Graham Leadbitter MP: speeches

Speeches

• 29 Jun 2026 · Asylum Accommodation · Hansard source

  More

  While it is welcome that the proposed use of Cameron barracks in Inverness was ultimately abandoned, that came only after months of unnecessary uncertainty for local communities following an announcement made without meaningful engagement with the Scottish Government, Highland council or NHS Highland. Does the Minister accept that bypassing devolved partners and failing to consult local communities undermines confidence in the asylum system? Will he commit that any future decisions on asylum accommodation in Scotland will be made only after meaningful engagement with the Scottish Government, local authorities and local MPs? Will he acknowledge that, while military sites may relieve immediate pressure on the system, they do not address the underlying failures driving the accommodation crisis, including slow decision making, inadequate planning and a lack of suitable community-based housing options?

• 20 May 2026 · Banking Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. That consistency is vital, but flexibility within the criteria is also vital. I will come on to that as well. It is frankly hard to stomach that the big high street banks use the argument of increased digital banking to justify local bank closures while building large, centralised banking centres in our cities. Surely the same argument can be applied to push workforce and management out to existing bank branches in local communities and enable that local workforce to carry out tasks on national functions such as mortgage services and business banking using the very same digital technology.

• 20 May 2026 · Banking Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. I am about to talk about the critical services offered by banks through banking hubs, which addresses the hon. Gentleman’s point. Community bankers located within banking hubs can offer much needed savings, loan and mortgage advice. Recently, a local community leader in Grantown made the strong point that basic business support, such as collecting change, depositing and withdrawing cash, transferring money between business accounts, making payments, managing cards, fraud support and money advice and even offering simple advice on how to open a business bank account, can be the difference between a business thriving and a business failing in a rural community. Paying utility bills, depositing cheques and, for local charitable groups, even depositing the proceeds from a coffee morning or a raffle stall at a Highland Games, can make the difference between succeeding or struggling. The golden thread in all of this is that without banking hubs in the areas that need them, current policy is making it harder for people to buy their own homes, to run their own businesses and even to simply access cash in these areas. I am pleased to acknowledge the Government’s announcement last week of an independent access to cash review, which will report in October 2026. I would have liked that work to have been done and concluded by now, but now it is in place I do not want to be churlish or grumpy about it. I know that those engaged in that review will be paying close attention to debates like this. I am sure that they will have noted the number of hon. Members from all political parties who are contributing to this debate and making their views and those of their communities known on this important issue. It is important that the regulators and the independent reviewer hear that breadth of opinion, because that will inform the response to the review.

• 17 Dec 2025 · National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  While businesses are still reeling from last year’s national insurance increase, with this Bill the Labour Government are set to increase tax again by making salary sacrifice pension contribution schemes worse for workers. What has the Labour party said previously? In its 2024 manifesto, on page 79, it stated: “Our system of state, private, and workplace pensions provide the basis for security in retirement…We will also adopt reforms to workplace pensions to deliver better outcomes for UK savers and pensioners.” It gets even more ridiculous when we see that the same manifesto also stated on page 21: “Labour will not increase taxes on working people, which is why we will not increase National Insurance”. That is exactly what the Bill does. Recent survey data from the Confederation of British Industry showed that three in four employers will have to decrease pension contributions as a result of the measures in the Bill. As the CBI has said, it is “‘a tax on doing the right thing’”. It goes on to state: “Ultimately, this unwise move will only damage growth, investment and pension saving rates.” It is not just the CBI that has voiced alarm at the Bill. The Association of British Insurers stated: “Capping salary sacrifice for pension saving is a short-sighted tax grab which will lower pension saving and undermine people’s retirement security.” The Minister said in his introduction that “everyone who has thought about this” will come to the same conclusion. He might not wish to refer to the CBI and ABI coming to different conclusions, but they have clearly thought about it. It is not even clear that the measure will raise the money that the Chancellor expects. A former pensions Minister from the coalition era has said that he expects it to raise “a fraction” of the intended amount, as firms will restructure payments to evade it. In addition to the likelihood of payments being restructured, even the OBR has made it clear to the Chancellor that it expects employers simply to pass the cost on to employees through lower wages and less generous schemes. It will be working people who ultimately pay for this short-term thinking, with a lower standard of living and less spending power in their retirement. As we have seen with the maladministration of pension changes for 1950s-born women, politicians cannot and must not change the goalposts on retirement planning without giving significant advance notice. Any approach otherwise, such as in the Bill, is deeply unfair to savers. This move will land businesses with yet more administrative costs, disproportionately hitting small to medium-sized employers who are still absorbing the increased NIC costs from last year’s Budget. Is this muddled policy really from a Government who stood on a pledge of growing the economy? This is yet again another Budget with another rise in national insurance by Labour. There are numerous unanswered questions, but the following are top of the list. What assessment has the Minister made of likely behavioural changes to pension savings as a result of this policy? What is the estimated increased cost to businesses as a result of this policy? Does the Minister anticipate lower pensions for workers as a result of this policy, and if so, how much would the decrease be? Can the Labour Government seriously make a commitment in this Chamber not to increase national insurance in next year’s Budget, given the rises in both their Budgets since coming into power? This Bill is deeply flawed and the SNP will not support it today.

• 29 Oct 2025 · Asylum Seekers: MOD Housing · Hansard source

  More

  My colleague Shirley-Anne Somerville, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice in the Scottish Government, wrote to the Secretary of State about this issue on 26 September, seeking an urgent meeting with Highland council and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. No reply to that letter was received, and the first she knew of the decision was when she heard about it on the radio, as many of the rest of us did. Asylum seekers, by their very nature, are fleeing conflict and persecution. Many require wraparound support, having suffered significant mental and, in some cases, physical trauma. If there is no support package in place, things are not going to go well. The arrival of 300 people in Inverness in such a short space of time puts a huge strain on local services. What is the Minister doing to address those issues with the Scottish Government and with Highland council?