Lewis Atkinson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 25 Jun 2025 · Armed Forces Recruitment: North-east England · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. There are occasionally differences between the Tyne and the Wear, but this is absolutely not one of them. I think of the Royal Naval Association on Roker Avenue in my constituency, another representation of the community and the service of generations of seafarers and those who have served in the Navy, and I know that in his constituency HMS Calliope fulfils that role. As the Secretary of State reflected recently, the fact that three in four recent applicants for the forces gave up before they reached even the medical element or were rejected for any other reason is just not good enough. I am sure that the Minister will say more about the mobilisation of the new recruitment service, which I welcome. I understand that it will operate on a tri-service basis, which will be increasingly important as we seek to have multi-skilled forces that are able to work on that basis. It absolutely makes sense—including, presumably, economic sense—for recruitment to occur on a tri-service basis, so that different forces are not competing. Will the Minister say something about the mobilisation period, which I understand extends to 2027? How quickly does he expect the delivery of the training start date within 30 days of application? Terms and conditions are important for both attraction and retention, but when we talk about retention we sometimes miss the link back to attraction. There should be no better advert for joining the forces than current service personnel. If they are having a good experience, they are the best recruiters for others.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Department of Health and Social Care · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the estimates and the CSR settlement from the Government —a record settlement for the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS. Given the time constraints, I will focus on three key points: financial management, underlying demand and the prioritisation of spend in the estimates. We rightly focus on the headline settlements in estimates such as these, but what we do not talk about enough is the importance of good public administration in the Department. In the 19 years that I spent in the NHS before coming to this place, I saw how the previous Government had a sticking-plaster approach not just to politics, but to public administration. Budgets were confirmed at the last minute and planning guidance was outlined at the very last moment of the financial year, meaning that there was no opportunity for NHS leaders and health leaders to plan appropriately for resource spending. I particularly welcome the emphasis the Secretary of State for Health and the new chief executive of NHS England have put on restoring accountability through the foundation trust model and multi-year settlements that mean that, although I am sure NHS colleagues would like more, they at least know and can plan investment and spend-to-save decisions over that period. Secondly, Members have queried why the NHS seemingly continues to require increases. I draw the House’s attention to the Nuffield Trust’s work showing that this is about not health inflation but underlying health demand. The Nuffield Trust estimates that, as a result of population changes—mainly the ageing of the population—there is a 1.1% increase in demand every year. In addition, advances in technology add a further 1.8% increase in healthcare demand, so there is already a 2.9% increase in underlying demand before inflation, which highlights that the Government’s emphasis on reform accompanying investment is critical. Finally, to deliver that reform, the investment going in must be very carefully targeted. The evidence base is clear that investment in primary care—and we are fortunate in this country to have a world-leading gatekeeper system of healthcare through general practice—represents the best return on investment in health. Work done by Michael Wood and the NHS Confederation confirms that. Alongside investment in mental health services and wider public health, this creates the best chance for the health system to live within these estimates and to meet our constituents’ expectations.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The volunteers of the Southwick Village Green Preservation Society have for six years worked with pride and love to improve the green in my constituency. Thanks to their efforts, it not only looks beautiful but celebrates the proud history of Southwick, including the contribution of Suddickers to shipbuilding, and in world wars. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking them for what they do, and consider a debate on the contribution that such voluntary groups make?

• 11 Jun 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As well as the welcome developments that my hon. Friend alludes to in the Tees, this is about the wider north-east. In my constituency, Wastefront has a £100 million investment and is creating 100 good jobs on the River Wear. Does he agree that jobs are being made in the wider north-east through this Government’s policy and that they are under threat from the policies of Opposition parties that he mentioned?

• 20 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source

  More

  Sunderland is proud to be a city of makers, from cars to music. Without reversing Brexit, those makers need access to Europe, whether that is exporters such as Nissan, which need the certainty to export, or musicians, who need the freedom to tour. Can the Prime Minister outline how this deal will support good jobs in Sunderland, whether they be in the motor or the music industry?

• 12 May 2025 · Income Tax: Personal Allowance · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Lady for that intervention. Of course, it was the previous Government who harmonised the income tax thresholds for pensioners and those of working age alike, the situation having previously been different. I absolutely recognise the stress felt by pensioners around the land. That is why such a debate is difficult without wider consideration of pension incomes and in particular the maintenance of the triple lock, which is not the subject of this debate, but which strikes me as important to consider. As I was saying, there is a disparity between the potential benefits of a significant increase in the personal allowance for those with different levels of income, with those earning the most benefiting the most from such an increase. Members may also wish to know that there would also be significant geographic differences in the impact of any changes. The places with average lower levels of income—for example, Sunderland—would lose out relative to places with higher average incomes, which are disproportionately in London and the south-east. Were such tax changes funded by cutting public services, regions such as the north-east would lose out even more. I hope those matters of context will help inform the debate this afternoon. I will end where I started, with a reflection of public sentiment on living standards. As other Members have mentioned, there is undoubtedly a strength of public feeling on these matters. We have to be frank: it is our job to improve the incomes and lives of the people that we serve. When I am out in Sunderland Central every week, that is the key issue that people raise with me, because for years they have been no better off and, in many cases, they are struggling to make ends meet. I get it. Putting more money in people’s pockets so they can do what they want is the public’s top priority. A key part of that is managing the public finances well. We all saw what the Liz Truss mini-Budget and unfunded half-baked tax plans did to living standards.

• 12 May 2025 · Income Tax: Personal Allowance · Hansard source

  More

  Of course, I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to his constituent for securing this debate; 250,000 signatures is an extraordinary level of engagement in the democratic process, and that is to be applauded. I will make some points about the distribution of the benefits of income tax freezes later on in my speech. The cost of the policy requested by the petition depends on the answers to the questions I just posed. Other Members may wish to speak about how they would approach such matters, but, to aid debate, I thought it would be useful to present some indicative costs. At this point, I want to place on record my thanks to the staff of the House, including those from the Petitions Committee and the Library, for their work in helping me to access such information. The House of Commons Library estimates that it would cost more than £60 billion to increase the personal allowance to £20,000, make corresponding increases to the higher rate tax threshold, and raise the national insurance threshold to £20,000 to maintain alignment. That figure is consistent with the range of costs expected by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which I also met in preparation for this debate. The IFS estimates that increasing the personal allowance to £20,000 would cost somewhere in the range of £40 billion to £90 billion, depending on the choices made on the related tax matters that I have outlined. To put those figures into context, at a minimum cost of £40 billion, the proposal would be at least as large as the tax measures proposed by the September 2022 mini-Budget, which were then quickly reversed after the economy crashed. At the higher end of the estimates—£90 billion—the cost of such a change would be around the same size as the entirety of public revenue spend on education, or two thirds of the total cost of the state pension. It is not for me, in introducing the debate, to advocate one way or another, but I urge Members contributing to speak frankly about the costs and funding of any tax changes they favour. I hope it is also useful briefly to provide some context about how individuals throughout the UK would be impacted by increases in the personal allowance. The IFS notes that the income level of one third of adults is already below the existing personal allowance. That group—those with the lowest incomes in society—would not benefit from the changes sought by the petition, while the greatest benefits would be received by those who are best off. That is to say, in net, such a change would be regressive, increasing inequalities of income.

• 12 May 2025 · Income Tax: Personal Allowance · Hansard source

  More

  No, I will make progress. The public expect us to do better than that and they expect us to do more. They want wages and pensions to go up faster than inflation, as is now starting to happen. They want to the personal allowance to rise. I pay tribute to Mr Frost again for calling for those measures, and to all those who signed the petition. We should be hugely thankful to have citizens who are engaged in our parliamentary democracy, as the 250,000 people who signed the petition are. I look forward to an interesting, and I hope informed, debate.

• 12 May 2025 · Income Tax: Personal Allowance · Hansard source

  More

  I will be brief. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. A debate on tax policy can be somewhat dry, but it is important to remember, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have reflected, that there are personal stories and circumstances behind all the signatories to this petition and the emails in our mailboxes. People are struggling to make ends meet and trying to do the best for their families and raise their standard of living. It is important to remember that. On behalf of the Petitions Committee, I thank the Minister for his response to the debate and all the Members who attended. I particularly thank Mr Frost for instigating the petition and all the petitioners who signed it. We have had a short but important debate this afternoon on the nub of the key economic policy debates facing the country. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 702844 relating to the Income Tax Personal Allowance.

• 12 May 2025 · Income Tax: Personal Allowance · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 702844 relating to the Income Tax Personal Allowance. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart, and it is a privilege to open the debate as a member of the Petitions Committee. All colleagues from all parties will recognise the priority that the public place on improving living standards, as our conversations with constituents, polling and the facts of the matter tell us. The reality is that average disposable incomes after tax fell from 2019-20 to 2023-24 —an unprecedented and shocking situation in which people were left poorer at the end of the last Parliament than they were at the start of it. That is the key context for today’s debate, which has been triggered as a result of more than 250,000 citizens signing the petition on income tax personal allowances. It also speaks to wider and entirely understandable public frustration about living standards. In preparation for the debate, I had the pleasure of talking to Mr Alan Frost, the creator of the petition and a constituent of the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox). Mr Frost, who is in the Gallery, explained that he has recently retired, having worked his whole life. He feels a sense of injustice that his state pension is considered as income for tax purposes, and that the tax thresholds he faces are not increasing. The events that led to that situation are as follows. In the 2021 spring Budget, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), who was Chancellor at the time, announced that the income tax personal allowance threshold of £12,570 would be frozen until April 2026. In the 2022 autumn statement, the Chancellor at that time, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), announced that the freeze would be extended for a further two years until April 2028. Following the change of Government, the current Chancellor announced in her autumn 2024 Budget that the freeze would not be extended any further, and therefore income tax personal allowances are expected to next rise in April 2028. Although Mr Frost is a pensioner and his petition reflects a desire to boost pensioner incomes, he also believes that significantly increasing the personal tax allowance would benefit those in work, boosting incomes and reducing the need for benefits. That belief reflects the reality that less than a quarter of the 37 million income tax payers in the UK are over the age of 65. The vast majority of those paying income tax are of working age and are not receiving the state pension. In their written response to the petitioners, the Government highlighted that making the suggested changes to the personal allowance would cost “many billions of pounds”. I am sure that the Minister will say more about that when he responds, but cost is a key element to discuss in our debate. It is Parliament’s responsibility to agree the ways and means of any policy it makes—that is, how to pay for what we decide to do. I gently suggest that the events of the last Parliament remind us how serious that responsibility is. The mini-Budget of September 2022 announced tax cuts costing around £45 billion without explaining how they would be funded, and the market reaction to that announcement left ordinary people paying the price. An emergency reversal of those tax changes followed, but not before high inflation and interest rates hit the standard of living. I therefore urge our debate to be conducted in full consideration of the cost and funding of any tax policy changes. Were income tax personal allowances to rise in the way suggested by the petition, there would be several other linked tax policy choices to be made, and those choices would determine the full cost of the change. For example, would the size of the tax bands above the personal allowance be maintained? Currently, the basic rate of 20% is levied above the personal allowance and up to about £50,000 of income. Would the size of that band be maintained if the personal allowance were increased by £7,500? If so, the point at which the higher rate of tax takes effect would, in turn, increase to almost £58,000, at further cost to the Exchequer. Similarly, the additional rate of tax is currently levied on incomes above £125,000, so if the personal allowance was to rise, would that level rise proportionately too? Finally, the income tax personal allowance is aligned with the level at which people start making national insurance contributions; should that level also rise to £20,000, or would we return to a more complicated tax system in which income tax and national insurance thresholds were no longer harmonised?

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I agree that that is what the wording says, but my point is that it is moot. The hon. Lady herself states that the amendment is to prevent an employee from going against the policies of the employer. That power already exists. No healthcare professional says, “Even though I’m employed as a doctor today by such and such a trust, I’m going to do a set of procedures or practices that I want to do.” It is moot. I have no issue with subsection (3)(a) in amendment 481, although I think it is unnecessary. However, I think subsection (3)(b) is deeply problematic. It cuts across employment law protections by referring to selection when hiring employees. There is a reference to the Equality Act, but as others have noted, it is not clear what protected characteristics we are talking about. At a deeper level, if we accept that there is going to be mixed provision, I would argue—and I think this Committee, in a small way, has shown this—that there is some benefit to that. We should not get to a position where every medic of a certain viewpoint on assisted dying works for one organisation and every healthcare professional of a different viewpoint works for another. That is not to say, by any stretch, that organisations would be forced to offer assisted dying. Clearly they would not. If the Bill becomes law, however, I want a society that is relatively at peace with it in healthcare, recognising people’s ability to conscientiously object as individuals. Setting up a dichotomy from the start, in which where a medic decides to work is determined by their views on such and such a procedure, is not a road that we should go down. I also have serious concerns, in terms of employment law, about subsection (3)(b).

• 12 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady sketches out a very short exchange. Does she think that we should specify in primary legislation the exact nature of interactions in these sorts of matters elsewhere—in the High Court, employment tribunals and so on? In my understanding, we do not: we trust regulated professionals to have appropriate interactions. It is not for Parliament to say that a lawyer or doctor should ask x or y question. Does she agree?

• 25 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Sensible amendments have been tabled elsewhere in the Bill—not to the clause that we are debating—that would strengthen the initial conversations and ensure that people make informed decisions and have access to, and conversations about, all the forms of support, psychological or otherwise. I think that those will address my hon. Friend’s point. In terms of the eligibility criteria, Chris Whitty was clear that there is diagnostic uncertainty in both directions. He said that “a significant minority of people die before they actually get to the point” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 37, Q15.] of the six-month prognosis. Because of that uncertainty, if we attempted to make the criterion much less than six months, we would end up excluding people. From all the conversations I have had, it is clear that once people have a terminal diagnosis, they want to put their affairs in order; doing so means that they can enjoy their final months with their families. We must not reduce eligibility and limit access to those whose disease unfortunately progresses more quickly than they would like and the prognosis suggests. I therefore oppose amendment 48, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West. The amendment talks about “recommended treatment”. In all my years in the NHS, shared decision making has been a key principle. No one other than the person in question can make the decision about what trade-off they are willing to accept. Invasive chemotherapy may have a 20% chance of elongating my life. Am I willing to accept a 20% chance? Am I willing to accept a 30% chance? What I decide is right for me may be different from what other individuals decide, so a doctor is not in a position to say, “You should accept this because it will give you a 10% chance,” or, “It will give you a certain level of pain that I’m willing to accept.” We each have to make those decisions ourselves.

• 6 Nov 2024 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman will recall that in the 2022 spring Budget, the Conservative party increased national insurance for employers by 1.25%, and he supported that. Can he explain why he was in favour of it then but opposes it now, even though we have introduced increased employment allowances that counteract the change?

• 5 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  It is pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell), who spoke movingly about her experience in the NHS, as well as the barriers she has ignored and, indeed, knocked down. I start by paying tribute to my predecessor, Julie Elliott, who not only worked with commitment for Sunderland Central, but provided political leadership and mentorship across the north-east. Julie understood that organising and advocating on a regional basis is often the best way to deliver for our communities. I hope to follow her example. It is the honour of my life to be in the House of Commons representing the city by the sea that I love. I am pleased that my first debate contribution is about the budget and the NHS, for what is our purpose here if not to improve the economic conditions of our constituents and the care available to those we serve? Health and wealth have always been linked—twin assets—as families like mine, forged in the Durham coalfield, know well. My grandparents were only able to toil at the pit, in the munition factory or in the home for as long as they were healthy. Working-class communities have always feared illness and injury, not just in its own right but because the resulting inability to work was disastrous for family finances. The introduction of the NHS and national insurance by the Attlee Government was intended to protect against such calamities. We have important work to do to repair and renew those civilising protections today. The link between inequalities of health, wealth and power has been impressed upon me by the privilege of working for two decades in NHS North East. Whether managing dentistry, mental health or cancer services, I saw at first hand how the poorest generally experience the poorest health outcomes. I intend to spend some of my time in this place working to right that situation. The qualities of innovation and hard work have always been the building blocks of Sunderland’s economy. From the introduction of glassmaking in Britain at Bede’s monastery of St Peter’s, through the education of lightbulb inventor Joseph Swan, to becoming the UK’s leading digital smart city, Sunderland has always been a home of innovation. We have always made things. For 600 years, that meant ships. At our peak, the people of Sunderland were hard at work “macking” a quarter of all ships produced globally each year, and we were likely dubbed “Mackems” as a result. Wealth from shipyards and pits built Sunderland, but such work often caused a thirst, so it was handy that the most popular stout in the country was produced in the centre of town, at the Vaux brewery, until the second world war interrupted production. In that war, as in others before and since, the patriotic people of Sunderland answered their country’s call. This weekend, I will be honoured to play a small part in what is thought to be one of the largest Remembrance services outside London, reflecting the high number of veterans in our city and the sacrifices made by so many, including my constituents who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. While the bravery and fortitude of Sunderland’s people has never been lacking, too often they have faced the headwinds of economic change without a Government on their side. By the end of my childhood, the pits, the shipyards and even Vaux had all gone. But the people’s spirit and an understated determination remained, and it is thanks to them that our city is now on the up. I am not just referring to top-of-the-Championship Sunderland AFC, a football club that has provided me with more agony and ecstasy than even the Labour party has managed. Our Stadium of Light stands on the site of the Monkwearmouth colliery, but now instead of coal we produce a rich seam of talented players, such as Jill Scott, Jordan Pickford, Lucy Bronze and Chris Rigg. I also celebrate the workers at the most productive car plant in Europe, Nissan, which although not in my constituency is the modern cornerstone of our city’s economy, continuing our advanced manufacturing heritage and skills. Elsewhere around the city, where there was previously decline we now see new beginnings. On the banks of the Wear, we no longer have shipyards, but we do have the Crown Works studio site, ready to be transformed into a landmark film studio. Where the brewery once stood, we have cranes in the sky for Riverside Sunderland, the most ambitious city centre regeneration project in the UK. We have our excellent university, with particular strengths in media and healthcare, and we have a city that loves a good time, where growing hospitality and cultural businesses provide plenty of decent days and nights. It might be a show at the Sunderland Empire, a meal at one of our many excellent British-Bangladeshi restaurants, or a gig at one of our independent venues. Where passion and identity are strong, there is music—and Sunderland is a music city. Having produced talent from Dave Stewart to the gone-too-soon Faye Fantarrow, our city’s artists reflect who we are, honour our proud heritage and point towards our bright future as an inclusive city. Nowadays, we celebrate that Mackems are found in mosques and churches, our community centres, our gurdwara and our social clubs, and now there are even two Mackems in the Cabinet. All my constituents, no matter what their background, deserve a strong economy and quality public services. Because Sunderland was built on hard work, its people rightly expect nothing less from their politicians. It is in that spirit that I recognise the privilege of being in the House on behalf of our entire community. I will do what I can to serve them and repay the trust they have placed in me.

• 9 Oct 2024 · Film Industry · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the announcement today and, in particular, the opportunity to capitalise further investment in new facilities. In my constituency, on the banks of the River Wear, there is the opportunity to develop Crown Works Studios, with 19 new sound stages and £450 million of international investment. Will the Secretary of State work with me to think about how we build on today’s announcement and use it not just to safeguard existing facilities, but build new facilities in the likes of the north-east?