Helen Whately MP: speeches

Speeches

• 12 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I am disappointed that the Secretary of State did not answer the question. I can answer it, if she will not. It means that businesses have stopped hiring, the growing economy that we left is being hammered by the Government’s jobs tax, and thousands of young people are leaving school and university with worse prospects than this time last year. Businesses need a Government who understand them and back them—that is what jobs depend on. She needs businesses to hire people so she can hit her employment target. What is her message to them?

• 17 Mar 2025 · NEET Young People · Hansard source

  More

  Back in the autumn, the right hon. Lady said “we will not allow young people not to be in education, employment or training.” How is it possible then that since Labour has been in office there are 100,000 more young people in exactly that situation?

• 29 Jan 2025 · Welfare Cap · Hansard source

  More

  The welfare cap we are debating today was introduced back in 2014 by the Conservative Chancellor at the time, George Osborne, to hold the Government to account on the cost of our welfare system. Through the 2010s, in government, we broadly kept to that cap; it was part of the discipline we applied to the welfare system to make it fair for the taxpayer and to put into practice the strongly held Conservative principle that if you can work, you should work. We introduced universal credit to ensure that work always pays and supported businesses to create millions of jobs, and we helped thousands of people into work and drove down economic inactivity—and were opposed at every step of the way by the Labour party. But in the years during and since the pandemic—I will not shy away from telling the truth—things changed. While the number of jobs kept going up, the number of people economically inactive also started to go up, and with that, the welfare bill, and that is a big problem. It is a financial problem that means we are today debating a welfare cap which has been breached. It is an economic problem because our economy needs the talents and energies of everyone. And it is a social problem: of the 9 million people of working age defined as economically inactive, 2.8 million are not working because of ill health. That includes growing numbers of young people. Young people are starting out on a life on benefits instead of starting out on a career, missing out on the opportunities that work brings—the sense of purpose, the connections with other people, the chance to learn and develop skills—missing out on the experience of being paid for their efforts, and missing out on the chance to build financial independence and security. We as a country have a moral and financial imperative to turn this around and in government we were working flat out to tackle it.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Cleve Hill Solar Park · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which I will address in a moment. First, I want to talk about safety, because the safety of the large-scale battery installation is the biggest worry for my community. To give a sense of the scale, Cleve Hill’s battery capacity will be equivalent to half the output of a small gas-fired power station. Large-scale battery storage systems carry risks including overheating and fire, which can produce toxic fumes and water contamination. To date, more than 65 fires and explosions have been reported in similar battery storage systems across the world. In March, I hosted a public meeting about battery safety, which was attended by Matthew Deadman, an assistant director at Kent Fire and Rescue Service and the National Fire Chiefs Council lead officer for alternative fuel and energy systems. Almost 50 Graveney residents attended the meeting, which demonstrates the considerable local concern. Matthew Deadman provided some reassurance by outlining the steps that the developer is taking to put in place the safety features set out in the project’s battery safety management plan, but that has not allayed residents’ fears. Battery fires are notoriously difficult to extinguish, and people at the meeting found it hard to believe that the fire and rescue team at Faversham fire station—fabulous though they are—or even teams across east Kent more widely, would have the specialist equipment required. There is also the question of the contamination of land and water in the event of a fire. Another outstanding concern was the lack of an evacuation plan in the event of a fire. The rationale we heard was that no evacuation would be needed, because toxic fumes and smoke would dissipate and it would be sufficient to close windows. However, residents and parents whose children attend the local school remain unconvinced. Added to that is the potential for a fivefold expansion of the battery proposal found in the site’s battery safety management plan. Although that may or may not happen in practice, physicist and former vice-chair of the Faversham Society, Professor Sir David Melville CBE, warns that the site does not have adequate space for such an increase in battery capacity while maintaining the 6-metre spacing between battery units that is advised by the National Fire Chiefs Council. In fact, the Kent Fire and Rescue Service was only satisfied with the site’s battery safety management plan on the basis of the 6-metre gap being adhered to. I am not alone in raising these concerns formally. Swale borough council scrutinised and rejected the battery safety management plan earlier this year, but its rejection has been overturned by the Planning Inspectorate, leaving the community with unanswered questions and a feeling that they have no say in the matter. I am not the first Member to raise these concerns. Just over a year ago, a former Energy Minister said the Government intended to consult on including battery storage systems in the environmental permitting regulations at the earliest opportunity. I take that to be an acknowledgment that the current system is not up to the job. In a written question in September, I asked Ministers for an update on the timetable for the consultation, and I received the following response: “The Government agrees with the need to have robust measures in place to manage the risks associated with facilities that use large numbers of lithium-ion batteries. Defra is considering further options, including environmental permitting, for managing the environmental and public health risks from fires at BESS sites.” When she sums up, will the Minister advise me whether the Government will be adding battery storage systems to the environmental permitting regulations? If so, when will the consultation take place? If not, what approach to ensuring the safety of large-scale batteries do the Government intend to take? In the meantime, could the Minister tell me what agency is responsible for ensuring the safety of this development? Who will be inspecting it before it is switched on, and how will she ensure that these batteries are safe? I have been in her shoes, albeit in a different brief, and that is a question I would have been asking myself. This issue is important not just for Graveney, but for the whole country. Large-scale batteries look likely to be an important part of our future energy infrastructure, which means we need to do this properly. Residents’ concerns cannot be brushed aside as an inconvenience. We need a proper process that takes these worries seriously and ensures that large-scale battery installations are safe.

• 11 Nov 2024 · Young People Not in Education, Employment or Training · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Lady will know that under the Conservative Government youth unemployment fell by 380,000, and that we were tackling inactivity with our WorkWell programme, helping people to stay in work or return to work, which I am delighted to see the right hon. Lady continuing. Unfortunately, however, as a result of her Government’s Budget and Employment Rights Bill, businesses will slash the number of their employees. Moreover, the Government have just broken another promise and hiked up university fees. What advice would the right hon. Lady give a young person who is currently out of work and education, and must choose between worse job prospects and more expensive university degrees thanks to her Government’s choices?

• 11 Nov 2024 · Young People Not in Education, Employment or Training · Hansard source

  More

  May I say how nice it is to be sitting opposite the right hon. Lady again, albeit, regrettably, having swapped places with her? I enjoyed our exchanges on social care during the last Parliament, and appreciated our constructive conversations during the pandemic, although, given how well she knows the care brief, I suspect that she was gutted, as I was, to see the incoming Government abandon the care cap and scrap more than £50 million of funding for social care training. The consistent feedback from jobcentres was that the biggest barrier to young people taking up job opportunities in social care was lack of career progression, hence our reforms to create a career path for care workers and investment in training. Has the right hon. Lady spoken to her counterpart in the Department of Health and Social Care about the impact of those social care cuts on her ambitions to get more young people working or learning?

• 3 Sept 2024 · Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is good to see hon. Members so soon after the summer recess. I know that the Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), has been busy over the summer, but I hope that she managed—like the Deputy Prime Minister—to find some time to let her hair down. When we last met, I set out why the Conservatives cannot support the Bill. I do not doubt that Government Members sincerely believe in their plan, in getting rid of privately run train operators, and in putting politicians in charge of running train services, but just because an ideological belief is deeply held, that does not make it right. It is certainly not the same as using evidence as a basis for decision making. Our railways are vital to our economy: millions of people rely on trains, whether to get them to work or school, to make essential journeys, to see family and friends, or simply to visit other parts of the country. Our rail system is complex—a mix of public and private built up over many years. One thing it is not, though, is a toy train set to be played with, but I fear that is the approach this Government are taking. They are rushing through this ideological reworking of our rail system despite the absence of solid evidence to back up their approach, at a time when other countries are choosing to increase private sector involvement and competition in their rail systems. There is no good reason for this Committee stage to be raced through in one day, rather than through a normal Bill Committee that would allow proper time for consideration and discussion, the time appropriate for such a substantial and significant change. Proper time would allow this legislation to be made better—indeed, fit for purpose—drawing on the strengths of our rail system as well as the weaknesses, and using the lessons of our experience and that of others, while still fulfilling the Government’s intention as set out in their manifesto. Instead, in their haste, this Bill simply takes a one-size-fits-all approach, pulling the plug on even the best train operating companies despite the mixed record of the Department for Transport when it comes to the performance of the franchises it runs already. In the Government’s haste, the Bill lacks any controls or incentives to reduce the risk of increased costs to taxpayers and passengers. We can say the same for performance: where in this Bill are the incentives to improve that, or the protections for passengers should performance worsen when the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley is at the controls of our trains? In the Government’s haste, those things are missing too. In their haste, if they do what they said in their manifesto, they are going to bring thousands of rail workers into the public sector, all under a single Government employer. We will have unions reclining comfortably on ministerial sofas as they discuss pay for thousands of people, funded by the taxpayer, with no safeguards to speak of to make sure the taxpayer gets a good deal. On Second Reading, I said that some more thought should go into the Bill over the summer. I asked a series of questions and made a number of suggestions. At the very least, I was expecting the Government to table some amendments, but I am sorry to report that, as far as I can see, they are going full steam ahead. There is no sign that any serious thought has been given to the long-term impact of Government-run train companies on growth, or on the efficiency of our railways. There is barely a word on the liabilities that this Bill would transfer on to the Government’s balance sheet, and crucially, no evidence has been shared about how passengers and their journeys will be affected. Fundamentally, the Government are rushing ahead but travelling blind, pressing on irrespective of the impact on passengers or taxpayers, which they simply do not know. The right hon. Lady has made herself passenger-in-chief and then set off on a journey without knowing the destination. That is not a sensible way to govern. Passengers should always come first, above providers, unions and ideology. That is why our first amendment would require the Government to set out what impact they believe the Bill will have.