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

1. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Helen Whately

   Unemployment Levels

   Businesses are cutting jobs at the fastest rate since the pandemic and unemployment has gone up every month under this Government, but clearly they are not ready to deal with the consequences. The number of jobcentre work coaches has actually fallen since they took over. No doubt the Minister will proudly tell us that they have just announced millions of pounds of spending on Government-created jobs for young people, but may I ask her to reflect for a moment? After hiking taxes on businesses so that they cannot afford to employ young people, the Government are spending a load of that tax on state-subsidised jobs for the same young people. Some are calling this the economics of the madhouse, but I simply call it Labour economics. Does the Minister not agree that the Government should get out of the way and reduce the burden on businesses so that they can create jobs, opportunities and economic growth?

   Hansard source
2. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Helen Whately

   Child Poverty Strategy

   I will start with something we can all agree on: none of us wants to see children grow up in poverty. We all know something of what that looks like: some hon. Members have lived it themselves; for others, it is part of the bread and butter of constituency work. Even in the wealthiest constituencies there are pockets of poverty, where children spend months living in bed and breakfasts, their meals coming from the local food bank, not knowing when they will have a bed in a room they can call their own and worrying about their mum—and it is usually their mum—and how she will pay the bills. None of that helps kids to succeed in life. Of course this Government should be working on how to improve the lives of children, as we did before them, but nothing I have heard from the Secretary of State today—however well intentioned—gives me any confidence that they are going to fix the problem. Last week, the Prime Minister grabbed the headlines by saying that the Government will change how supermarkets display baby formula and give customers loyalty points—hardly the groundbreaking fix for child poverty that we have been promised. At the Budget, the Government crowed about how they will lift so many children out of relative poverty by lifting the two-child cap, and that will, of course, help with the stats on that one metric, just like the free taxpayer-funded breakfasts. However, ditching the two-child benefit cap will raise taxes on working people, including those on the poverty line, and disincentivise work. For a measure that the Prime Minister now speaks about with such pride, I am surprised that it took the Government 18 months to bring it in. In that time, the Prime Minister and Chancellor rejected many demands from their Back Benchers to lift the cap, arguing that the policy was unaffordable; in fact, the Prime Minister was so committed to the cap that he removed the Whip from the brave Labour rebels who voted to lift it. But then, as rivals for the Labour leadership circled, the cap indeed went. Chopping and changing policy based on political pressure is no way to govern, and it is certainly no way to solve child poverty. There is a way to boost the prospects of the country’s children. It is through plentiful, well-paid jobs. That way people can provide for themselves and their families, pay their rent or mortgage, do their weekly food shop and afford school uniforms for their kids. The Centre for Social Justice found that children in workless households are four times more likely to be materially deprived. Under this Government, the number of children growing up in workless households has seen the fastest increase on record, rising to 1.5 million children. Contrast that to our record, which saw the number of children in workless households—[Laughter.] Labour Members can laugh, but honestly they should listen to what makes a difference to children’s lives. Contrast that to our record, which saw the number of children in workless households decrease year on year from 2014. With unemployment now going up month on month, the number of children in workless households is sadly likely to keep going up. There is something even more fundamental that helps to stave off poverty. It is the family. Some 44% of children in lone-parent households live in poverty, compared with 25% of children who live in households with a couple. Strong, working families raise children who are less likely to be in poverty—it is as simple as that. Yet the Government’s poverty strategy ignores that fact entirely. Rather than tackling the root causes of poverty, the strategy concerns itself with vouchers for formula milk. How many children will be brought out of poverty thanks to those vouchers? Why is there nothing in the strategy on parenting skills, which we know are key determinants of child outcomes? Why do the Government insist on using the misleading metric of relative poverty instead of measures that reflect real living standards? With Labour’s Budget slapping thousands of pounds of extra taxes on hard-working and hard-up families, how many families are going to be plunged into poverty because of their tax rises? How many more households will now be eligible for universal credit? If the Government truly believe that lifting the two-child benefit cap is essential to reducing poverty, why did it take the Prime Minister 18 months to do it, and why did he remove the Whip from his own MPs who voted for it? Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us the real reason. Was it actually about the Prime Minister saving his own skin? I know that the Government are well meaning, but this strategy is all wrong. Tackling poverty is about decent jobs, lower taxes and a stable foundation for every child. Throwing money at the problem to improve the statistics is not the answer, and they will certainly not lift children out of poverty by making the whole country poorer. The policies in the strategy and the Budget risk trapping families in long-term dependency instead of lifting them out of it. This strategy is so far from the bold action that Labour is making it out to be and that this country needs to break the cycle of worklessness for families on benefits, give children the best start in life and give taxpayers a fair deal—fair to those who pay in, as well as those who get help. The fact is—

   Hansard source
3. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Harriet Cross

   Unemployment Levels

   2. What assessment he has made of trends in the level of unemployment.

   Hansard source
4. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Harriet Cross

   Unemployment Levels

   As I am sure the Minister and the rest of the Front-Bench team know, we are seeing huge redundancies and mass unemployment within the oil and gas sector increasing every week. When did any of the Front-Bench DWP team last meet the oil and gas sector to discuss that?

   Hansard source
5. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

   Digital ID

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I apologise for the fact that I may not be here for the wind-ups because of the business in the main Chamber. I begin by restating my firm opposition to the introduction of mandatory digital ID. I opposed it in this Chamber only a month ago, and the public response has been remarkable. The clip of my speech on social media has now been viewed more than 2.5 million times—not because of any great oratory on my part, but because people across the country are deeply worried about the direction the Government are taking. They are worried about privacy, freedom and the steady expansion of state power without consent.

   Hansard source
6. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

   Digital ID

   I am afraid I will not; sorry. I want to raise a specific issue that was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), but that is often missed in this debate: the provisions in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that would mandate the NHS number as a single unique identifier for every child in England—namely ID cards, but on the sly. Ministers have confirmed in the House that that identifier will become mandatory. Wigan is already piloting multi-agency data sharing using it, but Members of this elected Chamber have not been given the evidence, the governance frameworks or the risk assessments that would justify such a change. The Government have produced no credible reassurance that the NHS number will not become a gateway to expanded datasets or new intrusive linkages. There is no clear plan to prevent accidental disclosures that could put vulnerable children at risk, for example by revealing the address of a family fleeing domestic abuse or exposing confidential adoption records. Those are not theoretical concerns; they have occurred in practice. We have seen the warnings from Wales, where NHS numbers were extracted centrally and sent to local authorities with no direct care relationship with the children concerned. The 2024 consultation was highly critical. The British Medical Association, the Royal College of General Practitioners and children’s organisations all warned that such policies risked pushing marginalised families away from healthcare entirely. Wales’s own child’s rights impact assessment warned of possible breaches of articles 12 and 16 of the UN convention on the rights of the child. It even warned that children could lose their article 24 right to health if families disengaged from GP registration. However, Ministers insist that the NHS number is not sensitive data. The General Medical Council has already rejected that argument. All patient information attracts the common-law duty of confidentiality. There is no such thing as a harmless identifier. Practically speaking, the Department for Education’s own research warned that mandating NHS numbers would require significant investment, long-term planning and phased roll-out. None of that groundwork has happened. Pilots are under way before Parliament has approved the principle. When trust in Government is already scraping the floor, the worst thing Ministers can do is force through more mandatory digital ID for adults or children, something the public neither asked for nor consented to. Nearly 3 million people have signed the petition and more than two thirds of my constituents oppose it. Digital ID will not fix illegal migration, but it will supercharge state intrusion. The public deserve clarity, honesty and, above all, consent.

   Hansard source
7. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Greg Smith

   Digital ID

   We have a Government who could not even keep their own Budget under wraps. What hope do they have with our personal data?

   Hansard source
8. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

   Planning and Infrastructure Bill

   It is a privilege to present some of the Opposition’s final words on what I am sure the Minister will agree has been an extensive effort on both sides of the House to debate, scrutinise and amend the Bill. In the light of that, I particularly wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) for his efforts; he has worked tirelessly to push the Government to make this Bill fit for purpose. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who has made invaluable contributions throughout the whole process, both in this place and in Committee. Finally, I congratulate the Minister on seeing the Planning and Infrastructure Bill through its parliamentary journey, although I am hesitant to pour too much praise on many of the aspects of the Bill itself. When we last came to this House to consider the Lords message a couple of weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner outlined the Opposition’s key concerns regarding the Bill, not least that it fails to satisfy the three tests that we have consistently used to judge how it could help to unlock the housing market, make the necessary reforms to administrative and bureaucratic burdens, and create a dual incentive for communities and developers to embrace more homes and infrastructure. As will now be abundantly clear to the Minister, it is the continued position of His Majesty’s Opposition that the Bill fails on all three counts. His boss, the Secretary of State, knows this, having admitted today that the Government will need a sharp increase in their current run rate if they are to meet the target of 1.5 million homes that they promised in their manifesto—a target that, according to his Department’s own figures, they are currently missing by a long way. Some improvements to the Bill have been made during the parliamentary process, including the Government’s concession on Lords amendment 33, which we are discussing today. We are grateful that the Government have moved on this question, and we will not seek to divide the House on it this evening.

   Hansard source
9. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

   Planning and Infrastructure Bill

   No I do not—not fully; I will return to that answer in more detail in a couple of moments. As a prime example of what more could have been done, the Bill could have addressed the democratic deficit it creates. It strips powers away from elected councillors and gifts them to unelected planning officers, as well as giving more powers to the Secretary of State. That, of course, is just the tip of the iceberg when we consider the clear contempt shown for local democracy as the Government prepare to cancel yet another round of local elections. The Bill also fails to support both those building and buying homes—no amount of centralisation in the Bill will counter the Chancellor’s failure to meaningfully support growth and cut costs. This is despite clear warnings from the Home Builders Federation that the Government must provide help for first-time buyers and reduce taxes on new homes if they are to achieve anything close to the tally of 1.3 million homes by the end of the decade that was predicted by the Office for Budget Responsibility in March. Let me turn to nature—something I know many MPs have received emails about. The Bill still lacks the clarity and the answers that nature lovers seek to legitimate questions about how we reconcile the delivery of new homes and infrastructure with the need to protect our natural environment. This is most evident when we consider the Government’s focus on removing legal protections on green-belt land. Ripping up the green belt is not the answer, which is why my colleagues and I have called for the swifter redevelopment of brownfield sites. This is not least because, according to CPRE, in a substantial number of local authorities there is enough brownfield land with planning permission to meet the targets set by the Government’s standard method for calculating housing need for at least the next five years. This is something that the Bill and this Government have failed to explore. Across two Secretaries of State, several junior Ministers and almost a year of parliamentary time, the Government have pushed these measures through using their majority, but without using their common sense. Many provisions in the Bill still leave the market, home buyers, developers and local communities wanting. The triple blow—with a Chancellor running our economy into the ground while hiking taxes and a Government cutting demand-side policies to support first-time buyers—has left the country without a clear pathway to the lofty promise of 1.5 million homes. Don’t just take my word for it: throughout this process, the OBR, the Home Builders Federation, the National Federation of Builders, Britain Remade, the Countryside Alliance, Professor Paul Cheshire, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and many more industry experts and organisations, have raised concerns, either about the Bill or about the Government’s ability to meet their housing target more widely. The Government had the chance to fix this Bill, to support infrastructure projects, to back community voices and to deliver the homes that the British people need, but they have not done so. The Housing Minister recently declined to rule out further planning legislation in this Parliament. If that comes to pass, let us hope that next time, he and his colleagues listen to industry, the voices in this House and our local communities, and do what he knows to be right.

   Hansard source
10. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Dr Neil Hudson

    Digital ID

    My constituents in Epping Forest are deeply concerned about the prospect of digital ID cards. Many have written and spoken to me, and over 5,600 have signed the petition. Rather than improving the delivery of public services, this scheme risks wasting billions on a complex, intrusive and potentially very insecure system that will not help anyone. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour Government must now listen, take on board the public concerns and scrap this flawed policy?

    Hansard source
11. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Restriction of Jury Trials

    I congratulate the Minister on both her passion and her ability to get so many words into Hansard in her responses on an urgent question. However, one bit of detail that we are missing—and she is now being asked about this for the fifth time—is an impact assessment. She has said again that the impact assessment will be brought forward at the appropriate time. The question was: has it been written already and she is keeping hold of it, or has it not been written but will be brought forward at the appropriate time? I would appreciate clarity on that, with a simple yes or no.

    Hansard source
12. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Employment Rights Bill

    Does the hon. Lady agree that it would have been helpful if an impact assessment had been carried out, so that everyone could see exactly what the impact of removing the cap would be?

    Hansard source
13. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Mental Health Bill [Lords]

    I have talked about roads and bridges throughout the duration of the Bill. We have now reached the end of the long road that was, of course, embarked on by Baroness May in 2018 with the independent Wessely report, which was the foundation of this legislation. It constitutes a cross-party, cross-departmental look at how we can improve the lives of people with the most serious mental health issues. I was pleased to hear the Minister start to talk about the difference between mental health and mental wellbeing. That is fundamental when it comes to dealing with our policies and how we will take the country forward, because while not everyone has a serious mental health problem, everyone has problems with their mental wellbeing. Ensuring that we have that distinction worked out will be vital to providing the right support for the right people in the right place, and, ultimately, that is what the Bill is dedicated to doing. I have talked in the House about why that is so important. This Bill, above all others, deals with the most vulnerable people in society—those who are seriously mentally unwell—so I am pleased that we have reached a stage at which we can take it forward and put it into law. I was also pleased to hear the Minister comment on the amendment from the other place, and the concerns raised by Baroness Berridge. I understand the points that he has tried to make and the clarifications that the Government have tried to introduce in relation to the amendment. He has said that he will look at the code of conduct in respect of the seriously difficult positions in which mental health professionals might find themselves during an evening of dealing with a parent who is contesting with a child the question of who is to be the nominated person. I am glad that the Government are looking at the code of practice, and we will not be dividing the House tonight. That being said, as with the 10-year plan that the Government have brought forward, there is a synergy here. The synergy is this: Members on both sides of the House agree with the thrust of the 10-year plan and this Bill, but the problem is that there is no delivery chapter. That was the Opposition’s concern when the Government were taking the Bill forward. As the Minister conceded in Committee, it will be a challenge, but without a delivery plan it becomes very difficult.

    Hansard source
14. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Mental Health Bill [Lords]

    The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, but he has also missed the point. He gives me the opportunity to point out that one way in which the previous Government dealt with this issue was by bringing forward the mental health investment standard, under which the proportion of spending on mental health had to mirror the spending on physical conditions. That was starting to lead to real change. Alas, under this Government, there is a concern that the standard has not been met. We know that the proportion of mental health spending has fallen under this Government, according to the written ministerial statement that they put out. That leads me on nicely to the point that I wanted to raise: how will we fund the models that are coming forward? That is the crux of the matter that people outside the House will be looking at; it is a direct question, and it is the only one that I have in this debate. We on this side of the House have raised this issue in the debates we have had on both palliative care and mental health, and I raised it with the Minister only last week. The Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), has raised this question again and again. Are the Government committed to the investment standard or not? Is it something that they have dropped? The House and the wider public need to know, so that we can plan for service provision. If the Government are dropping it, that is on them, and they need to explain the reasons why they are doing so. Maybe there is alternative investment, but as a starting point, the investment standard will be crucial in dealing with the mental health challenge, which is growing despite the pandemic and all the investment that has already gone in.

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

    Mental Health Bill [Lords]

    I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for stepping in on that basis. We have had plenty of chances to debate this Bill, both in Committee and many times in the mental health debates that I am partial to. We could go through why the last Government changed the interventions of NHS England and brought in integrated care boards to allow for a joined-up structure to be put in place. We now see a new iteration coming forward but, yet again, we do not know how much it will to cost to get rid of NHS England. We do not know the redundancy packages for the ICBs and how much they will cost. That is fundamental. One thing we do know is that, as the chair of the Royal College of Psychiatrists has said, the change to the investment standard alone will cost the sector £300 million. That is investment that could have made a difference to mental health provision. I do not want to get into the heated politics any further, and I do not want to delay the House any further this evening, but the Government’s position on the mental health investment standard is crucial when it comes to delivering this Bill. I thank the Minister for his constructive approach, and for the way in which he has taken ideas forward and looked through the Bill in fine detail. I know he cares deeply about getting this right, as do many Members of this House. It is imperative to ensure that compassionate, modern care is delivered to those who need it most when it comes to dealing with serious mental health conditions.

    Hansard source
16. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Mental Health Bill [Lords]

    I appreciate that the Minister cannot commit to a financial spending envelope now, but is it not the case that the mental health investment standard is something that the Government could commit to?

    Hansard source
17. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Digital ID

    My hon. Friend articulates the case powerfully. I know my constituents will agree that we could be doing much better things with £1.8 billion than wasting it on a project like this.

    Hansard source
18. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Damian Hinds

    Digital ID

    In the previous year, 100,000 people were claiming asylum. The Labour Government were talking about ID cards to tackle illegal immigration, but they soon started talking about using them to tackle all sorts of other things as well. In time, it became apparent that there was a huge amount of disagreement among Ministers, and that the Government had not really thought it through and did not know the full cost. The year I am talking about is 2003, not 2025. Eventually, 15,000 ID cards were issued under the previous Labour Government’s plan. However, it ran into massive technical issues and cost over-runs. Eventually, they ditched the idea of cards but kept the overbearing database, which is what we see being resurrected today. Yes, there are pull factors in illegal immigration, and work is one of them. However, Italy has ID cards. It also has one of the world’s highest rates of illegal arrivals by sea. Here, employers are already obliged to do identity and right-to-work checks. By the way, if someone who is a legally resident person signs up to deliver food and then subcontracts that job to someone here illegally in exchange for cash, I fail to see how an ID card or a digital ID would interfere with that at all. Ministers say that there would be no penalty for not carrying a card and that there would be no stop and search, but it is very hard to see how digital ID or physical ID cards address illegal immigration unless it is possible to demand the card from somebody in the street or in a workplace. And that is precisely the “papers, please” society that we do not want.

    Hansard source
19. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Damian Hinds

    Digital ID

    I will add that 4,000 of my constituents have signed this petition. I have also heard directly from hundreds of them by email in response to my own petition. We should listen to all these voices. A lot has changed since 2003, but not my opposition to digital ID. The Government say that it would be non-compulsory, but in practice it would become so. They already talk about opening bank accounts and accessing childcare or benefits with digital ID; of course, in time there will be many more applications for it. It will be one more thing that we will need a smartphone for. That is bad enough in itself, but if digital ID is to be given to children as young as 13, as the Government are consulting on, that will make things far worse again. Most of all, the worry is about the concentration of data. Yes, we already have massive databases in the private sector, and we all already have a number for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, NHS numbers and all the rest of it. The big change here is the single index term—the single identifier that links all these databases together. However much the Government say that the main database will be federated and access-limited, that cannot take away from the fact that all the databases will be linked. If they were not all linked, it would not be a digital ID system.

    Hansard source
20. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Damian Hinds

    Skills England

    It really is not ideal to have the body responsible for upholding standards in qualifications inside a Department that will be judged on how many people it gets through to passing those qualifications. It was not ideal when it was at the Department for Education; it is even less ideal now that it is at the Department for Work and Pensions. Will the Minister give a commitment that once Skills England is up and running, he will make it independent from Government, with a guaranteed voice for industry, and will he set that out in statute?

    Hansard source
21. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Dame Karen Bradley

    Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

    I would be grateful if the Minister could share any correspondence she has with the Committee because we are keen to get full transparency on this issue. Does the Minister share my incredulity that a decision that was so sensitive appears to have been taken on the basis of a single unminuted Zoom call between a West Midlands police officer and officers from Amsterdam, and that the exercise in social media scraping led the police to believe that a match that had never taken place could be cited in the evidence for the decision to ban the away fans?

    Hansard source
22. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Child Poverty Strategy

    Last year, the Secretary of State, her Front-Bench colleagues and pretty much everyone behind her voted against lifting the two-child benefit cap—[Hon. Members: “No, we didn’t.”] Those who rebelled had the Whip withdrawn. What would she say to those rebels now? What has changed since that vote last year?

    Hansard source
23. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

    Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

    This really is a catalogue of disaster, and it raises a range of issues, some of which the Committee will consider when we kick off our inquiry into major events tomorrow. In the previous Parliament, the Committee looked at the safety of sporting events and concluded that safety advisory groups have, at best, a fairly dubious record on seeking out and considering the necessary perspectives to inform better decision making. May I invite the Minister to look at our recommendations from a couple of years ago on amending the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 so that police and safety advisory groups have no choice but to engage properly from the outset on such cases? When considering the competence of the West Midlands chief constable, might the Minister start by asking him to respond to his correspondence? The Select Committee wrote to him about the ban on Maccabi Tel Aviv fans, but we still have not received a response.

    Hansard source
24. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

    Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

    Is the Minister aware of any representations made by UEFA in advance of this fixture?

    Hansard source
25. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Child Poverty Strategy

    Order. The shadow Secretary of State has taken even longer than the Secretary of State and is well over her time limit. I call the Secretary of State.

    Hansard source
26. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Employment Rights Bill

    I thank the hon. Member for having corrected the record and for putting his interests on the record.

    Hansard source
27. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill

    I can confirm that nothing in the Lords message engages Commons financial privilege. Clause 51 Delegation of planning decisions in England

    Hansard source
28. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Mental Health Bill [Lords]

    I confirm that nothing in the Lords message engages Commons financial privilege. Schedule 2 Nominated persons

    Hansard source
29. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Mental Health Bill [Lords]

    Order. The hon. Gentleman will know that there is ample opportunity for him to contribute to the debate. That was a very long intervention.

    Hansard source
30. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Digital ID

    Mandatory digital ID, abandoning trial by jury—neither is in the Labour manifesto. There is a whiff of authoritarianism about this Government, is there not?

    Hansard source
31. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    NEET Young People

    3. What steps his Department is taking to reduce the number of young people not in education, employment or training.

    Hansard source
32. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    NEET Young People

    About 1,200 people in my constituency are not in education, employment or training. With two job-destroying Budgets and the Employment Rights Bill on the horizon, does the Minister really understand the concerns of my constituents, who feel that this Government are simply making it so much harder for young people to find work and get on the career ladder?

    Hansard source
33. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Ajax Armoured Vehicle

    The Minister knows that, as a former armoured infanteer, I have a keen interest in this topic, but I want to touch on the wider issue of Ajax as it relates to 3rd (UK) Division. If Ajax cannot be fixed, then potentially we will not have a formation recce capability. As it stands, we do not have one, because the vehicle is not deployable. If it cannot be fixed later on, that will be a longer-term issue, particularly as Scimitar is now out of service. Warrior goes out of service in 2027, and Bulldog goes out of service in 2030, with no replacement identified. The Ares platform is fundamentally not an infantry fighting vehicle, and although the Minister has assured us before that he is restoring the armoured infantry capability to 3rd (UK) Division, it is not a like-for-like replacement. Will the Minister look at the current ORBAT—order of battle—for an armoured infantry battalion and how the Ares cannot replace Warrior? A non-stabilised .50 calibre machine gun does not replace a 30 mm cannon. This urgently needs to be looked at, because the Army seems to be chopping and changing its mind and not to know what it wants from its armoured capability.

    Hansard source
34. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Aphra Brandreth

    Digital ID

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I want to begin by thanking the 4,337 constituents in Chester South and Eddisbury who have expressed their opposition to the introduction of mandatory digital ID cards. The British public, including my constituents, are concerned not only by the principle of mandatory digital IDs, but by the manner in which the Government have attempted to introduce them: without a timeline, without a clear financial cost, without a plan and without a mandate. When the Government first briefed their intention to pursue mandatory digital ID, my inbox was inundated with concerns. Because of the clear salience of the issue, I launched a survey asking my constituents for their views. I am grateful for the hundreds of responses, more than three quarters of which were opposed to a mandatory ID scheme. The truth is that this petition should never have been necessary. A policy of this magnitude, with profound implications for civil liberties and for the relationship between citizen and state, ought to have appeared in a party’s manifesto. I am also deeply concerned by the Government’s so-called justification that this will solve the small boats crisis. Before the election, Labour promised it had a plan to smash the gangs, stop the boats and tackle illegal migration. We can all see how that plan is going, so how would this policy make any difference? Is it not just another cynical attempt to distract from the failure of this Government to address illegal migration? If the Minister has confidence in the proposal, can they clearly set out how much the Government expect illegal crossings to fall as a result and what cost they expect the taxpayer, our constituents, to bear? Time is short, but I want to raise one further concern: rural communities that remain digitally isolated would face significant challenges under these plans. I have spoken many times about the digital exclusion facing so many in Chester South and Eddisbury. Progress was being made under the previous Conservative Government, but I am concerned that Ministers are now pushing ahead with a digital ID scheme without first ensuring digital connectivity, which risks leaving rural communities even further behind.

    Hansard source
35. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Aphra Brandreth

    Digital ID

    My hon. Friend makes such an important point. The money that will be spent on mandatory ID needs to be spent on ensuring that all our constituents are connected. The £9.5 million strategy to tackle digital exclusion is inadequate. To conclude, this policy is an attempt to distract from the Government’s failures and has absolutely no mandate. I therefore stand with the many thousands across Chester South and Eddisbury in opposing any plans to introduce mandatory digital ID.

    Hansard source
36. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    Employment Rights Bill

    Two weeks ago, the Chancellor stood at the Dispatch Box and delivered a Budget that contained not a single measure to support growth. Today, in moving the motion to disagree, the Minister has signed the warrant for a war on jobs. She is at the Dispatch Box representing the Government, but everyone knows that it is the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), who is calling the shots. We discovered this morning that Labour Together is already auditioning for the Prime Minister’s replacement. Perhaps the Minister has an outside chance at the job, but my money is probably more on the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. Perhaps the Labour party could have its first female Prime Minister just before the Conservatives have our fourth. Given all that job insecurity, it is no wonder that Labour Members seem so keen on employment rights. This is not a Bill for employment rights; it is a charter for a jobless generation. Thanks to measures in the Bill, thousands of young people will struggle for opportunities because the rungs of the ladder have been sawn off. Since Labour entered office, 144,000 payrolled jobs have been wiped out. Manufacturing, the oil and gas sector, construction and hospitality are all unable to make ends meet due to high energy and employment costs. The unemployment rate has been higher every month of this Government. Half the jobs lost belong to the under-25s.

    Hansard source
37. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    Employment Rights Bill

    I will happily give way if the hon. Member wants to talk about the jobs lost in his own constituency.

    Hansard source
38. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    Employment Rights Bill

    Under the Conservative Government, we improved the number of people in work and unemployment fell to a record level. Since the current Government have taken office, unemployment has been higher every single month. Half the jobs lost belong to the under-25s. Does anyone want to talk about the youth unemployment rate under this Government? It is now 15%, and the number of young people not in education, employment or training has gone up by 25,000 on their watch—before the impact of this disastrous Bill. The Government claim to support workers, but their first legislative achievement will be to make more young people unemployed. How could any Member of the House possibly support that? So, who is the Bill really for? As I have said before, the clue is in the text: it mentions maternity rights just three times, but it mentions the word “union”—no Labour Members have declared their interests—478 times. It includes: the union right to roam; scrapping the turnout threshold on union strike ballots; more paid time off for union reps; and automatic deductions of union political funds. It also orders businesses to hand out Government-written pro-union propaganda. Strikes will become far more common. But don’t take do not take my word for it—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State is chuntering from a sedentary position, but perhaps he would like to listen to his colleague the Health Secretary, who just last week said that he had “had it” with the unions and that “the last thing patients need this winter is strike action”. Back in July, the Health Secretary was citing the silent majority of doctors who did not vote for strike action. My colleagues in the other place merely request that a strike ballot requires a turnout of 50% of the workforce. By rejecting Lords amendment 62, the Minister is allowing minorities to shut down hospitals, educational establishments and public transport while the silent majority of members are ignored. We should take a moment to welcome the fact that the Government have U-turned on day one rights. After months of relentless campaigning, and a complete clear-out of departmental Ministers, the Government finally listened. There is no shame in that—I told them it was unworkable, and business told them it was unworkable—it is just a shame that it took so long. Just hours before the U-turn, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman was telling journalists that the Government would overturn all attempts to water down day one rights. A Prime Minister without a backbone who does not know his own mind has caused a year of uncertainty for employers and workers alike.

    Hansard source
39. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

    Employment Rights Bill

    I say respectfully to the hon. Member that if acting is to raise unemployment, to cost young people their jobs, to ensure that employers are not hiring and to have the worst graduate market for a generation, then bring that on. If that is what he came here to do, I would be surprised at that.

    Hansard source
40. 8 Dec 2025·Parliament·Alison Griffiths

    Digital ID

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Edward. I am grateful to the Petitions Committee for granting this debate, which could not be more timely. People in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton have been talking to me about digital ID for months, and more than 5,300 have signed the petition. I want to put their concerns and mine plainly on the record today. A mandatory digital ID tied to a smartphone is the wrong way to go. It answers none of the real problems that we face and risks creating a whole set of new ones. Let us be clear: Labour never mentioned this in its manifesto—not once.

    Hansard source