Caroline Dinenage MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2026 · Culture, Media And Sport · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Backbench Business Committee. I am conscious of time, so I will focus my remarks on the Select Committee’s “Game On” report, which looked at community and school sport, and the Government response published last week. The evidence was unequivocal: an active nation underpins everything else—our health, our prosperity, our social cohesion. It is not a peripheral issue, but a strategic priority, yet it has too often been treated by Governments as a discretionary choice. We are at a critical juncture as the UK continues to invest significantly less in sport and physical activity than many of our European neighbours, despite the proven economic and social returns. Our Committee therefore called for a decisive generational shift, with a cross-Government movement for health strategy that recognises that physical activity is not simply a sport, but a central pillar of policy across health, education, planning and economic growth. The Government response acknowledged much of this analysis, but when we look more closely, we recognise a theme that has gripped this Government from day one: plenty of words, but no action to back them up, or as some might say, “all mouth and no trousers”. Nowhere is that clearer than on funding. We recommended increasing the share of Government expenditure on sport and recreation over time, in recognition of the very clear evidence that investment in activity delivers long-term savings, reduces illness, supports people into work, prevents chronic conditions and strengthens local economies. Following publication of the Committee’s report, the Government announced over £1 billion for school sport. It looked like a statement of the kind of ambition we would like to see across the sector, and we nearly patted ourselves on the back for influencing this remarkable investment. However, given a closer look, this glossy announcement is no gift at all. It is a cynical cut disguised as new funding. Yesterday, Schools Week published an article with the finding that 65% of schools in the north-east are expecting to make cuts to their coaching staff as a result. One reason for this cut is the reduction in the contribution from the Department of Health and Social Care and the replacement of the PE and sport premium with money that must now go to secondary schools as well as primary schools. I have a feeling that the Minister will attempt to say that schools are receiving more money for PE and sport when she responds to this debate, but that is simply not the case. It is smoke and mirrors. We were pleased with the £400 million of grassroots funding, which we called for in our report, but we need a concerted effort to ensure that the funding achieves what it sets out to do. We also called for an audit of sport and physical activity facilities to make sure we are not losing them. This danger is real, especially as the Government have still not ruled out removing Sport England as a statutory consultee. Are the Government tracking the number of sports pitches and facilities, or do they have any plans to do so? Another pillar of our recommendations was clarity—clarity of leadership, accountability and deliverability—because without a coherent national plan, even significant investment risks being fragmented and under-realised. That is why we called for a cross-Government strategy, backed by clear objectives, defined responsibilities and mechanisms to measure progress. The Government have told us that a national plan for physical activity is in development, but there is no firm deadline, no detailed governance model and no clear indication of how the Department will be held accountable—all words, no action. On issue after issue, the Government have agreed in principle to a number of our recommendations, but have declined to act decisively, as with the recommendation of a statutory duty on local authorities to provide sporting and leisure facilities and the recommendation on action to remove unnecessary “No ball games” signs. There are warm words, but zero grip. In schools, where the case for action is perhaps clearest of all, we see the same pattern: the Government accept that provision is inconsistent and acknowledge the importance of high-quality PE and regular activity, but when presented with the opportunity to set out clear national expectations, they step back. There is no requirement for children to achieve 60 minutes of activity every day, only encouragement; there is no firm mandate guaranteeing two hours of PE each week, only an expectation that schools might protect time; and physical education itself will remain outside the core curriculum subjects, despite its central importance to children’s development. A truly transformative approach would embed movement throughout the school, throughout the curriculum, throughout the environment and throughout our culture, ensuring that all children, regardless of their background, have the opportunity to live active lives, because active children become active adults. Outside school, the Secretary of State has made her national youth strategy the poster child of her tenure. She came to Parliament to tell us she was giving young people “somewhere to go, something to do and someone who cares.” —[ Official Report , 18 June 2026; Vol. 787, c. 971.] The strategy is backed by £500 million, which again sounds like a hugely significant investment to me, but when we look at the detail, we see it is not the investment we think. It is the amalgamation of the scrapped youth investment fund and the scrapped National Citizen Service. Less money is going into the system. Although the National Citizen Service no doubt had its flaws, it was the most successful youth programme of the past few decades—over 1 million young people took part. Funding streams used to be clear, but now there is a convoluted pick and mix of over nine different programmes. It is more difficult for civil society to navigate a fragmented selection of funding pots. Meanwhile, the speed of the closure of the National Citizen Service meant that some of the incredibly skilled and dedicated youth workers, on whom we rely and on whom the Government will rely when they finally decide what they are going to do for young people, have left the workforce. How many have left the sector due to delays and uncertainty in the delivery of the national youth strategy? Does the Minister know? Perhaps she can tell me. Volunteering is an essential foundation of community sport. The Government recognise its importance, but they once again stop short of setting out a comprehensive national policy to support, incentivise and sustain the workforce—there is nothing there. The valued volunteer workforce is needed more than ever before, but it is under incredible pressure. People are dropping out due to the time priorities of coping with cost of living demands. There is one further example that speaks volumes about the Government’s approach: the question of women’s football broadcasting. The Select Committee recommended an intervention to explore whether the 3 pm Saturday blackout could be adapted to support the women’s game. It would give a consistent time for showcasing the women’s game and inspire girls to get active. The Government’s response points to the technical complexities of UEFA article 48 and argues that any change would risk opening up the slot more widely, thereby undermining its current purpose—the response is, “It’s all too difficult. We just can’t be bothered.” Where is the ambition to work proactively with UEFA and the Football Association to pursue a targeted exemption for women’s football? While the 3 pm blackout continues, women’s football is shackled and with it the opportunity for more women and girls to see themselves participating in sport. An active population is a healthier, more productive and more connected population. Increasing participation in sport and physical activity is one of the most powerful and cost-effective levers of Government. It delivers returns across multiple policy areas simultaneously, easing pressure on public services and improving quality of life. The question is not whether the Government recognise those investments—they plainly do. The question is whether they are prepared to act with any urgency or with the ambition that the evidence demands. Without ambition, we will continue to fall short of what is possible. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee has set out a road map. It is quite easy for the Secretary of State, the Minister and the Department to follow it. What we need now is for the Government not simply to endorse this sense of direction, but to actually match their words with decisive action.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Youth Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  I cannot help thinking that, with youth hubs, the Government are trying to fix a problem of their own creation. The amount of young unemployed people in my constituency has gone up 23% since the Government took office in July 2024. Can I just let that figure sink in? Twenty-three per cent. The Secretary of State should be ashamed of what he has done to young people in the Gosport constituency. How has he done that? He has done it by ensuring that all the businesses that give young people the first foot on the employment ladder—hospitality, childcare or hair and beauty—have been poleaxed by the actions of this Government. Only this morning we heard— [ Interruption. ] Thank you, Mr Speaker. We heard the Prime Minister-in-waiting talking about the importance of creating growth. When will they realise that only businesses create growth, so get out of their way and let them do it?

• 20 May 2026 · Defence Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  You will almost be bored with hearing me say, Madam Deputy Speaker—as will the Secretary of State—that I represent Gosport, which has one of the highest proportions of veterans in the UK, but we also have fantastic servicemen and women at sites such as HMS Collingwood, HMS Sultan, the Institute of Naval Medicine and, across the harbour, Portsmouth naval base, as well as thousands more who work in the defence industry. Although we have such a proud history of serving the nation, many of my constituents already feel deeply disillusioned and let down by this Government. Why? Quite simply, because of their failure to deliver. Inaction could be their strapline. There is a total disparity between what is said and what is done, and defence is a perfect example of that. The Government talk of defence spending, but the Secretary of State knows that, as we speak, every single corner of our armed forces is being asked to find cuts—and where is the defence investment plan, the clear signal that defence companies in my constituency need in order to make spending decisions to protect jobs and livelihoods? It is nowhere to be seen. This theme of over-promising and under-delivering extends to a range of other sectors. Because I chair the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, I want to say a little about that sector, which contributes 16 times more to the UK economy than defence manufacturing. Formula 1, for example, is a global British brand that is worth £12 billion to the UK economy. However, our world-class major events sector is being held back by gaps in legislation—and what do the Government do? They come forward with the Sporting Events Bill announced in the King’s Speech, which was a brilliant idea, but the Bill has very limited scope. It does nothing to address the wider needs of the major events industry, which is so valuable to the British economy. In particular, cultural and business events are vital to our economy, our communities and our international standing. All words, no action. Then there is the lack of ambition in relation to ticket touts. The ticket tout ban Bill was announced in November. The Government promised a “ready to go” Bill that would put fans first, but they have relegated that promise to a mere draft Bill, kicking the can into the next parliamentary Session at the very earliest. The longer it takes for the Government to act, the longer touts will be able to rinse fans in my constituency and throughout the country to the tune of approximately £145 million, most of which goes to overseas operators. All words, no action. Then there is touring in the EU. In the ongoing psychodrama gripping the Labour party, I note that the subject of Brexit is back on the agenda and is a hot topic, but there is so much that the Government could do for our creative industries without reopening that can of worms and starting to renegotiate Brexit. They could revisit their decision to cut orchestral tax relief for EU touring. They could ensure that A1 forms are processed without delay, so that artists do not have to make double social security contributions. They could help with the cost of ATA carnets, which the Association of British Orchestras says adds about £10,000 to an orchestra’s budget. All words, no action. Let us look at school and community sport. The King’s Speech contained absolutely no new measures to improve physical activity. There has been no resolution of the stand-off between the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Education and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport over cuts to physical education funding. If we are serious about getting our country more active, we need action, not words. That needs to begin with legislative changes to increase participation, to increase investment in the facilities on which communities rely, and to require schools to prioritise physical education alongside academic attainment. The case is clear: a more active nation is healthier, more productive and, ultimately, more prosperous. Once again: all words, no action. There is nothing in the King’s Speech for young people. The Culture Secretary has made her national youth strategy her stated legacy in the Department, but as far as I can see, all the Government have done is rip up the National Citizen Service. They have overseen the exodus of youth workers from the third sector and replaced them with nothing but a slogan. The Culture Secretary says that young people want “somewhere to go, something to do and someone who cares”, but it is all words. There is no action. Do this Government care at all? They must begin to back up words with deeds. The King’s Speech does not even begin to provide the ambition necessary to maximise the potential of our culture, media and sport, or to back our veterans and those who work so hard in constituencies like mine in the service of our nation. Meanwhile, the British economy, people’s livelihoods and jobs are suffering.

• 20 May 2026 · Defence Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  When is the plan going to happen? I represent the constituency with the highest proportion of veterans in the UK. They take a keen interest in what goes on in our armed forces. We look across Portsmouth harbour to ships that are sat stationary, not going anywhere, and see a defence industry that is being undermined at every step. When will the Government actually put their words into action?

• 11 Mar 2026 · Promoting Equality · Hansard source

  More

  On the Secretary of State’s watch, the proportion of young people not in education, employment or training in Gosport has now reached around 5%—the highest in 15 years. Is that any wonder when so many of the job opportunities that used to be there for our young people, such as in retail, hospitality, and hair and beauty, are being battered by this Government? Surely one of the best ways to tackle inequality and poverty is to give people the right education and the right job opportunities, so what are her Government and her Department going to do?

• 9 Mar 2026 · Funeral Directors: Regulation · Hansard source

  More

  I do not think that the size of a business is necessarily any reflection of its professionalism. We know that a large number of small, independent funeral services up and down the country work with incredible professionalism. The hon. Gentleman is also right that nothing should be introduced that is unnecessarily bureaucratic or costly for those businesses. The Fuller report says: “It is important that real change is implemented to ensure the security and dignity of the deceased, and that a specific government department is given responsibility for overseeing this.” Everybody who is involved in this sector recognises that there is a need for it to be properly regulated, inspected and overseen, so can the Minister set out clearly what his initial thoughts are on the recommendations of the Fuller report and when the Government will respond to them in full? When they do so, will they set out clearly what firm action will be taken, and when? We have waited so long, so when the Government respond, it must be with clarity, with purpose and—above all—with urgency.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Funeral Directors: Regulation · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for listening to me on this issue when he was the Justice Minister, when I first brought his attention to the situation. The points he makes are absolutely right. Over the past couple of years I have met the two voluntary trade bodies for the funeral sector, the National Society of Allied and Independent Funeral Directors and the National Association of Funeral Directors, as well as countless reputable funeral businesses and, crucially, many of the families impacted by these cases. I am so grateful to all of them for the time that they gave me, but as my hon. Friend said, every single one of them has stressed the need for the sector to be better regulated. I echo his calls for the Minister to give us some good news on that in a minute. That is important for everybody; otherwise, all those who carry out their work with such enormous care and diligence will have to operate under the shadow of suspicion. We owe it to them as much as anyone else to get this right. The Minister knows that malpractice is not uncommon. Quite simply, taboos and sensitivities around death have effectively created a smokescreen for bad care. I am especially concerned about one area: the rise in direct cremations. For those who do not know what that is, it is where the loved ones do not see their deceased at any point in the journey. In their cases, there are absolutely no safeguards, checks or balances. The key thing here is that direct cremations have expanded hugely in the last few years, partly as a result of covid, from just 3% of funerals in 2019 to 20% in 2023. We all see the charming adverts on the television in which an elderly gentleman explains with a smile that he has arranged for himself a direct cremation. He says, “I just didn’t want any fuss. It is much easier for my children.” We know that some very reputable and caring businesses do this process, but if the children knew what direct cremation might be, they would know that it might be little better than a conveyor belt. Mum and dad may be bundled into a van, maybe still in their soiled nightclothes, with a catheter attached and without any form of temperature controls. They could be taken to an unknown location and left for days before a slot becomes available at a crematorium. Who knows? In the hands of an unscrupulous company—who knows which ones they are?—it is all too possible for any human dignity and respect to become a completely unnecessary complication and expense in this process. The only requirement before cremation takes place is that the body needs to be rid of objects such as pacemakers and other medical equipment. That was another part of my journey through understanding this process. This surgical procedure is carried out by embalmers, who also drain the body of blood in order to replace it with embalming fluid and remove the contents of the stomach. I was really shocked to learn that that can be performed without any accreditation or qualification whatsoever, and with no minimum standards of care for the body. That is not to say that there is not a form of qualification—the British Institute Of Embalmers provides professional training, and reputable companies such as Co-op funeral directors require a level 5 apprenticeship qualification for their embalmers—but it is not mandated to be able to practise. In a nutshell, if the political career of any one of us in this room did not work out, we could walk out of here and set up our own funeral home—in our house, if we wanted to—with no special skills or accreditation and nobody inspecting our work. With that as the starting point, who can ever say for sure that their family member was treated with the appropriate professionalism? I have a question for the Minister; I know he has been hoping that I would get to this for some time. What can the Government do to restore trust in this sector? It is unfair on those who practise with enormous integrity that their professionalism is being called into question. The Minister will know that the Fuller inquiry was set up in the wake of the crimes of the necrophiliac David Fuller, who abused 100 dead women and girls in a hospital mortuary in Kent. Those women were between the ages of nine and 90. In the wake of cases such as those in Hull and Gosport, Sir Jonathan Michael, who led the work into the Fuller report, was asked by the Government to prepare stage 2 of the report, which considers the wider funeral sector and those working in it. The report was published last July and includes some very sensible recommendations, including a statutory regulatory regime for funeral directors that invokes a licensing scheme, mandatory standards and regular inspection.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Funeral Directors: Regulation · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is crucial to know which Department will take the lead on this work and ensure that it happens, because while I think the Minister will be responding to the Fuller report, we are also awaiting the outcome of a Law Commission report that was kicked off in 2022 by the last but one Justice Minister, the former Member for Finchley and Golders Green. That report is looking at different laws on what happens to our bodies after death; it does not include the regulation of funeral directors. My fear is that, as the hon. Lady just said, efforts to regulate the sector will fall between the silos of Government Departments, and nobody will grip this issue. As we have discussed, what is required is a minimum standard of qualification, accreditation or licensing, and robust inspection. A regulator with the power to withdraw licences and sanction wrongdoers might seem like a tempting first step, and Scotland is ahead of England, having passed legislation 10 years ago to introduce a licensing and inspection regime. However, 10 years on, not a single Scottish funeral director I have spoken to has actually been inspected. I am concerned that this could be the worst of both worlds, with the illusion of regulation masking the possibility that nothing has changed in practice. A sensible approach would be to extend the scope of the Human Tissue Authority beyond public mortuaries to the whole death pathway. The Fuller report recommends that the HTA “should require the organisations it licenses to ensure that any individual who provides care to deceased people is suitably qualified, experienced and supervised.” If inspections are going to be carried out by local authorities, they need to be significantly better trained and resourced to do so, and we would have to take into consideration the fact that some of them run funeral services of their own. They cannot mark their own homework. Inspections must have public trust. The regulator can make sure of this by aligning its minimum codes of practice with those provided by the two voluntary trade bodies we have already heard about, the SAIF and the NAFD. I am also concerned about the existing marketplace in training. For sums of money reaching into the thousands of pounds, professional qualifications are delivered by the British Institute of Funeral Directors. At face value, that seems quite promising; after all, those courses are accredited by the University of Greenwich. So far, though, I have seen absolutely nothing that gives me confidence in the legitimacy of the BIFD’s work, particularly in light of the fact that Hayley Bell of Elkin and Bell fame, who has now been sentenced to four years in prison, was one of its examiners. If its own examiners cannot uphold even the most basic standards of care for the dead, what is the value of the qualifications it is selling people? Just as important as qualifications is a person’s suitability for a job. Surely, a lesson from the Fuller case is that funeral technicians and embalmers, as well as anyone else involved in the death pathway, should undergo a Disclosure and Barring Service check. As we have heard, the death pathway is open to so much abuse, and I warn the Minister that the cases I have mentioned will only be the tip of the iceberg while there is no regulation to tackle them. Doing so will require a whole system of changes, not just licensing and inspection. In some cases, this could be achieved by expanding existing legislation, such as the Human Tissue Act 2004, and it must be done in a way that is not punitive for small, independent businesses. I would also like the Government to explore the possibility of a new crime, that of the mistreatment of a body after death, because we cannot keep relying on Victorian common law. We must ensure that the death pathway is much clearer and runs more smoothly, to provide a minimum of opportunity for things to go wrong. For example, I have heard that in some cases, bodies are already decomposing by the time they make it to a funeral director because of a lack of medical examiners to sign off the death. What reassurance can the Minister give me that his Department is going to improve standards in this area as well? I believe that for there to be full accountability and trust in the system, a clear method of tracking the bodies is necessary. One of the most heartbreaking parts of the Elkin and Bell trial was the story of baby Albie, who died after just 11 minutes of life. His parents still have no clear picture of what happened to his body after it was taken into the care of Elkin and Bell. At every step of the journey, identification numbers and proof of licence should be shown when a body is passed from one responsible authority to another. Without that, families simply do not have the certainty that their family members have been well treated, or even that they have been reunited with the correct ashes. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be pleased to know that I am coming to a conclusion. Why is this issue important? We all know people who say, “I don’t care what happens to me after I’m dead; I won’t know anything about it.” It is a truism that funerals are for the living. I have been heartbroken by the stories I have heard from families who regret the arrangements made for loved ones—stories of feeling racked with guilt and unable to say goodbye in the way that they wanted. Grieving is such an important part of human ritual, regardless of someone’s religion or beliefs. We are elected to Parliament to make things better and to improve people’s lives, but today I am asking the Minister to commit to improving people’s deaths, to restoring dignity in death, and to ensuring that our loved ones are treated with the care and professionalism that they deserve.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Funeral Directors: Regulation · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and I am about to make exactly that point. I am grateful to him for teeing it up so beautifully for me, because it takes only one business to do the wrong thing to erode trust, but unfortunately the case of Elkin and Bell is not the only case. There have been similar cases at Legacies Independent in Hull and Florrie’s Army in Leeds, which I think is the case he refers to, where deceased babies were staged in lifelike positions in a living room. These are unspeakable and unimaginable horrors. There have been other cases where bodies have been found in the most unimaginable condition, but no further action could be taken by the police or others because, simply and incredulously, those businesses have not actually broken any laws.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to speak in support of new clause 25, which would require the Government to assess the effects of an increase in gambling duty, because just as I believe individuals have a right to spend their hard-earned money as they like, I believe it is important that they do so in a sensible, regulated and safe environment. Whatever we may think about gambling companies, gambling is already a very heavily regulated sector. Since the gambling White Paper was published in 2023 by the previous Government, the industry has already absorbed over 62 policy changes. Those changes include a limit on slot stakes, financial risk checks on transactions, tightened market rules and the statutory levy. The sector is so well regulated that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee warned the previous Government that the finance risk checks should be as minimally intrusive as possible. The Committee concluded that the Government must strike a careful balance: preventing harm for all, while allowing those who gamble safely the freedom to continue to do so. I have concerns that this vast increase in taxation on online betting and gaming does not strike that balance. The combination of an existing regime of strong regulation and a sudden jump in the levels of remote gaming duty from 21% to 40% is the kind of environment that I believe risks pushing people into the black market. As a floor, 40% is very high for remote gaming tax by international standards. It has been suggested that such high taxes could double the size of the online black market. Does the Minister recognise research from the Netherlands, highlighted by the shadow Minister, which found that after steep tax rises were introduced on remote slots, visits to black market domains increased fivefold over a three-year period? That is what we have to worry about if we are concerned about the oversight of those making bets and playing slots. That is why I am supportive of new clause 25, tabled by the Opposition. It requires the Chancellor to assess and report back on the effects of the increase in gambling duties on the number of high street betting shops, the black market, the employment rate, the public finances, and sports and horseracing. On sports and horseracing, I was glad to see a carve-out from general betting duty for UK horseracing. I was among many Members calling for that in recognition of the unique place horseracing occupies in British cultural life, as well as the 85,000 jobs and £4 billion contribution to the economy that horseracing offers. The Government have slightly dressed up their raid on gambling companies as being driven by concerns around gambling harms. In November 2024, I spoke to the Bacta convention about the then recently announced statutory levy and my concerns about how it would be distributed to organisations that conduct harms research. The Committee recommended the year before that the Government ensure that service providers, which were operating via the voluntary funding system, were adequately supported to make the transition to the statutory levy. However, we have now received very concerning reports that voluntary organisations in particular are facing a funding cliff edge, with delays and a lack of information about the transition to levy payments from the NHS. I am not entirely sure the Minister is listening to what I am saying, but I am hoping she will be able to address that point. She has not looked at me once while I have been speaking, but hopefully she is furiously writing notes about what I am talking about and will be able to address those concerns. Hopefully, she will tell me that she will discuss them with colleagues and act to ensure that no charitable organisation currently operating within the gambling harm prevention sector will have to fold due to delays with levy funding. The Chancellor is looking around for money and believes that she can raise it from gambling companies, but, as with many of her other measures, such as national insurance rises, she will be a victim of the law of unintended consequences if she is not careful. On this occasion, the consequence will be that more people are dragged into the black market, where they will quite simply find better offers than those offered by gambling companies.

• 12 Jan 2026 · New Medium Helicopter Contract · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State promised long-term partnerships with our domestic defence industry, but when the Government dither and delay in giving primes confidence with their big contracts, that directly impacts the ecosystem of brilliant British subprimes across our country. Those include StandardAero at Fleetlands in Gosport, which has the opportunity to provide the assemble and inspect test on the GE motor in Leonardo’s AW149. Fleetlands has been a key player in our country’s defence rotary wing history for 100 years. Does the Minister see how delay in that decision is not only holding back our world-class industry, but delivering uncertainty to key companies across our country and all the people they employ?

• 6 Jan 2026 · BBC Charter Renewal · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mrs Harris. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on securing the debate. I cannot think of anyone more qualified to kick off this conversation. The Select Committee will almost certainly look closely at the charter review, but today I will pull out a couple of topics for discussion. The Government have set out a number of lofty ambitions for the BBC in the Green Paper, but it is clear that it all hinges on a charter review that finds a long-term, sustainable funding future for the BBC. As we have seen, there are a number of challenges. The BBC provides so many different TV channels and radio stations, as we heard from my right hon. Friend. It does all that and more in an incredibly and more and more challenging commercial environment in which the licence fee looks increasingly like an anachronism. The extent to which the public no longer see live TV as the cornerstone of their viewing habits is reflected in the number of households not renewing their TV licence. We have heard that evasion is rising and is now at 12.5%. In real terms, the BBC lost over £1 billion of revenue in the decade from 2013. I was disappointed to read that certain options regarding the BBC’s size, scale and funding are not even on the table in the charter review. On the licence fee, the Green Paper says the Government “are not considering replacing it with alternative forms of public funding, such as a new tax on households”. I would be interested to hear why the Government are not even considering some options, some of which are employed across Europe to fund public service media. There are obvious challenges around some of the options that are under consideration. We have already heard about the issue of advertising. The BBC chair told my Committee that “we are absolutely clear that advertising and subscription is not the right approach. It goes back to universality and back to that old phrase, ‘He who pays the piper calls the tune.’ If subscribers are paying, they will call the tune on what we make. If it is advertising, it is advertisers.” Will the Minister say more about why the Government have chosen to explore some funding models and take others off the table at this vital stage? The BBC is the most trusted broadcaster both at home and abroad, but there is no doubt that, as our national broadcaster, we hold it to a higher standard. There has been a significant loss of confidence in the BBC over recent years. The Reuters Institute suggests that between 2018 and 2025, the proportion of people in the UK who trusted “most news most of the time” fell by 7%, but that over the same period trust in BBC news fell by 15%. We should therefore welcome the Green Paper’s commitment to discuss the provision of trusted news. Finally, the Government said they want to consider how to uphold the BBC’s independence, which includes its being transparent when it gets things wrong, how it changes its services, how it is governed and what its board looks like. There are fundamental questions for the Green Paper to address: what is the Government’s future vision for the BBC? What role should a public service broadcaster play in the current age? How can we continue to ensure that our national broadcaster remains independent, trusted and valued in this increasingly unstable and divided world?

• 18 Dec 2025 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  Today, Gosport borough council has been given the lowest possible rating by a Government regulator for the management of its social housing. The Minister will understand that this is a deeply worrying time for the 3,000 Gosport tenants and for local council tax payers. What is not helping is the constant ambiguity, uncertainty and speculation from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about the borough’s future, compounding the chaos and confusion from the council’s already quite hapless leadership. The Minister has already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) that Hampshire county council does not favour a delay, but does she agree that today’s announcement just adds to the uncertainty that thousands of residents face across Hampshire?

• 17 Dec 2025 · Membership-based Charity Organisations · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman has done beautifully to put that on the record. He is absolutely right that these incredible membership charities preserve our national heritage. If we were to ask people why they support such charities, I expect they would not say that they do so just to get access to some of the venues and the fantastic historic treasures they promote. They would probably say that they value the mission of those charities, whether conserving the countryside, protecting our heritage or serving the vulnerable. They want to support those missions; they are members because they value what those organisations do. In doing those things, the charities provide significant benefits to the Government. All told, the voluntary sector delivers £14 billion of public services to the Government and directly contributes £70 billion to the UK economy. Much of that is delivered by membership organisations. All that is without mentioning the indirect benefits that many membership-based charities provide: for example the health benefits to the public of maintaining hundreds of thousands of hectares of land, the demonstrable mental health impact of engaging with arts and culture, and all the educational enrichment they offer. But all that is under threat. Charities are under more strain than ever. It is a question of time and money. Telegraph readers were recently outraged that the National Trust, in order to save on costs, is replacing homemade scones—however one prefers to pronounce them—at some of its properties, but this is just the tip of the iceberg, or the jam on top of the cream, depending on which way one prefers one’s scones. Billions of pounds of additional financial pressure has been put on charities at a time when the demand for their services is rising and income streams are drying up. The biggest impact, as we know, is through national insurance contribution changes, which have collectively added £1.4 billion to the charity sector’s bills, but our art institutions are set to see huge rises to their business rates as well, and many heritage organisations have seen the cost of maintenance far outstrip inflation. Meanwhile, so many are seeing demand for their services skyrocketing. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, for example, tells me that rescues are operating at 120% of their capacity, and Cats Protection says that, in the last three years, it has seen a 71% increase in the number of cats being abandoned. The wider trend is clear. Around 83% of charities recorded an increase in demand for their services over the last 12 months, but even those pressures might be bearable were it not for the fact that the stability of the funding model itself is being called into question. Fewer people are donating to charity, and while the average donation is increasing, this highlights the narrowing of the base from which membership charities can secure funds. Those donations are not coming from the places one might expect, such as the wealthy London constituencies of Kensington and Bayswater, Chelsea and Fulham or Holborn and St Pancras, all of which form the three least generous constituencies as a percentage of their income in the UK. In real terms, the amount donated by British businesses has declined as well, with the number of FTSE 100 companies donating more than 1% of their profits falling by 14%. Money is not the only thing that charities rely on; they rely on people donating their time. However, long-term trends in hours spent volunteering are in decline as well—from 45% in 2013-14 to 28% in 2024-25. People put that down to a whole range of things, such as the bureaucracy and paperwork involved in volunteering and the cost of living pressures that people are under. I will not attempt to understate it: this is a full-blown crisis in the charity sector. It is no wonder a majority of charity leaders say they would not be confident that they would be able to cope if they saw a decline in their income streams. However, and I know the Minister is aware of this, a decline in their income streams is exactly what we will discuss today, and it is why I asked for this debate. Membership charities at the moment are able to claim gift aid on memberships that are currently deemed donations by the Government. That settlement is a direct expression of the way that charity members regard their relationship with charities. It is one of the supports that people can give to the aims and the work of the fantastic charities, many of which I have already discussed. They are not private services; their work supports the public good and, in many cases, saves a lot of money for the Government. I know that the Government see it that way too and the Minister will tell me how much he values the work of membership charities and how much store the Government put into that value, but the truth is that the Government have been very slow to tweak well-meaning and necessary consumer protection legislation despite the imminent impact of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 on membership charities’ cashflows. Fundamentally, the Act alters the way that membership charities process memberships and the benefits of them, leading to a potentially huge loss in revenues at a time when charities’ finances are already overstretched. The provisions of the Act move us away from a place where we view a charity membership as an expression of support. If, for the purposes of the DMCCA, refundable memberships are no longer considered to be donations due to the Government insisting on applying a 14-day cooling off period, the result is that gift aid can no longer be claimed. Let me provide a bit of perspective on that: national insurance contributions added more than £10 million to the National Trust’s wage bill. That has been devastating. Gift aid is worth five times that for the National Trust. The story is the same for English Heritage, on which I must declare an interest as I am a member. While it has seen a £1.7 million cost increase due to national insurance contributions, the impact of losing gift aid on their memberships would be more than five times that—valued at around £10 million. I am no fortune teller, but I have an idea of what the Minister might say. She might say the Government have issued guidance that means membership charities will continue to be able to claim gift aid. But the fact is, as things currently stand, that is not what the law says, and that is creating confusion not just for the big players but for the small ones as well, because charity practice is currently at odds with the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 and at odds with consumer law. Due to the widespread confusion of three very conflicting pieces of legislation, the Chartered Institute of Fundraising has written to the Department for Business and Trade. I know that is not the Minister’s Department, but I hope that she will convey this message. The institute has written to the Department offering to draft legal advice for small charities so that the Government can just sign it off, but it has had no response to that letter. Will the Minister speak to her colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade to chase that up, please, because small charities are very worried? Perhaps the lack of response is because there is no clarity about who is affected. The CIF has told me that even it does not know the exact number of membership charities that could fall foul of the change. What is concerning is that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs believes that only primary legislation can really sort out the legal contradiction between current consumer law, charity practice and the provisions of the DMCCA. Again, I do not want to put words in the Minister’s mouth, but I expect she might tell me that the Government have committed to passing legislation about this in the future. However, we know that the wheels of Government can move quite slowly, so when she says that, she probably means establishing certainty for charities by 2027 at the earliest, but it needs to be sooner than that. So, working with colleagues across Government, can the Minister find a suitable legislative vehicle to provide the certainty that the Government say they want? I am not asking her to do anything the Government have not already articulated a need for. And that has to start with reconvening the roundtable of membership charities that was cancelled due to the reshuffle. I would welcome that being reconvened, and I know the sector would, too. Will the Minister commit to that today? Membership charities have told me that the best possible solution lies in classifying charitable memberships as excluded contracts in secondary legislation. In recognition of their unique nature, their charitable membership should be placed in that category. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that today if she can. It is not unprecedented. Streaming subscription services, for example, have been given waivers from the 14-day cooling-off period. Membership charities should at least be able to expect the same support as users of streaming subscription services. I will give an example of how this could work perversely for membership charities. Why should someone buy membership of something like the National Gallery? It has sell-out exhibitions such as the very popular Van Gogh exhibition. We could potentially buy ourselves membership, skip the queue, be able to get into sell-out exhibitions, receive a discount for the ticket while we are at it, and then cancel the membership once we have seen the exhibition and received an almost total refund. The same could be said of the National Trust or English Heritage sites. As things stand, I could purchase membership, visit half a dozen sites for free over a week’s holiday, and then cancel my membership for almost a total refund. English Heritage told me that its membership works out at around 22p a day. Is that the rate at which the membership charity should reimburse a departing member? Will the Minister say on what basis she wants charities to offer proportionate refunds in such instances? If not, maybe she could commit to giving membership charities the freedom to calculate themselves what a proportional refund might look like. The National Trust believes, for example, that based on current guidance alone, every 1% of its membership that takes advantage of the loophole will lose it £3 million. Even if a tiny number of its members takes advantage of the new loophole in the law, that is a huge and significant impact on its finances, and that means less money spent on its core mission, which is to conserve our heritage. We expect our charities to do so much. They provide so much for our nation and they do it really well. But membership charities need a vote of support from the Government now. They need this albatross removed from around their necks. And in light of the billions of pounds of tax rises that charities have already seen, there is an incentive for the Government to provide legal clarity. I hope that that is what the Minister will be able to provide in her remarks today.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Membership-based Charity Organisations · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I am also grateful to her for advocating on my behalf, and on behalf of membership charities, with the Department for Business and Trade on the issue, which we have been wrestling with today, of trying to get clarity about the roundtable and the response to the letter. The Minister talked about the Government carefully considering, but what the sector needs is action. It needs certainty and clarity, and it needs them fast. The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act will start impacting them next year, and they cannot wait till 2027 for this to be solved. They are facing a perfect storm: the real unintended consequences of the national insurance rises, which are impacting charities and the amazing work they do, and now the impact of the Act. The Government say that they care deeply about this issue, but they need to follow up those words with action. I am grateful to the Minister for helping to try to deliver that action. When she advocates for us with DBT, she needs to be in the room. The silos of Government and things falling between the stools are one of the biggest issues in trying to resolve these issues for charities, which our constituents and our country depend on. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House has considered Government support for membership-based charity organisations.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Seasonal Work · Hansard source

  More

  As I mentioned to the Minister when he was in his place earlier, I started my first business at the age of 19. That is what I did for 20 years, before I became an MP—I ran businesses. That is why I am so upset at some of the ways in which this Government have behaved: I understand viscerally how taking that leap takes everything somebody has. It takes their time, money, energy and social life, and it is all a risk. For so many months—and years, in some cases—people work almost without pay, but the reward is fantastic, because they can employ people, create jobs, offer opportunities, change lives and futures, and generate their own supply chain for other small businesses to do the same. They can play a really valuable part in their local community. That is what small businesses across our communities do every single day. They are brave, resilient and dedicated, and they need to be valued, but over recent years so many of them have been suffering. The pandemic took a huge toll on them, and that was followed by the energy crisis. Now, worst of all, we have a Government who pledged to see their contribution and to help them deliver growth, but this Government are letting them down. I feel viscerally that enterprise and entrepreneurship should be rewarded, which is why I run local schemes in my constituency. I have a competition for the best independent shop running at the moment, in line with Small Business Saturday last weekend. It is the sixth year that I have run this competition, and we get the results on Saturday—it is very hard-fought on my Facebook site. Thousands of residents are voting, and they love doing it, because they like to show how much these independent traders and little shops mean to local jobs, to our communities and to keeping our high streets vibrant and compelling. Last year, I held a best pub competition. After another very fierce public vote, the winner was the Windsor Castle in Hardway. When I visited the pub to give its team their certificate, I saw the time, effort and pride that they put into everything they do—the programme of events, the decorations, and the hospitality they offer—just like all the other pubs that were on the longlist. I saw how much local people value their local, but the message from these pubs is stark: they are suffering. Despite the Chancellor’s spin, the average hospitality business will see business rates rise by almost £20,000 over the next three years. The statistics have already been mentioned very effectively today by the shadow Minister, but these numbers are real lives, real jobs and real futures, and that £20,000 represents an existential threat to the margins of these businesses; it will drive them to extinction. Combined with rising energy costs, after the Government promised to tackle overheads, and last year’s rise in national insurance, this is a perfect storm. It is having a direct impact on jobs in my Gosport constituency, particularly jobs for young people. It is also closing off traditional routes into work. As a parent, I know that a part-time Saturday seasonal job is valuable—we probably all did one. My first job was at Olivers shoe shop on Waterlooville high street. I got £10 a day, and I spent most of it on shoes, but it taught me a lot. It taught me employability skills and how to save money—actually, it did not, as I spent most of it on shoes—and it also taught me the very valuable lesson that I did not want a career in retail or selling shoes. These are all fantastic life lessons and experiences that prepare people for their future careers. Some of those jobs are on contracts that the Labour party has such a visceral problem with, yet they offer flexibility and convenience, particularly during exam time, when young people do not necessarily want to do all those hours. There are sectors that need that flexibility, such as hospitality, leisure and events. In the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, we heard this week from people at major events, such as the London marathon, that the number of staff they need grows enormously as they get towards the event, then obviously tails off afterwards. These are the sectors that offer the most chances for young people, and they are right in the crosshairs of the Government’s punishment. The evidence is clear, and in Gosport it could not be more tangible. The number of young people on out-of-work benefits has gone up by 31% in the last year alone. A recent article in The Daily Telegraph painted a bleak picture of the prospects for young people in my Gosport constituency; it makes for very tough reading.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Seasonal Work · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government may be fooling their Back Benchers, but they are not fooling our constituents. This goes back to the wider question, and it is not only Members on the Conservative Benches who are asking it; our constituents are asking it, too. What is the strategy, and whose side is this Labour Government on? Are they on the side of business? They are not on the side of working people, since 80,000 working people have lost their jobs in the hospitality sector alone. They are not on the side of my constituents, either; the Minister may not have been in the room when I mentioned this, but 31% more young people are on unemployment benefit in the Gosport constituency over the past year alone. National insurance contribution rises have hit my constituents disproportionately, due to the very high proportion of people in my constituency—three times more than the national average—who work in care, leisure or other service occupations. This year’s Budget confirmed that Labour is not on the side of our small businesses or our high streets. That is why I welcome the shadow Chancellor’s plans to introduce 100% business rates relief for the retail, leisure and hospitality sectors, which I think the Minister should look at. The Minister opened with analogies to “A Christmas Carol” and likened the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), to Ebenezer Scrooge. That is a travesty—he is nothing like Ebenezer Scrooge. However, “A Christmas Carol” can offer a cautionary tale to us all; let us talk about Jacob Marley, the ghost whose heavy chains are a metaphor for the burdens he created through his actions in life, and who said: “I wear the chain I forged in life”. I hope the Minister’s chains do not prove to be the misery that he and his Government are delivering for businesses and our communities.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Seasonal Work · Hansard source

  More

  That is exactly the issue: the Minister was in this place back when the Government were coming up with their plans and policies; meanwhile, I was starting and running a business and employing people. That is the difference. A minimum wage cannot be given to someone who does not have a wage at all because they do not have a job. His party is putting people out of work. There are now 31% more young people not in employment in my constituency than there were this time last year. That is a disgrace, isn’t it?

• 10 Dec 2025 · Seasonal Work · Hansard source

  More

  That may be the case, but the hon. Gentleman needs to read his data a little more accurately, because the number of young people on unemployment benefit has also gone up. I will repeat the figure: it has gone up 31% over the past year in the Gosport constituency alone. It is all very well swapping numbers across the Chamber, but these are lives, futures, and opportunities to get on a career ladder. The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of his party for what it is doing to young people in my constituency. The law of unintended consequences is at work. If local businesses are not giving opportunities to young people, that impacts the fabric of a town, including its social fabric. I recently received an email from one of the pubs in Gosport, which said: “I can guarantee we will not be open this time next year if things continue. The Labour government is doing nothing to help the industry, the knock-on effect to the customers, staff, us, jobless, homeless…Sadly there will be no British culture left, and that is the very sad truth of it. It’s only the Government at the moment, who are gaining and laughing all the way to the bank. The place and the building and the customers—the whole aspect of the ‘local’ pub—will be no more.” Then there is the hair and beauty salon—another fantastic industry, worth £5 billion and as much again in social value. According to the National Hair and Beauty Federation, the Government’s tax policies are forcing businesses to make very tough decisions, such as taking on fewer staff and fewer apprentices, and incentivising staff to become self-employed, without all the protections that the Government say they want to promote. The British Hair Consortium has warned of an existential drop-off in the number of apprentices entering the sector, while a beauty parlour in Gosport recently told me that it was not optimistic at all about the health of the sector over the next year, and that it does not think the Government are supportive of such businesses.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Seasonal Work · Hansard source

  More

  It is all very well supporting the status of workers if there are jobs to offer people. If you have the status, but no job to attach it to, you feel like a bit of a lemon—as I am sure the hon. Lady might do after that question. She should listen to businesses in her constituency, because what businesses are saying is that they do not feel the Government are supporting them. Given her track record in her previous life, she should understand that the hair and beauty industry is one that disproportionately employs young people and women, and the businesses in that industry are very often women-owned. This Government are not friendly to women-owned businesses, either. Retail, hospitality, and hair and beauty—taken together, the failure of those sectors will prove to be the death knell for our high street. The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) spoke about how important it is to see his high street regenerated. If we are going to regenerate our high streets and see them as living, breathing, vibrant things, we need to reimagine them as places where we not only shop, but live, work, socialise and engage in leisure activity. The only way that is going to be delivered is if our high streets are filled with small independent traders, but since the Budget, over 1,000 pubs and restaurants have closed—the equivalent of two every day. We on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee are seeing a similar trend in our work on grassroots music venues, which are still closing at the rate of two a week. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) said, those venues say that the outcome of the small business rates review is nothing short of a disaster for them. A cap of 15% this year is going up to a 40% cap in 2028-29—that is what they are getting after transitional relief, and that still will not be the end of it.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Seasonal Work · Hansard source

  More

  I agree 100%—my hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. The grassroots Music Venue Trust says that despite multiple Ministers saying on the record that business rates would go down for the live music sector, it cannot find a single venue in the country whose bills will be lower.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is 100% right to point out that people are making knee-jerk decisions because of fear about what the Chancellor will do, and they are delaying business decisions that they might otherwise have made that would have brought growth to my constituency. My constituency lies on the south coast. The stunning Solent coastline may mean that Lee-on-the-Solent, Stubbington and the wider Gosport area is a wonderful place to retire. As I often repeat, we have the largest proportion by percentage of veterans of any place in the United Kingdom, but that requires adequate health and care provision. However, care providers, whose main cost is personnel, are struggling. The Nuffield Trust has calculated that the national insurance rise costs England’s 18,000 independent adult social care providers £940 million, which has severe consequences for the elderly and vulnerable people who need the service. One local provider, who operates a 44-bed care home offering residential care for the frail elderly and those living with dementia, suggested that they had no choice but to pass those national insurance rises directly on to their customers. As a result, one constituent told me that he was seeing an increase of nearly 8% in his brother’s care home fees. At the other end of the spectrum, Hopscotch nursery, which looks after 1,900 children across our local region and provides fantastic care and support, told me that the jobs tax added £1 million to its overheads—that is a 10% increase, which means a 10% fee increase is being passed on to many of my constituents. Working parents need childcare, so working parents have to pay. What is the impact? Reduced household spending and a slower economy or, even worse, a parent dropping out of work to look after the children. Perhaps that is why we have seen growth flatline, borrowing costs rise and, this week, unemployment reach its highest level since lockdown. On 26 November, will the Chancellor demonstrate that she has learned the lesson that tax rises that hit employers’ bottom lines have serious implications for our businesses, communities and economy? I would be shocked if she has not, but we are still hearing reports that hiring costs are going to increase yet again. None of the hospitality and retail businesses in my constituency will welcome that. After all, the sector has already seen 80,000 job losses. I am particularly concerned for young people. A recent Telegraph article said that young people were giving up on Gosport because of the lack of employment opportunities. For many, a job in hospitality or retail is the first step on the route into work. Businesses in the sectors that take on so many young people across my constituency, from adult social care and childcare to hair and beauty, are telling me that they are not taking on more staff as a result of the Chancellor’s changes to national insurance contributions. In fact, the National Hair and Beauty Federation told me that, at the current rate of decline, there would be no new apprenticeships in that sector at all within the next few years. It is not a coincidence that this year my constituency saw the number of young people between 18 and 24 years old claiming unemployment-related benefits rise by 31%. So when the Government conduct their new independent review into why this is happening, they might want to start by looking in their own backyard. When the Chancellor is considering the vast array of tax measures at her disposal to fill the £30 billion black hole, will she consider the impact on the employment of young people of any proposals to further penalise retail and hospitality businesses? She might even consider taking a Conservative growth policy, and announce that business rates will be scrapped for high street businesses such as pubs. It is not only businesses that support growth. Across Gosport, Lee-on-the-Solent, Stubbington and Hill Head, many people dedicate their own time to volunteering, towards supporting sports clubs, charities, health forums and community organisations. Those groups are the backbones of our communities, but like any organisation they cost money to run. The Culture, Media, and Sport Committee, which I chair, has heard how increasing costs have impacted the ability of charities and voluntary organisations to deliver the services that local people rely on and love. We often forget that charities face employment costs too. Despite 83% of charities recording an increase in demand for their services over the past 12 months, last year’s tax hike added a combined £1.4 billion to the wage bills of more than 44,000 charities. A huge amount of pessimism is growing in the sector. A third of charities are reducing their workforce as a result of the tax rises, and a similar number think that the sector is in an unhealthy space. The increase might be easier to shoulder were it not for the parallel drop-off in funding streams. Tax rises mean less money for charitable giving, especially if the Chancellor is going to go after pensioners with her increase in income tax. I cannot stress enough how much tax rises have hurt and will continue to hurt the charitable sector, and the unintended consequences are huge. We have less charitable giving and fewer hours volunteered, as people work longer and salary sacrifice schemes are raided, while increased costs threaten jobs at national charities such as Oxfam, Scope and the National Trust, which face the loss of £50 million through restrictions on their ability to claim gift aid. Sports clubs do a fantastic job of alleviating pressure on charities and the NHS, but they can also reduce the burden on the Chancellor to pay out-of-work benefits. On current estimates, spending on working-age disability and incapacity benefits is expected to increase by £25 billion to more than £70 billion by the end of this Parliament, and an estimated 148.9 million working days were lost due to sickness or injury in 2024. Physical activity can play such a vital role in the prevention of so many conditions, and so many of our sports clubs lean in, but the tax rises in last year’s Budget mean that the sector is in a precarious position and unable to meet its potential. The facilities that teams use to practise, play and socialise need staff as well as revenue streams. Tax undermines the work being done by our sports clubs to increase the take-up of physical exercise, reduce the burden on the NHS and keep our communities together. We do not yet know what the Chancellor plans to announce at the Budget in a couple of weeks’ time. Last year we saw £40 billion-worth of tax rises. It was the highest tax-raising Budget in a generation, and I know that many people in my constituency were shocked. That was not what the Government promised when they were in opposition or at the general election. We now fear that the Chancellor will go big on tax rises, despite categorically saying last year that she had wiped the slate clean and would not be coming back for more. My concern for my constituents is that they have seen no tangible benefit from last year’s Budget, just pain, and they will undoubtedly shoulder the burden whenever new measures are announced.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince). I thank him for cantering us through his mother’s career at HMRC—on behalf of the whole House, I thank her for her service, and I ask him to pass on our very best wishes. Madam Deputy Speaker, as a near neighbour to my constituency, I am sure that you will know that the history of Gosport has always been umbilically linked to the fortunes of our armed forces. The town was effectively nationalised by the Royal Navy two or three centuries ago. As the size and structure of our defence base changed, with that, over many decades, went many of the jobs and livelihoods that depended on it. Job density on the Gosport peninsula is almost 50% lower than in the wider south-east region, which is an issue that I have spent 15 years as an MP trying to help drive solutions for. There is nothing more important to an area like mine than maintaining the conditions that give businesses the confidence to invest, employ and grow, but the overwhelming foundation stone for growth, and for the innovation and investment that will solve the productivity puzzle that the UK is facing, is that businesses need to be able to make long-term decisions and plan for the future. Employers in my constituency, both large ones like StandardAero, QinetiQ and STS Defence and the numerous small and growing businesses, need to be able to rely on stable borrowing costs and to know that the cost of materials will not rise unsustainably in order to have the confidence to take on new staff and start apprenticeship programmes. Investors like those who took the plunge and moved to the Solent enterprise zone at Daedalus airfield, creating hundreds of local jobs in the process, need to know that if they put their capital at risk by investing, the Government will not reach in on a whim to take a large slice of any reward. The fact is that employer tax rises put all of that at risk. That is what we have seen since last year’s Budget and why local people are nervous about this year’s Budget too. Tax fulfils two purposes: one, which the Chancellor knows well, is to raise revenue for the Government, but I am not convinced that she has given much thought to the other, which is influencing changes in behaviour. The pessimism and growth downgrades in our economy over the past year have provided hard and fast evidence that changes to the tax regime are at least as powerful at achieving the second goal as the first. Some £40 billion of tax rises very effectively mowed down those green shoots of post-pandemic recovery, but worse than that, they incentivised businesses in my Gosport constituency to make decisions that run in direct contrast to what our area needs. There are fewer employment opportunities and fewer chances for young people to build good-quality careers. I have heard worrying stories about the impact that the employer national insurance rises announced in last year’s Budget of unintended consequences have had in my constituency. The common thread is that the national insurance change hit the businesses for which labour is the highest cost hardest, putting services that my constituents rely on every day at risk. A fifth of everyone who works in Gosport works in caring, leisure and other service occupations. Those are by far the biggest employment sectors, and account for almost three times the average for England, so my constituents felt the Chancellor’s national insurance rises the hardest.

• 3 Nov 2025 · Defence Industrial Base · Hansard source

  More

  As the Secretary of State said, the defence industrial strategy promises to boost British export success, British businesses and British jobs. As such, I am sure he is as excited as I am about the Aeralis bid to replace the Red Arrow Hawk aircraft, which would deliver around 600 skilled jobs at StandardAero in my constituency. Will he ensure that there is an early decision on the replacement of the Hawk aircraft, and that that decision fully reflects the opportunity that exists to create high-value jobs, drive exports, strengthen British sovereign capability, and enable the United Kingdom to design and build its own aircraft?

• 29 Oct 2025 · Independent Lifeboats: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), on securing the debate. People from my constituency have been saving lives at sea for hundreds of years—we are a coastal community. In fact, legend has it that Gosport even gained its name as a result of one such incident, in which King Stephen and his brother, Bishop Henry de Blois, were on a little medieval ship that was caught in a fierce storm in the Solent. In danger of drowning, they were rescued by brave local fishermen, who took them ashore, at which point the bishop declared the place “God’s port, our haven.” That is apparently the romantic lineage of the town’s name. That tradition continues to this day. We have a couple of National Coastwatch Institution stations, staffed by a range of wonderful volunteers, and Lee-on-Solent in my constituency is home to HM Coastguard search and rescue helicopters, but I really want to talk about the team down the coast at the Gosport lifeboat station in Stokes bay, where the Gosport and Fareham Inshore Rescue Service—known as GAFIRS—is based. I pay tribute to the incredible work of that team, who work 24/7, 365 days a year. Anyone who watched “Rescue 999: Seconds to Save a Life” on Channel 5, which I am sure everyone here did, will have seen them in action, and seen the pressure our lifeboat crews are under on the water. Gosport lifeboat station is one of the busiest in the country; remarkably, on one day in July alone, the crew were called out for six separate incidents, beginning at 6 am and finishing 12 hours later. The dedication of these crews is remarkable, but it is even more astounding when we consider that they are all volunteers who are being asked to disrupt their lives to save lives for free. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which I chair, has heard from organisations that they rely very much on these volunteers to continue operating. However, things could not be tougher. The trend in people volunteering is downwards, with 1.5 million fewer people volunteering in 2024 than in the previous year. It is particularly difficult for independent lifeboat charities, because their volunteers have to have a very high level of expertise, and there is a cost to them in terms of the training that volunteers have to be given. As we have heard, there is also a huge capital cost involved in maintaining the station and the assets. These boats are technical pieces of kit, and GAFIRS does not have the facilities to request replacements for boats where necessary—it has to fundraise. And that is not to mention the cost of fuel. Those costs have become increasingly difficult to meet. Research by the Charities Aid Foundation has found that fewer people are now giving to charity, compared with before the pandemic. I am especially concerned about the 34% real-terms fall in corporate or philanthropic giving by FTSE 100 companies in the last 10 years. That means that organisations such as GAFIRS have to spend much more time trying to fundraise, as opposed to doing what they are best at, which is saving lives at sea. GAFIRS is helped perfectly in that by the people of Gosport, who come out in droves to help those fundraising efforts. Indeed, we have a local new year’s day swim, which I have taken part in. We are all encouraged to get dressed up in fancy dress and brave the cold waters of the Solent. I can tell you, Mrs Harris, that it is refreshing after a new year’s eve. However, GAFIRS really needs more support. I am glad that it received a share of the rescue boat grant fund between 2015 and 2020, and I restate the pleas to the Minister—there is a strong argument for doing this—to reinstate it in recognition of the vital work rescue boats do and the lives they save. In the context of rising demand and dwindling volunteers and funds, will the Minister also have conversations with colleagues about what more can be done to encourage philanthropy and charitable giving to organisations such as GAFIRS? I put the same question to the Prime Minister earlier in the summer. His constituency is the second-least generous in the country, based on the proportion of income given to charitable causes, so he has skin in the game and an interest in ensuring that people are encouraged to donate more to charities. I know that there are reasons why fewer people volunteer. One is the economy: times are tough, people work for longer and they do not have much time to spare. But another is the bureaucracy that sometimes acts as an obstacle to people getting involved in volunteering. Will the Minister look at that as well? The work GAFIRS does is literally life-changing; like many other organisations around the UK, its work is fundamental. I hope the Minister will comment on how the independent lifeboat sector can be supported into the future.