Dispatch Box how he will ensure that this additional money is used in the way that I said in my opening remarks, where it crowds in private sector investment and is there as a last resort to get a deal over the line, rather than crowding out private sector funding that would have been there were it not for the Government funds. Without further ado, having got my favourite Reagan quote about this Government on the record, I can assure the House that we will not be opposing the Bill.

    Hansard source
21. 15 Dec 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Point of Order

    I thank the hon. Lady for giving notice of her point of order. I understand that she has notified the hon. Member for Clacton in advance. She will know that this is not a matter for the Chair, but her point has been well and truly put on the record.

    Hansard source
22. 15 Dec 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Employment Rights Bill

    Before we commence consideration of the Lords message, I confirm that nothing in the Lords message engages Commons financial privilege. Clause 23 Right not to be unfairly dismissed: removal of qualifying period, etc

    Hansard source
23. 15 Dec 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Employment Rights Bill

    Members will be aware that the debate has to conclude by 8.24 pm, so there will be an immediate five-minute time limit. Of course, if Members did not feel obliged to use all five minutes, that would help their colleagues.

    Hansard source
24. 15 Dec 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Employment Rights Bill

    Order. We are not debating hereditary peers; we are debating the amendments to the Employment Rights Bill.

    Hansard source
25. 15 Dec 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Employment Rights Bill

    Order. We are not having a debate on hereditary Members of the House of Lords. We are debating the Lords message on amendments to the Employment Rights Bill.

    Hansard source
26. 15 Dec 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Employment Rights Bill

    I thank the hon. Member for her advice. As it happens, she makes a good point. The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) should not be suggesting any particular motive attributed to that issue, and could he perhaps confine his remaining comments for the next 90 seconds?

    Hansard source
27. 15 Dec 2025·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Topical Questions

    T10.   Today the head of MI6 will say that “the frontline is everywhere”. Does that not mean that the entirety of the Government and the military need to be far more proactive in dealing with threats that we face now, and accelerate defence spending in excess of 3% of GDP before the end of the decade?

    Hansard source
28. 15 Dec 2025·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    NHS: Winter Preparedness

    These strikes, at a time of peak seasonal pressure on the NHS, are reprehensible, and the BMA should be thoroughly ashamed of itself. Does the Health Secretary agree that we should use this opportunity to reassert our collective societal trust in vaccines, and encourage anyone who is vulnerable or eligible to get a vaccine, to mitigate the effects on themselves and on wider society? Given his comment that there is not much more that the Government can offer, does he at least acknowledge that the Government’s unconditional inflation-busting offer last year, just weeks after they came into office, must surely have emboldened the BMA?

    Hansard source
29. 15 Dec 2025·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Employment Rights Bill

    The impacts of the Bill in its current form are already being felt: 71% of businesses have raised serious concerns, with over 90% of small business owners expressing deep worries, resulting in 67% of companies preparing to halt recruitment. We already know that the Government do not understand business. That has been demonstrated clearly through the string of damaging policies trailing behind them, from the national insurance changes that are crippling the hospitality sector to the family farm tax that is undermining our national food security. Aspects of this Bill are no exception, the prime example being the complete removal of the employment tribunal cap on unfair dismissal compensatory awards. As of June 2025, 515,000 open claims were in the system, and the numbers continue to rise. The employment tribunal system is inundated. It is overwhelmed and debilitated by cases, leaving thousands facing intolerable delays. Rather than addressing the issue through action that would significantly help working people—

    Hansard source
30. 15 Dec 2025·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Employment Rights Bill

    I was just about to get to the point that I wanted to make: removal of the cap will make matters significantly worse. To put it plainly, it will open the floodgates for senior executives to pursue multimillion-pound claims that will further congest the courts. For many companies, the dismissal process for senior executives is fundamentally different from that used for other employees, in many cases as a result of strategic complexities relating to board involvement. Unlike the structured procedures applied to the wider workforce, senior leaders are seldom afforded opportunities such as performance improvement plans before removal. The Bill creates a significant liability and establishes a direct financial incentive for senior executives to pursue employment claims.

    Hansard source
31. 15 Dec 2025·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Employment Rights Bill

    The hon. Gentleman misses the point that I am making. Currently, there is no financial incentive for very senior executives who cannot exercise any leverage over things such as pay and equity, and the Bill risks clogging up the system. The CEOs of large UK corporations earn a median salary of over £4 million, compared with the £118,000 cap on unfair dismissal claims, so high earners have little incentive to lodge claims. Remove the cap and that incentive becomes glaringly obvious.

    Hansard source
32. 15 Dec 2025·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Employment Rights Bill

    I will make progress. The idea that removing the cap will lead to anything other than a surge in cases is pure fantasy. This lack of understanding shows why the Government must listen to those who know how business works and recognise the devastating consequences that the Bill will have for companies and, crucially, for workers, rather than branding themselves champions of working people while advancing policies that benefit only high-fliers.

    Hansard source
33. 15 Dec 2025·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Employment Rights Bill

    I thank my right hon. Friend, who makes his point eloquently, as usual. The Government must abandon the measure. If they are really on the side of workers, the best thing they can do is abandon this measure—and abandon the Bill in its entirety.

    Hansard source
34. 15 Dec 2025·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    NATO: European Security

    Last week, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry told me: “There are no other platforms within the Army’s armoured fleet which can fulfil the armoured reconnaissance role; Ajax has been specifically designed for this purpose.” Our commitment to NATO includes two divisions. The first includes three manoeuvre brigades, with armoured and mechanised capabilities. With Ajax undeployable, we have no formation reconnaissance capability and therefore no deployable armoured brigade, thus we are not currently meeting our NATO obligation. Will the Minister clarify whether we still meet his NATO test without Ajax, whether we meet our NATO obligation more broadly, and, if he thinks we do, how?

    Hansard source
35. 15 Dec 2025·Parliament·Aphra Brandreth

    Employment Rights Bill

    I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I wonder whether the Minister is comfortable with the fact that introducing an uncapped unfair dismissal compensation award will make the UK an international outlier, when many of our international competitors have clear limits. If she is comfortable with that, what assessment has she made of the impact on UK jobs and inward investment to the UK, particularly in business sectors that are internationally mobile?

    Hansard source
36. 15 Dec 2025·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    Employment Rights Bill

    The concerns that we Conservatives have with the Bill have long been known, and I accept that we have debated them at length. I will not repeat them all today, because we are not here to debate the whole Bill, just the message sent to us from the other place. There was a time when the Labour party would have cared about protecting jobs and those who wanted one. There was a time when Labour believed, as we do, in the dignity of work and what that meant for families and communities—a Christian socialism, if you like, rather than the state worship that seems to have replaced it. I cannot honestly think of a previous Government who would ever have passed this Bill—certainly not since the 1970s. The result, whether Labour likes it or not, is that day by day, week by week, month by month, people are losing their jobs. This Christmas there will be 192,000 fewer people in private sector payrolled employment than last Christmas, and who knows what it will be like next Christmas. We have the worst ever graduate jobs market. Adzuna estimates that jobs for degree holders have fallen by 33%. Labour used to care about youth unemployment, but for those aged between 16 and 24 unemployment has now reached 15%, according to the Office for National Statistics. As has been the case every month so far under this Government, tomorrow morning we are likely to hear that the rate of unemployment is higher. This Bill could have been on the statute book today, but for one simple reason: a gross betrayal of trust. The small group of business groups that Ministers invited in for tea and sandwiches took this Government at their word.

    Hansard source
37. 15 Dec 2025·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    Employment Rights Bill

    The hon. Lady would have been wise to contain her excitement, because I agree with all of those groups in their letter today, which the Minister selectively quoted; she did not quote them saying that they are not in favour of removing the cap. I have spoken to each and every organisation that was in the room, and they are crystal clear, with one group saying: “That was not a concession discussed with us or agreed by us in the negotiations”. I invite the Minister to intervene on me if she thinks that a word of what I say is wrong. She is misquoting, and it is misrepresenting those business groups that do not support the cap. Why would any sane Government scrap the cap entirely? Indeed, this Government themselves did not for 13 and a half of the 14 months that we have been debating this Bill. It was not in the manifesto or the Bill or the impact assessment. It was not considered by the Regulatory Policy Committee, and it was never discussed in this House until Ministers threw it in at the last moment in a breach of trust of the business groups with which they negotiated.

    Hansard source
38. 15 Dec 2025·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    Employment Rights Bill

    What is it about protecting people from unemployment—preventing young people from getting jobs—and from economic growth? The Government of which the right hon. Lady was once a member said that was their No. 1 priority and their obsession, but they have singularly failed to deliver it. Conservative Members want to get Britain working again. We want jobs for those young people—we think it is a stain on our character that 15% of young people are unemployed—and all we get from Labour is union-paid representatives trying to put more people out of jobs and deny young people more opportunities.

    Hansard source
39. 15 Dec 2025·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    Employment Rights Bill

    Our Government created 4 million new jobs. This Government have lost jobs every single month they have been in office. The points that the right hon. Lady makes are not those we are debating. There is one issue in front of us, which is Labour’s desire to defend and remove a cap of £118,000. That has nothing to do with ordinary workers. What does it say about today’s modern Labour party that its focus, and the whole reason why we are back here and the compromise was not accepted, is its desire to remove a cap of £118,000, which will only ever benefit the better off?

    Hansard source
40. 15 Dec 2025·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    Employment Rights Bill

    My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I hope somebody on the Labour Benches will address. We have seen no analysis and we have no idea of the cost of this measure. Not a single business—not a single person who employs people—has come out and endorsed the removal of the cap. It is beyond me, I am afraid. Yet what is happening in our employment tribunals? On Friday, as I am sure the Minister knows, it was revealed that the delay and backlogs at the employment tribunal have reached their highest ever level. At the end of the most recent quarter, there were 515,000 open claims. Before anyone intervenes, let me say that I accept that much of that was inherited—[Interruption.] But before Labour Members laugh: the Government are making it worse. Merely since the Bill was introduced to this place, the claims backlog has increased by 65,000. They are doing nothing to address the backlog, which is going up every single month—I do not think they have even discussed it with their calamity of a Justice Secretary —and we know that they have carried out no impact assessment. It is extraordinary. The scrapping of the compensation cap for the highest paid will simply stoke the fire. I make it a rule not to learn lessons in how to run an economy from France, but even France introduced a cap on tribunal payments to tackle unemployment and encourage labour market dynamism. Perhaps we should take advice from closer to home: today the Health Secretary seems to be no fan at all of giving more powers to unaccountable unions.

    Hansard source