Neil Shastri-Hurst MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

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

  More

  It strikes me that it should not be particularly controversial that a Government should be encouraging people to save for their retirement, to take responsibility for their future and to feel secure in later life. Therefore, although we are dealing with a short Bill that appears to be purely procedural in nature, its practical consequences are profound, because it takes us in precisely the wrong direction. Beneath the layer of technical language lies a troubling choice. It is a choice to tax aspiration, penalise prudence and chip away at the very habits that ensure financial security in our later years. The Government have sought to assure us that this only affects high earners and that most will not be affected, but that is not how it will feel to the majority of people in the real world. One in five people—approximately 20%—rely on salary sacrifice. Those are people who are doing the right thing; they are choosing long-term security over short-term consumption. Yet under the Bill, to save means to pay more. That is not positive pension reform; it is a stealth national insurance rise, dressed up in the cloak of technicality. At a time when businesses are struggling under huge wage bills, regulatory uncertainty and sluggish growth, the Bill quietly imposes on them yet another burden. I remind Government Members that fairness cuts both ways. It is not fair to tell people to save for their future and then tax them more for doing so, it is not fair to talk of fiscal responsibility when penalising prudence, and it is not fair to build long-term public finances on short-term revenue grabs. There is a moral component to this, because women will be disproportionately affected. Many women, on returning from maternity leave, increase their contributions to cover for that career break. The proposals as drafted will result in those who plan responsibly being encumbered with higher additional national insurance charges.

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

  More

  The Minister is right that people should be putting into their pensions and we should encourage them to do so, but we should not put forward legislation that disincentivises that. In respect of women, it is a fact that they are more likely to take career breaks and, by virtue of that, they may want to make up their contributions. This legislation will disadvantage those individuals. The salary sacrifice scheme has become the bedrock of the modern pension system in the workplace. By decreasing gross pay, it decreases employer national insurance contributions and allows firms to invest more in their people. That is a positive step. My fear is that, as a consequence of this piece of legislation, many employers may scale back those contributions, cut other benefits associated with work or even discontinue schemes entirely. If we want a country that values responsibility and rewards work, and in which people make long-term plans for their economic security, I am afraid that the Bill takes us in entirely the wrong direction.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Court Backlogs · Hansard source

  More

  One of the contributing factors to the court backlog is the state of disrepair of our court infrastructure. Will the Minister set out how many of the more than 500 Crown court rooms are currently unusable because of their state of disrepair?

• 2 Dec 2025 · Criminal Court Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Nobody would disagree with the Lord Chancellor’s diagnosis—the criminal courts are in crisis. It is the treatment that is in dispute. The question is whether the watering down of jury trials will be the solution, when in fact the problem is a lack of judges, court space and infrastructure, and inefficiencies in the system. Crucially, it is about a lack of appropriately trained defence and prosecution counsel who can deal with the complexities of these cases. Is this not a case of the Government choosing to prioritise other areas of spending, such as welfare, over our courts system?

• 1 Dec 2025 · Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts · Hansard source

  More

  The British public are, by nature, a forgiving people. However, does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury not recognise that obfuscation of the kind we have seen over the weekend deeply damages public confidence?

• 1 Dec 2025 · Evacuation Chairs: Schools and Colleges · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech, and Lucas’s poem really resonates with that. In my constituency, we have Evac+Chair, which creates evacuation chairs like the ones we have in Parliament. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the current legislation, the stay-put policy from an outdated era—1962—does not recognise that the technology has moved on?

• 27 Nov 2025 · Right to Trial by Jury · Hansard source

  More

  The crisis in our criminal justice system is not caused by jury trials but by inefficiencies in the system and a lack of advocates able to prosecute and defend trials, according to the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association. When will the Government engage with them, rather than relying solely on Sir Brian’s report, in order to maintain the cornerstone of our justice system—the jury trial—while improving inefficiencies in the criminal justice system?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  No, I want to make this point. The difference is that the Chancellor told the media last year that the buck stops with her. She has to own these decisions. As I say, people in this country are asked to live within their means, and they make sacrifices and plan for contingencies. They expect the Government to do the same, so when the Chancellor promises not to borrow more and not to tax more, the country should be able to take her at her word. Such promises are bonds of trust between the Government and the people. I have a certain degree of sympathy for Labour Members, who have been put in an invidious position. They have been asked to break a promise that they made to their constituents and their country. I ask them to look into their hearts, and to think about whether this is really what they want to be remembered for. Will they show the leadership, the independence of thought and the resolve to vote for this motion?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  This debate is much broader than mere numbers on a spreadsheet buried in the Treasury; it is about trust, stewardship and the future of our country. That matters because, at the last general election, the now Government and all those elected on their manifesto said they would not raise taxes on “working people”, yet at last year’s Budget, they did precisely that. They introduced £40 billion-worth of tax rises—under the guise of national insurance in the majority of cases—which have a trickle-down effect on working people up and down the country. To compound matters, on 25 November last year the Chancellor addressed the Confederation of British Industry and made a cast-iron promise: no more borrowing, and no more taxes. That was a pledge to every family, every community and every business in this country, yet we are now on the precipice of the Government breaking their promise. To do so would irreversibly damage the public’s confidence in the Government’s ability to manage our economy. Simply put, every tax rise hits families, pensioners and small businesses. There is a simple maxim: borrowing today is merely debt for tomorrow. Every pound borrowed has to be repaid, and it has to be repaid with interest. I know that those on the Government Benches do not necessarily regularly take the words of Margaret Thatcher to heart, but she said: “Pennies don’t fall from heaven. They have to be earned”. That is what people up and down this country are doing every day: they are grafting to provide for their families and their future. She was absolutely right. History teaches us that unchecked spending commitments undermine growth, reduce confidence and erode the state’s ability to serve those who are most vulnerable. By contrast, having control over public expenditure is not an ideology or something to be feared; it is simply common sense. It is about cutting waste, and it is about making hard choices today so that future generations are not saddled with crushing debt. That is responsible government. It was Churchill who said that “the price of greatness is responsibility”. When the Government came into power with great fanfare, there was a sense that they wanted to be a great reforming Government. Well, is there any greater responsibility than to families, who budget carefully; to citizens, who trust the Government to keep their word; and to the public, who expect manifesto promises to be kept? People live within their means.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member may have forgotten the covid pandemic that swept this country, which of course turned the tables, and difficult decisions had to be made.

• 11 Nov 2025 · Prisoner Releases in Error · Hansard source

  More

  Mistaken releases of prisoners do not just undermine public trust and confidence in the system; they cost money, because the police have to go and find them and return them to prison. Can the Secretary of State set out how much it has cost the police to return prisoners to prison since this Government came to power?

• 27 Oct 2025 · North Sea Oil and Gas Industry · Hansard source

  More

  Sadly, this is not an isolated case; regrettably, it is a pattern of decline that we are seeing under this Government. Can the Minister tell us how many companies must go under before the Government realise that Great Britain cannot build a resilient and secure energy system by shutting down the energy industry?

• 20 Oct 2025 · SEND Provision · Hansard source

  More

  I have spoken to many anxious parents whose children have not been in receipt of an EHCP or local authority funding but would historically have benefited from independent education provision because of their SEND needs. One of their concerns is that such provision can no longer be afforded because of the imposition of 20% VAT on those schools. On behalf of those parents, I implore the Government to look at that again and do a U-turn.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has repeatedly said that he is extremely disappointed that this case did not proceed to trial. That is thin gruel if all the steps necessary to ensure that it got to trial were not taken. With that in mind, can he set out whether the report in The Sunday Times over the weekend that the Prime Minister and other Ministers were aware of the imminent collapse on 12 September is correct? If that is correct, can he set out what steps the Home Secretary took to ensure that the CPS had the evidence it needed?

• 14 Oct 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Secretary of State set out how many of the proposed six protections for veterans will also be available to former paramilitaries?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In July this year, alongside a cross-party group of parliamentarians and others, I wrote to the then Lord Chancellor seeking a meeting regarding improving gatekeeping and alternative dispute resolution in family court matters. I have not received a response. Can the Lord Chancellor give me the reassurance that such a meeting will take place?

• 15 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T9. When will levels of shoplifting finally reduce rather than rise, as they have under this Government?

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak to two specific Lords amendments proposed in turn by Lord Burns and Lord Sharpe in the other place. While addressing different clauses, both amendments essentially come down to the same principle: defending fairness, transparency and democratic legitimacy against narrow sectional interests. On Lords amendment 61, in 2016, after long and at times fraught debate, Parliament reached a carefully constructed settlement on the question of trade union political funds. That settlement was not only fair and balanced but, crucially, was broadly accepted by all sides. The compromise was a simple one: it resulted in new members contributing to a union’s political fund only if that member gave their active, informed consent. In contrast, existing members were left untouched and, importantly, unions were required to remind all members annually of their right to change their decision. This is both a fair and a balanced settlement. It is not a carve-up; it is a genuine compromise. It respected both the collective strength of unions and the personal liberty of individuals. Yet what do we see now? We see a Government seeking to dismantle that settlement, and the result is a return to an era where consent was assumed and where individuals found themselves supporting causes they did not share simply because the rules made it cumbersome to say otherwise. That is not a positive reform; it is regression. In every walk of life—whether a subscription service, an insurance policy, or a mobile phone contract—the public quite properly expect clarity in respect of the terms they are committing to. Why should those standards of fairness be cast aside when it comes to political funds of unions closely bound to the governing party? Lords amendment 62 deals with the threshold for industrial action. Strikes have consequences. We have seen that only in the last week, with transport links across London brought to a standstill, commutes drastically prolonged, and the consequential significant disruption to people’s day-to-day lives. As a former doctor who, I should point out, did not go on strike in years gone by, I have seen at first hand the consequences of medics taking industrial action: operations cancelled; out-patient appointments postponed; and the provision of healthcare delayed. When the livelihoods and wellbeing of citizens up and down this country are so significantly impacted, it is neither unreasonable nor undesirable that such action rests upon a clear majority. The 50% threshold is precisely that safeguard. It serves as a clear assurance that industrial action has broad legitimacy and is not just the preserve of a militant minority. Yet this Government seek to sweep away that protection by voting down this very sensible and considered improvement to the legislation. Both these amendments remind us that democracy depends upon consent, transparency and legitimacy. Those values have been the bedrock of Britain for generations. It would be a poor bargain indeed if they were set aside to placate the financial and political interests of a narrow few.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  For many veterans, hearing loss is one of the hidden scars of service, and in a number of cases, it has been linked to defective 3M hearing equipment. Will the Minister use their arts of persuasion on the Prime Minister to ensure an independent inquiry, so that we can find out the extent of this, and see whether any other equipment is involved and how we can prevent it from happening again?

• 8 Sept 2025 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  Like the hon. Gentleman, I have a significant Hongkonger population in my constituency of Solihull West and Shirley—there are about 4,500 across the borough. Does he agree that they had a legitimate expectation that the rules of the game would not be changed part way through, and that to do so would damage the social contract that we, as a state, have with these people?

• 2 Sept 2025 · Defibrillators · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes a really important point. The consequences of vandalism or damage to this equipment can be life-changing—it can end a life. The ramifications have to be clearly pointed out and reflected in the law of the land. Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) and I recently wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport about expanding education on lifesaving skills as part of driving tests, and we should also incorporate it more into the national curriculum. Will the Minister speak to her colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Transport about ensuring that everybody in this country knows not only where a defib is but how to operate one, to enable lifesaving interventions as quickly as possible?

• 2 Sept 2025 · Defibrillators · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) on securing this important debate, and I start by sending my condolences to George Smith’s family at this very difficult time. Many Members may know that, before coming to this place, I was both a doctor and a barrister. As a doctor, I worked predominantly in acute care, so I have seen the brutal speed with which cardiac arrest can lead to death. But as a barrister, I specialised in inquests and clinical negligence, and I also saw what happened when people did not get timely interventions, and the devastating consequences that arose. As many Members have set out, the stark reality is that every minute counts. Every minute reduces life expectancy by 10%. If someone gets prompt intervention, their survival rate can be as high as 70% if their defib is within 200 metres of their location. That is a three-to-five-minute brisk walk there and back. But the stark reality is that out-of-hospital arrests have a survival rate of less than one in 12. Compared with in-hospital arrests, the survival rate to discharge is in the region of 25%. That is why this was an important focus for me when I was elected to Parliament for Solihull West and Shirley. Despite the fact that my constituency has a mix of urban and semi-rural places, only 40.32% of our defibs are within the recommended distance and there are only seven public defibs per 10,000 people, which is well below the national recommendation. Across the United Kingdom, the per-population count for defibs is approximately five to 10 times lower than it is in a country such as Japan. That cannot be right in this day and age, which is why, for one of my office fundraisers this year, we all went and did the Solihull way. We walked 20-odd miles in the day, and raised money for two defibs and some bleed kits on behalf of a brilliant charity called the Daniel Baird Foundation. It was particularly moving to be able to donate one of those defibs to the Wave café in my constituency, where a valued member of the community had sadly died some months earlier because they did not have access to a defib. I am going to reiterate a couple of calls that have already been made to the Minister, who I know has been listening carefully. First, we should exempt defibs from VAT—it is ridiculous. For every five defibs that are currently bought, we could afford another if we got rid of VAT.

• 1 Sept 2025 · Borders and Asylum · Hansard source

  More

  In her statement, the Home Secretary set out that the Government would establish an independent body to process asylum appeals. That will work only if it is delivered at pace, resourced and well-staffed, so can she set out when that independent body will start recruiting arbitrators and support staff and when it will be operating at full pelt? Will it operate seven days a week? If in a year’s time we come back from next summer’s recess with immigration rates higher than this year’s, will the Home Secretary take personal responsibility for that?

• 9 Jul 2025 · Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister will know the high regard in which I hold her. With that in mind, does she, in her own heart, believe that intermediate courts will fix the criminal court backlog, or does she agree with the legal profession that that risks being a costly distraction from investing in the existing system? Does she agree with me that chipping away jury trials in the name of speed risks undermining the cornerstone of British justice?

• 7 Jul 2025 · Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life · Hansard source

  More

  In her statement, the Secretary of State said that every child deserves a great education, including children with SEND. I do not think anybody could disagree with that, but for parents and pupils in my constituency, and up and down the country, warm words are one thing but concrete outcomes are another. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that not a single child who is currently in receipt of special needs support will lose it under the Government’s policies?