Caroline Dinenage MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2025 · Defence Procurement: SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  Our UK defence industry can have few better ambassadors around the world than our Red Arrows. As the Hawk aircraft comes to an end, will the Minister look closely at the British-designed modular aircraft being developed by Aeralis, because it would support SMEs right across our country, including by bringing around 600 jobs to StandardAero in Gosport and about 1,000 to the south Hampshire area? Surely that would be a much better way to support our national SMEs than opting for the Italian-Russian Yak-130 aircraft, which the MOD is rumoured to prefer.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Nuclear-certified Aircraft Procurement · Hansard source

  More

  I also welcome this announcement, but can we talk about money? We already know that 20% of our defence budget is spent on the nuclear deterrent. It is disproportionately expensive. If we are now extending the nuclear capability with these airdrop weapons, what impact will that have on the budget for the rest of our conventional armed forces?

• 10 Jun 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  First, I thank the Secretary of State for sending our Committee a letter on Friday evening setting out the Government’s intentions for AI and copyright. Reflecting what the Chair of the Liaison Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), said, both the nature of the letter and the method with which it was received were almost symbolic of how this whole process has been conducted from beginning to end. It was fairly haphazard and chaotic, and it was not entirely clear what the Secretary of State or the Minister intend to happen next, but I am grateful to the Minister for his offer to have a chat to talk us through it. Specifically, the Secretary of State and the Minister set out their amendments to the Bill and a plan to set up this parliamentary working group, and we would like to know a lot more about that. I understand exactly what the Government are trying to do: they are trying to placate peers and bring the Data (Use and Access) Bill to a conclusion, as the Minister says. The problem is that they are still not engaging with the fundamental existential issue, which is the concerns expressed by people across the creative industries. The Government’s amendment would expedite the economic impact assessment of the options in the AI copyright consultation. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee and the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee jointly wrote about that in February. Another amendment would expand the scope of the report to include training outside the UK and enforcement, which obviously should have happened from the start. The amendments are all welcome, but they miss the point of the creative industries’ concern that their work and intellectual property are being exploited wholesale, without permission, without payment and without practical means of recourse and redress. I note that the Minister told the House on 14 May: “I do not think that what is on the amendment paper today would deliver anything now.” —[ Official Report , 14 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 417.] The Government giving themselves nine months rather than 12 to conclude what we already know—that their favoured consultation option is completely unworkable—is much less likely to deliver quickly the kind of transparency and enforcement for creators than the amendments proposed in the other place. The Secretary of State’s letter also mentions that the Government intend to set up a parliamentary working group to ensure that “Parliament has a voice directly into DSIT throughout this process”. The big fear is that this working group will simply be a channel through which the Government will report back on their own engagement with AI developers and rights holders. The Government instead need to be listening to the concerns of Parliament and industry stakeholders. Maybe then they will realise that this stakeholder engagement exercise between rights holders and AI developers has been tried before, as I said earlier, including in the last Parliament. It was scrutinised at the time by the Committee I chair, and each time things have got nowhere. Talks have collapsed because the status quo suits rogue developers acting in bad faith. They think they have nothing to lose by looting the work and value of our creators and our rights holders. If the Government press on with this working group, we will of course engage and do what we can to support, but let us call it what it is: a distraction technique to divert attention away from the fact that the Government have got themselves into a terrible pickle over this legislation. They started a consultation on AI and copyright when they already had stated a preferred outcome, and they have been cloth-eared to the legitimate concerns of the world-leading creative industries for month after month. They have been virtually dragged kicking and screaming to this position now, where they bring forward a couple of tiny amendments. They have been gaslighting Members of all parties and at both ends of this building who have attempted to draw attention to the situation. They have been somehow pitting our world-leading creative industries against AI, almost presenting them as luddites who are allergic to innovation and technology, when actually these are some of the most groundbreaking and innovative sectors out there. They are using AI every single day to produce world-beating pieces of creative content. The very nature of how the Government have conducted this legislation pits our creative industries against AI, and that is deeply unfair. It is all not good enough. This is simply a thinly veiled attempt to kick the can down the road—and if kicking the can down the road were an Olympic sport, the Minister would have to add “sport” to his portfolio. If he thinks that any of us are fooled by this, or that it will quieten those who want to stand up for our world-leading creative industries and against the existential threat that they face, he has another think coming.

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to new clause 59, in my name, which considers the impact of our planning system on our creative and cultural industries and infrastructure. These spaces are the foundation of our world-beating creative industries and are also very important for our local communities. They are the engine of an industry which is growing at twice the rate of the rest of the economy. They are the R&D labs of a sector that is bigger than our automotive, aerospace and life sciences industries combined. Yet the creatives industries are under threat, including from our disruptive planning system and onerous licensing regime. My Culture, Media and Sport Committee has heard that live music venues will be back to shutting at the rate of two a week by the end of the year. That is in addition to electronic music venues and clubs, which have been shutting at the rate of three a week. My amendment seeks to help prevent those closures by putting a duty on planning decision makers to apply the agent of change principles, which have existed since the national planning policy framework in 2018. They require developers to ensure that their developments do not disrupt existing businesses in future, as well as places of worship, schools, transport infrastructure and so on. First, the new clause would be good for venues. Of the 86 grassroots music venues that closed in 2024, one in four shut for operational reasons, including noise abatement orders, neighbour disputes and interventions by the local councils. In the previous Parliament, the Committee I chair held a roundtable in Manchester at the Night and Day Café, an iconic venue. We were there to meet representatives of live music venues from across the north, yet the operators could not attend their own roundtable because they were instead attending a court hearing with Manchester city council to settle a three-year noise abatement dispute—a costly and pointless legal dispute at that, as it started due to a single complaint by a tenant who had moved out long before the issue was resolved. Secondly, the new clause would be good for developers and new neighbours. Consistent application of the agent of change principle will de-risk and speed up planning and development. It will ensure that the needs of an existing cultural venue are considered from the start and save developers from late-stage objections and lengthy, expensive legal disputes down the line. It will require developers and decision makers to think about the presence of existing venues and will benefit future tenants and homeowners, who should be less impacted overall. Finally, the new clause would help local authorities. It is councils that have the duties to detect statutory nuisance and investigate noise complaints; it is councils that serve noise abatement orders; and it is councils that get dragged into expensive and often pointless bun fights with local venues, as the Night and Day Café example illustrates. Encouraging councils to consider at the planning stage how developers and venues can find a nice equilibrium in their interests can only help to save them time and money, which is surely more efficient than settling matters in court. The new clause has widespread support. It takes forward the recommendation of the CMS Committee in the previous Parliament and is supported by the whole live music sector, from the operators of our smallest clubs, pubs and venues to the biggest arenas and stadiums. It will benefit the breadth of our cultural infrastructure, from our historic theatres to our pulsating nightclubs. It is built on evidence given by LIVE, UK Music Creative UK, the Music Venue Trust, the Night Time Industries Association and the National Arenas Association. The new clause is not about venues versus developers; instead, it is about ensuring we have the balance right between building enough good homes and making sure the places we are building keep the things that make life worth living. Everyone in Westminster and our constituencies agrees that our high streets have been in decline, so it is vital that we protect the places that are special to us, our constituents and our communities—the places that provide a platform for our creators and our world-beating creative industries, where we can make memories, celebrate and have fun. I hope the Government will support my new clause and, if not today, commit to making this law as soon as possible. Live music is in crisis. The Government need to listen.

• 22 May 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The Leader of the House may be aware that cheerleading is one of the fastest-growing sports in the UK, and that it achieves the remarkable feat of keeping young girls engaged in sport at an age when so many disengage from school sports. She might not know, however, that two of the best cheerleading teams in the country are in Gosport. In fact, both Storm Athletics and Jessie Leigh Dance and Cheer Academy came back from the world summit in Florida early this month with gold medals and first-place trophies. I would love to see many more young people get involved in the sport, which has now been recognised as such by Sport England, but funding to support more disadvantaged youngsters to get involved cannot be applied for yet. Will the Leader of the House lead the cheer for cheerleading as a debate here in Parliament? [ Interruption . ]

• 22 May 2025 · UK-India Cultural Co-operation Agreement · Hansard source

  More

  Whether it is Bollywood, Hollywood or Borehamwood, I am sure the Minister will agree that our British cultural and creative industries are our global economic superpower. While the Secretary of State is AWOL today, rumours abound that the whole Department for Culture, Media and Sport is for the chop. The Minister must see that this sends a terrible message to those sectors about how little their Government value the power of those industries. Will he take this opportunity to put that rumour to bed, and if he cannot, will he take this chance to put on record that it is a horrible idea?

• 21 May 2025 · Business and the Economy · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is so popular. I am interested by how he is starting this debate, because it chimes with what I am hearing in my constituency, where venues such as pubs, restaurants and cafes, which are such a vital part of the effort to regenerate our high streets and local community spaces, are seeing their margins slashed because of the cost of labour and the increase in business rates. Does he agree that Labour’s jobs tax and the ending of business rates relief is putting the regeneration of our town centres and community spaces at risk?

• 21 May 2025 · Business and the Economy · Hansard source

  More

  May I just take my hon. Friend back to what he was saying a moment ago about opportunities for young people? I recently met hair and beauty salons in my constituency. As he knows, they have historically been the most amazing employers of apprentices and have given such wonderful chances to young people. I was worried to hear that the rate at which they are taking on apprentices is dropping off. By 2027, there will be no apprentices left in the sector. It is not just hair and beauty saying that; other sectors in my constituency, such as adult social care and early years education, are saying the same. Is he as worried as I am about the lack of opportunities for our younger generation?

• 19 May 2025 · NHS and Care Volunteer Responders Service · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to some of the volunteers across my constituency, who make such a difference to people’s lives. The Minister will have noticed that polling by More in Common today found that more and more people feel disconnected from society. That is compounded by the fact that so many of our community spaces are struggling to make ends meet as a result of a combination of business rate changes, national insurance rises and energy price rises. Those health and care volunteers make such a difference by chatting with those who are lonely and vulnerable in my constituency. Has the Minister considered the impact of this decision, particularly in the interim period, on communities such as mine? What cost will not having this voluntary service to support people in their times of need drive into our health services?

• 14 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is being unbelievably generous in taking interventions, but before he moves on, I wanted to say that it is really important to have those involved in AI and in the creative industries in the same room at the same time. He must not forget that the reason the creative industries are in such a state of panic and despair about this is because a hare was set running a few months ago by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, when it published an AI strategy that said that the copyright opt-out was a way to grow the AI industry. The Government then published their consultation, in which they indicated that the opt-out was their preferred mechanism, despite the fact that the document also mentioned prioritising transparency. I understand that, but the Minister must understand that panic has set in. Words matter; what we say matters. He needs to do everything that he can to bring this issue to a close.

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to support new clauses 2 to 5 in the name of the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins); to pay tribute to Baroness Kidron, who has driven forward these amendments in the other place; and to speak in favour of new clause 20 in the name of the official Opposition. I am beginning to sound a bit like a broken record on this matter, but our creative industries are such a phenomenal UK success story. They are our economic superpower and are worth more than automotive, aerospace and life sciences added together, comprising almost 10% of UK registered businesses and creating nearly 2.5 million jobs. More than that, our creative industries have so much intrinsic value; they underpin our culture and our sense of community. Intellectual property showcases our nation around the world and supports our tourism sector. As a form of soft power, there is simply nothing like it—yet these social and economic benefits are all being put at risk by the suggested wholesale transfer of copyright to AI companies. The choice presented to us always seems, wittingly or unwittingly, to pit our innovative AI sector against our world-class creative industries and, indeed, our media sector. It is worth noting that news media is often overlooked in these debates, but newspapers, magazines and news websites license print and content online. In turn, that helps to support high-quality and independent journalism, which is so vital to underpinning our democratic life. That is essential considering recent news that the global average press freedom score has fallen to an all-time low. I want to push back against the false choice that we always seem to be presented with that, somehow, our creative industries are Luddites and are not in favour of AI. I have seen time and again how our creators have been characterised by big tech and its lobbyists as somehow resistant to technological progress, which is of course nonsensical.

• 6 May 2025 · Trade Negotiations · Hansard source

  More

  The Indian Government have said that this deal will mean that “immense opportunities for talented and skilled Indian youth will open up in the UK.” Will the Minister please confirm that we have not signed a youth mobility scheme with India before his Government have agreed to one with the EU? He said that we have contribution agreements with the EU and the USA, but my understanding is that we have signed double contribution conventions with only Chile, Japan and South Korea. Could he please clarify that?

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is right. English football thrives because the ecosystem runs from the grassroots to the top of the elite. Our job is to ensure that it continues to thrive, and that every aspect of that ecosystem is protected and supported. Some irresponsible club owners continue to play fast and loose with club finances and assets. Far too many clubs have been on the brink of collapse, and that is why the regulator must have a role in protecting English football. However, the regulator will need to bring together all voices in that complex ecosystem for it to work properly. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which I chair, is looking forward to our pre-appointment hearing with David Kogan, the preferred candidate, next week. It has been a long journey to get here, as I am sure the Secretary of State appreciates, having scheduled and then postponed hearings more than once, as Ministers have struggled to pick a candidate. The chair of the football regulator will be utterly critical to ensuring that the regulator performs its role well. They will steer the ship. They will set the temperature for football, going forward. They will have to come in on the front foot and broker strong relationships with stakeholders across football to get full buy-in. I have already spoken about some of the nay-sayers and detractors. The chair will need to build faith and demonstrate a good understanding of the dynamic football ecosystem to have the clout that they will need. However, they need to ensure they do not come with a load of industry baggage. It is a really difficult position to be in. At the same time, to be effective, they must demonstrate regulatory experience. Ultimately, the chair will have to demonstrate that they can be objective, fair and, crucially, independent of Government, the leagues and individual football clubs. It is a very difficult job to recruit for. Indeed, UEFA has raised concerns and threatened sanctions over the prospect of Government interference. That is why I am surprised that the Government have proposed a candidate who is so close to the Labour party, and who has donated money to the Chancellor and others. It raises concerns about whether the regulator can truly be seen as independent, given their close ties to members of the Government. I expect that the Committee will want to explore that in detail when we hear from Mr Kogan next week. He will need to demonstrate that he intends the regulator to be operationally 100% independent from political interference. I struggle to see how that will happen, but my mind is open, because the Select Committee’s job is to hold a pre-appointment hearing with this potential regulator. As other hon. Members have mentioned, the former chair of the BBC, clearly a talented, capable and very smart man, was undone by the impression that he gave of lacking independence from Government. Like the BBC, very many people out there are willing this body to fail, and I do not want to see that happen. The worst-case scenario for everybody is if the regulator is undermined in its infancy. Even before the chair is in place, there have been some concerning signs about the Government’s approach to the independent football regulator. We know that many clubs in the premier league in particular have expressed misgivings and in some cases very strong opposition to the regulator. Despite what the Secretary of State has said—she has spoken very strongly on this—there are some lingering doubts. The whole process has been plagued by leaks and delays. Members have seen and heard the rumours that the regulator was poised to be thrown out on to the latest bonfire of quangos even before it had started. When discussing the so-called blockers, it seems telling that the Government chose to single out the Gardens Trust, Sport England and the Theatres Trust, which will no longer be consulted over planning. When considering AI and copyright, the Government seem to be siding with big tech over creative industries. Members will forgive me for beginning to feel like the sectors we represent on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee are not valued by the Secretary of State’s Department. I look forward to hearing next week from the proposed regulator and to seeing the Bill progress through the House. I think the Bill can improve the resilience of clubs and encourage sensible financial decisions. I would like clarity on how the regulator will operate alongside the cost control measures that it will have no oversight of, such as premier league profit and sustainability rules, which we have recently seen clubs such as Chelsea manipulate to their own advantage and which will arguably undermine the regulator. I would be grateful if the Minister came back to me on that. I also want cast-iron assurances that the Bill will prevent the sort of painful, appalling situation that has been experienced by Reading FC with its owner, Dai Yongge. Otherwise, we will all be wasting our time. It is imperative that this Bill safeguards English football, which is central to our communities and to the national fabric of our country. Football is a unifier: it brings people together for the love of the game, from the grassroots to the top of the elite clubs, and it is the envy of the world. All the other countries in the world would love to have our football leagues. We must secure its future for generations to come.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I start my comments by speaking not as the Chair of the Select Committee, but as a football fan—in particular, with apologies to the hon. Members for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) and for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), as a Portsmouth FC fan. I understand very well what a football club means to a community, a local way of life and the fans, and what they will do to protect it. In the five years that followed Portsmouth’s fantastic FA cup victory in 2008, we really went through the wringer. The club boardroom seemed to have a revolving door. We had a succession of owners, each worse than the last. The club entered administration twice, and it had a 10-point deduction on two occasions. Pompey suffered three relegations in four seasons. I saw what that did to the city of my birth and to the fans, who feel as strongly about the club as I do. The club was pulled from the brink of oblivion by the largest fan-led buy-out in history—fans put their money where their mouth is. They had to, because the club was at risk of extinction. The Pompey Supporters Trust was formed. Some 2,300 Pompey fans invested their own money and became shareholders, raising around £2.5 million. Remarkably, under that fan-led ownership model, the Pompey Supporters Trust was able to declare the club debt-free in September 2014, just 18 months after taking over. Not all clubs are so lucky. Time and again we have heard in the Chamber stories of clubs falling into the hands of unscrupulous owners who have little regard or care for the club history, or what it means to the local community. They do not listen to the fans, who we all know are the blood that runs through the veins of our football clubs up and down the country. It was that, alongside the spectre of the European super league, that the previous Government had in mind when they commissioned the fan-led review, captained so brilliantly by my friend Dame Tracey Crouch. It was pivotal in the genesis of this Bill. I hope that this rebooted Bill will protect English football and keep clubs at the beating heart of their communities, just as much as its previous iteration did. Some of the Government’s changes to the legislation echo the previous Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s recommendations. First, on enhanced fan engagement, we know that English football fans are some of the most passionate in the world. Their voices must be heard. For too long, fans have been left in the dark about decisions on ticket pricing, home shirt colour changes and home ground relocation. I welcome the Bill’s commitment on that. I also welcome the removal of the requirement for the regulator to consider Government foreign and trade policy when deciding whether to approve club takeovers. That should ensure the regulator’s operational independence from Government—a subject to which I will return. There has been controversy around aspects of the Bill, and particularly on the inclusion of parachute payments in the financial distribution mechanism, which has inevitably sparked hostility towards the Bill. However, in a room of 10 people there would be 10 different opinions on how the parachute payments should work. The legislation will never please everybody. Some people oppose the Bill entirely, and others have voiced dissent for myriad reasons; there is growing criticism of the Bill this time around. The sheer number of amendments tabled in the other place was a sign of that discontent. It will be crucial to ensure that the legislation is right, and we have only one chance to do so. I suggest we take a moment to remind ourselves of the findings of the fan-led review, and of why the idea of a regulator was conceived in the first place. It was conceived because self-regulation simply is not working, although it was given many chances over many years. The leagues have not been able to reach a deal on financial distribution themselves. We should not forget that, left to their own devices, six greedy clubs planned to break away to form the European super league, risking English football itself.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Intellectual Property: Artificial Intelligence · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) not only on securing this debate, and an excellent opening speech, but on his birthday. One of the saddest things about this debate, and the pickle that the Government have led us into, is that it inadvertently pitches the AI sector and the potential for growth against our world-leading creative industries. That almost caricatures our creators as luddites against innovation, and that could not be further from the truth. There is no appetite in the creative industries to restrict this technology across the sector. They recognise the potential of AI—so many are already using it, and that is borne out in the statistics. In 2023, a Deloitte survey said that 74% of digital artists are already using AI, along with 67% of film and motion creatives. Those numbers will only grow over time. We hear from almost every quarter about the serious concerns over our £130 billion creative industries—that AI, left unchecked, will represent an existential threat to their growth and very existence. Incidentally, that growth has outstripped that of the wider economy since 2010. Despite the potential of AI, we know that our creative industries are growing at an incredible rate. They are our global superpower—economically and reputationally, and that does not happen by accident. Those industries rely on the strength of a gold-standard British intellectual property regime, and they have made it clear to the Minister—and to every one of us in this room—that watering that down would rip the carpet out from under a tried and tested growth industry. AI needs creators and the data they provide—but that data must be paid for, not stolen. Ironically, big tech relies on the strong IP regime as well; I am sure no one was more surprised than I was when Sam Altman at OpenAI noted, with irony, that DeepSeek had exploited its open-source model. The Minister and I agree that the best way forward is to promote transparency across the AI sector. Where we disagree is on the Government’s prepared proposal for an opt-out system, which is utterly unworkable. That has been proven internationally. If they press on with this madness, we must find a way to safeguard the rights of creators by explicitly demonstrating where their work has been used in a commercial setting. AI growth must not come at the cost of our creators and our world-leading creative industries. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive; there must be an opportunity here for this to be a country where both can flourish, in a transparent and accountable environment where everyone’s talents are recognised. I ask the Minister once again to think long and hard before he does anything that could rip up the potential of our world-leading creative industries. Both can grow collaboratively and make this country so much stronger.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Hair and Beauty Sector: Government Policy · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) on securing this debate and articulating so comprehensively the issues that the hair and beauty sector face. I share her concern and frustrations, and those of the sector. The hair and beauty industry contributes £5.8 billion to the UK economy. It is not just about how people look; it is important for our high streets, for individuals and for communities, yet the Government seem to insist on seeing the sector driven into the ground. Since the Chancellor’s spring statement, I have received messages almost daily from businesses across my constituency that are seriously concerned about their future. This is existential. Just this week, a small salon owner who has been in business for over 27 years got in touch with me and said that this is the most challenging period that she has ever experienced. The Government’s changes to employer national insurance contributions and the national minimum wage will see labour costs for an average small salon in my Gosport constituency rise by over £25,000. That is completely unsustainable; as my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster said, it forces people into the black economy or out of business altogether. Only recently, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions set out her Government’s welfare reforms, arguing that they are aimed at incentivising people currently in receipt of benefits back into work and secure employment. But I would love to hear from the Minister how he thinks that tallies with the closure of small businesses in our communities, and the redundancies that will result. On top of that, the Government’s actions are set to make 1,000 apprenticeships across the country unaffordable, closing the door to young talent and diminishing training and employment opportunities. I heard from one local barber who has trained apprentices for years; he has now said that the Government’s changes mean he will not be able to afford to train another apprentice. Businesses will suffer. Female-led businesses in particular will suffer, as well as female work opportunities. Communities will suffer, and in the end the Government will see declining tax receipts. Will the Minister admit that his party made a mistake, and set out how he will communicate with the Treasury to attempt a U-turn? I do not think that anyone on the Opposition Benches would blame him if his party took that sensible step. On Monday I will be hosting a roundtable for all the hair and beauty salons across my constituency, and I would love to know what the Minister’s message is to them.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Hair and Beauty Sector: Government Policy · Hansard source

  More

  It is entirely predictable that the Minister is trying to push the blame on to the previous Government for some of his Government’s decisions. Does he not agree that actually this is such a retrograde step? As a number of Members have tried to explain, what he is seeing from these small businesses is a decrease in the tax take and a decrease in employment opportunities. At a time when his Government have bet the house on growth, all he is seeing is a decline in growth. Surely that is a decision, not a position that he has been forced into, and it is a retrograde step.

• 26 Mar 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I think you may agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the longer we spend in this job, the more we realise that almost nothing is ever straightforward. Even the best intentions nearly always have unintended consequences, and there is absolutely no doubt that smoking, and specifically smoking tobacco, has done untold damage in my constituency and continues to do so. The health of my constituents has suffered as a result of the well-documented effects of regular smoking, and, moreover, smoking is a driver of social and economic inequality. Smokers earn, on average, 7% less than non-smokers. I could not believe that statistic when I first read it, but when I thought about it, I realised that it made complete sense. Those who take more time off work because of the inevitable ill-health effects of smoking, those who spend more of their disposable income on tobacco, and those who develop a dependency on a drug such as nicotine will obviously experience, over time, an impact on their earnings. Smoking is like an extra tax on the most disadvantaged communities, and I can see why this Government have maintained the last Government’s ambition to phase it out.

• 19 Mar 2025 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That would be an excellent decision, and I am sure the Naomi House children’s hospice and Jacksplace, which do so much invaluable work to support families going through the most unspeakable difficulties in my area, would advocate for that. I want to talk about childcare settings, which ensure that our smallest but most cherished family members are cared for and given the very best possible start in life. It is incomprehensible that the Government have taken this decision to imperil some of the businesses and services that our constituents most rely on—nursing homes, for example. The owner of one nursing home, with 35 years of service in the Gosport constituency, told me that the tax rises in the Budget will add £90,000 on top of its annual costs. This business is particularly vulnerable because a very large proportion of its bed spaces are occupied by local authority patients. Its costs are going to go up by 12% this year, driven mostly by changes to the minimum wage and this jobs tax—the national insurance contributions change—on his 75 members of staff. The council, which is having difficulties of its own, can provide only a 4% uplift to cover it. Quite simply, this an existential threat to his business, and he is not alone. It is the elderly, the vulnerable, disabled people and their families who are going to pay the price, and we know that these costs will go to those having to foot the bill. If people are not privately funded, some nursing homes will be forced to hand back their local authority contracts and increase the proportion of beds commissioned privately. Since the Budget, I have received messages from individuals who have already seen the cost of care going through the roof. One wrote to me: “Directly due to the increases in Employers National Insurance contributions the Chancellor has managed to cause an increase of 7.8% in my brother’s care home fees that are already north of £8000 a month… I shudder to think of the overall cost nationally of this increase across all those with relatives and loved ones in care.” I also want to talk about early years settings. Early years providers are facing a squeeze that many just will not be able to stomach. Just as care settings have their revenue dictated by local government, nurseries are limited by childcare ratios and the fees they get from their local authority for their 30 hours’ free childcare. Hopscotch nursery, which looks after 1,900 children across my region, has told me that these changes will add £1 million to its overheads. It says that, in order to make up the shortfall, it is going to have to put its fees up by 10%, and that 10% will be passed on to my Gosport constituents. How can parents in Gosport face such an uptick in fees? What assessment have the Government made of the impact that will have on parents, on people dropping out of the jobs market or out of the workforce, and, most especially, on women? At the end of the day, we all know that when it comes to childcare, rightly or wrongly, the buck always stops with us. What will be the disproportionate impact of this on women? I could mention so many other organisations that are facing the prospect of scaling back their activities. They include hair and beauty salons, which are warning that this will result in billions of pounds lost, and many will shut up shop or encourage staff to go freelance. They have previously taken on so many apprentices, but they warn that by 2027 there will be no apprenticeships left in this sector because they will be too expensive. The common thread is that this national insurance change will hit businesses for which labour is the highest cost and there is no digital solution, and businesses that are unable to find efficiencies because of the nature of their overheads. The amendments passed in the Lords would go some way towards alleviating those cost pressures. In many cases, they would be a lifeline for the businesses and services that our constituents so desperately rely on, and those that by their very nature are reliant on the public sector for revenue. I urge the Minister to change his mind, to show some compassion, to show he cares, to listen to his constituents and to support these amendments.

• 19 Mar 2025 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased that the hon. Member is talking about growth. He talks about perverse incentives. What possible kind of perverse incentive could he have in mind when removing a jobs tax from a children’s hospice, which cares for children and families going through the most unspeakable heartbreak? Where is the perverse incentive in that?

• 19 Mar 2025 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That is absolutely right. There are over 400 Labour MPs, but just four of them are sitting there to try to defend this indefensible jobs tax on our most vulnerable. They should be utterly ashamed of themselves. Do they not have children’s hospices in their constituencies? Do they not have hospices and other settings that their constituents work so hard to raise funds for? They should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.

• 19 Mar 2025 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak in support of the Lords amendments, and I direct the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I want to talk about the services that are so integral to our communities, because they are the ones on which our constituents rely. I am talking about GP surgeries, dental practices and pharmacies. I am also talking about our community hospices; the charity hospices that care for our loved ones through the most difficult and heartbreaking of times; the hospices that our constituents work so hard to raise funds to keep going. including our children’s hospices. I listened very hard to what the Minister said, and he talked really dispassionately about difficult decisions. Has he no shame? This is a choice, and the Government have chosen to impose this jobs tax on children’s hospices and the services that support families going through the most unimaginably difficult and painful of times.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Welfare Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Like the Secretary of State, I was elected in 2010, and I need to tell her that our recollections differ. When I came into this role, after 13 years of Labour government, 7.5% of young people in the Gosport constituency were not in education, employment or training. That number was down to 3% last year. Since Labour has taken office, 83,000 more people across this country of working age are now unemployed. Businesses in the sectors that take on so many young people across our constituencies, from adult social care to childcare to hair and beauty, are telling me that they are not taking on more staff as a result of her Chancellor’s changes to national insurance contributions. Surely the two are mutually incompatible.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Video Games Industry: Gross Value Added · Hansard source

  More

  1. If she will make an assessment of recent trends in the gross value added of the video games industry.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Video Games Industry: Gross Value Added · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State is right: the video games industry is a great British success story. It contributes £6 billion a year to our economy and 73,000 jobs, many of which are outside London, from Dundee to Brighton—it really is right across our nations. However, there are growing concerns that the UK is losing its competitive edge. Our tax relief rates have dropped below those of Ireland, France, Australia and Canada—all our biggest competitors in this sector. What is the Secretary of State doing to really push the Treasury to ensure that our video games expenditure credits and everything else are up to date so that we retain our competitive edge in this vital sector?