Neil Shastri-Hurst MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  In response to the DIP, the noble Lord Hutton, a former Labour Defence Secretary, said that “the centres of resistance across Whitehall to extra defence spending have been allowed to prosper and they haven’t been overcome.” He went on to say that, as a consequence, our armed forces will not be war-ready by the end of this Parliament. Does the Defence Secretary disagree with the noble Lord? How do the £10.7 billion in cuts to the MOD budget enhance our armed forces’ readiness?

• 29 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  There are now over 1 million young people not in education, employment or training, which is the highest number in more than a decade. When the history books are written on this period of Government, does the Secretary of State agree that the story will be of a lost generation?

• 25 Jun 2026 · Neuropsychiatric Conditions: PANS and PANDAS · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to respond to the debate on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for securing the debate and for setting out the landscape facing those with PANS/PANDAS in the UK, as well as recognising the lack of knowledge about the conditions and the challenge that presents. I thank her for her sustained work through the APPG on the issue. Many right hon. and hon. Members have contributed to the debate. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) spoke movingly about Joanne and Jake, who have been living with PANS/PANDAS for the past six years, and the challenges of not getting the treatment or the funding that they need. The hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) made a good point about how those affected do not want sympathy but action. He talked about the excellent campaigning by Albie, who is in the Gallery today, following his brother’s diagnosis—I suspect Albie’s handwriting is somewhat better than my doctor’s scrawl and I commend him on his campaigning. The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), who is always keen to speak up and champion issues on behalf of his constituents, spoke about the importance of guidance. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) talked about the importance of the early use of antibiotics. Above all, I want to speak directly to the families and children who are following the debate and who live with PANS/PANDAS every day, some of whom are with us in the Gallery today. For them, this is not an abstract discussion about guidance, systems or clinical pathways; it is about the child they love, the moment something changed and the exhaustion of trying to explain that change to people who may never have heard of the condition before. It is about parents who overnight become advocates, researchers, case managers and campaigners, while simultaneously trying to hold their families together, and about the children and young people whose lives can be altered suddenly and terrifyingly. As we have heard, PANS/PANDAS sit at the intersection of neurology, psychiatry, immunology and infectious diseases. That matters because they do not fit neatly into one service, specialty, clinic or budget line. For the children affected, symptoms can be sudden and severe. They include obsessive-compulsive behaviours, restricted eating, tics, anxiety, behavioural change, sleep disturbance, regression, movement difficulties, school refusal and distress that can overwhelm the entire family. For some families, the story is stark. A child who was settled and sociable becomes frightened, withdrawn and unable to eat. A child who was thriving at school begins to struggle. Families find themselves moving from GPs to child and adolescent mental health services, from paediatrics to emergency departments, and from school meetings to safeguarding conversations, often without a clear pathway or a clinician who is able to say, “Do you know what? I recognise this, and this is what we need to do next.” The first task before us is to diagnose the problem honestly. The problem is not that every scientific question has been answered, because clearly it has not. There is uncertainty and professional disagreement, and there is a need for stronger evidence, better data and more research into diagnosis, treatment and long-term outcomes. However, uncertainty has too often translated into inconsistency. It has meant too many families left without a clear answer, too many clinicians left without guidance, too many schools unsure of how to respond and too many children caught between services. Each see part of the picture, but they do not see the child as a whole. At present, there is no official NHS clinical guidance for the diagnosis and treatment of PANS/PANDAS. NICE has previously concluded that the evidence was insufficient to provide useful guidance. The Government have said that data on the number of children affected is not currently collected, because internationally the criteria cannot be agreed. Local integrated care systems are expected to plan services, but they are asked to do so without consistent national direction, which risks variation. As we have heard, in reality variation leads to a postcode lottery. It means that one family may find an informed GP, paediatrician or neurologist, while another family is left scrambling for help. It means that one school may understand the sudden onset and fluctuating need, while another school sees only challenging behaviour. It means that one parent may feel believed, while another parent feels blamed. That is the difficulty at the heart of this debate. PANS/PANDAS cut across the way our systems are organised. The NHS is still too often structured around separate silos, whether it is mental health, neurology, infectious disease, immunology or paediatrics, but children living with these conditions do not arrive in neat administrative categories; their needs are complex, sudden and overlapping. That makes it hard for families to know where to turn, as well as for clinicians who want to help but may not have had the training to do so, and for schools that see a child’s behaviour change dramatically without understanding what is driving it. We must also be candid about the emotional difficulty. Parents can feel dismissed. They can feel treated as difficult or seen as overanxious when they are simply trying to explain what has happened to their child. No child should be left waiting for help because the system is unsure about where they fit. The previous Government did not solve this issue, but foundations were laid through the UK rare diseases framework, annual action plans and engagement with research, including with the APPG and the working group. The current Government have welcomed clinical guidance being developed by PANS PANDAS UK and have said that NICE will consider national guidance as evidence improves. They have also pointed to NIHR research and extended the rare diseases framework into 2027. Where the Government do the right thing, we should welcome it, but the question is whether those actions are sufficient. Do they need to go faster? Are they reaching the families on the ground? Families do not experience this as a framework, action plan or written answer; they experience it as the moment when a child refuses food, compulsions appear, school attendance collapses or a parent is told that a professional has never heard of the condition. If the problem is complexity, inconsistency and a lack of recognition, the solution must be equal in its seriousness. The foundations have been set, and now we must all go further. We need action on guidance. The clinical guidance being developed by PANS PANDAS UK and the PANS guideline development group brings together expertise from general practice, paediatrics, neurology, immunology, infectious diseases, psychiatry, psychology and nursing. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out how the Government will engage with that guidance once it is published. Will she commit to a clear process for assessing emerging evidence? We also need to take action on professional awareness. I recall reading about these conditions in Kumar & Clark when I was a medical student, but I do not recall receiving any formal training on them. It is not enough to ask our clinicians to be responsible for keeping their knowledge up to date; atypical, complex and contested conditions require practical support. As such, I ask the Minister to consider an awareness package for frontline professionals, developed in conjunction with clinicians, families and experts. We also need action on data and research—we need better data, diagnostic clarity, and research into treatment and long-term outcomes. With that in mind, I would appreciate the Minister setting out how the Government intend to support that work and encourage greater patient involvement. There is also a need for greater consistency across local systems. If support is left entirely to local discretion, care will depend on where a family lives or how hard they are able to fight for it. Clearer information on how suspected cases can be supported across specialties should be available to ICBs, and schools also have to be part of the answer. For many families, school is where the change is first noticed; better awareness of sudden onset and fluctuating symptoms could help ensure sensible attendance policies and flexible, rapid and responsive classroom adjustments. This debate should not be one that divides the House, but one that unites it. There will be different views on the evidence, on treatment and on guidance, but there should be no difference between us on the need for children to be seen, for families to be heard, for clinicians to be supported, and for care to be based on evidence, rather than the accident of geography. For families living with PANS/PANDAS, progress will be measured by whether the next family gets an earlier answer, whether the next child is believed sooner, whether the next GP has somewhere to turn, and whether the next school understands. That is a fair and compassionate standard, and it is the one that the Government should now meet.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Brain Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is absolutely right that when someone is facing a devastating crisis, but has to travel excessive distances to get the treatment they deserve, there is something wrong with the system. If we are serious about accelerating research, we must ensure that every patient has a fair opportunity to participate in it. That requires investment not only in laboratories and technology, but in a workforce that supports research and clinical innovation. What specific action are the Government taking to address those disparities and ensure that advances in research can benefit patients regardless of where they live? The petition also reflects a wider frustration felt by many families facing brain cancer. When conventional options are exhausted, patients understandably look to emerging treatments and clinical trials with hope. Such hope is entirely understandable, but at the same time we must maintain rigorous standards of safety and evidence. The challenge for us as policymakers is not choosing between innovation and safety; it is ensuring that innovation can be assessed, trialled and adopted as quickly as possible, when the evidence supports it. That is why clinical research capacity and trial recruitment matter so much, and it is why access to cutting-edge treatments must remain a key priority. On that point, the Government have committed to increase spending on branded medicines, and they have set out ambitious objectives for expanding participation in commercial clinical trials. Of course those ambitions are welcome, but they must be matched by delivery. The Office for Budget Responsibility has estimated that increasing spending on branded medicines will carry significant costs over the coming years, so can the Minister explain how the Government intend to fund those commitments? Patients need confidence that the announcements we hear today will be translated into treatments tomorrow. Similarly, while we welcome the publication of the national cancer plan earlier this year, questions remain about its implementation. The shadow Health and Social Care Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), supported the ambitions set out within the plan. However, he quite rightly called for clear, funded milestones, and those questions remain unanswered. When will the Government publish measurable targets for rare cancers, and how will progress be reported? For all the challenges that we have discussed today, it is important that we recognise the reasons for hope. Medical research continues to achieve what once seems impossible. Just a few years ago, diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma was regarded as one of the most devastating childhood brain cancers, with very few children surviving beyond two years. However, through participation in innovative clinical trials, a young boy from Belgium named Lucas Jemeljanova experienced something quite extraordinary. Having been diagnosed at six, he entered the trial and, over time, scans showed a shrinking tumour, which eventually disappeared altogether. Lucas is now 13, and he is considered cured. With every breakthrough that provides a scientific curiosity, the challenge before us as a Government, as an Opposition and as clinicians and researchers is to ensure that those breakthroughs happen more quickly and often, so that they can reach patients quicker. That is what the families behind this petition are seeking, and they deserve no less.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Phoenix shops are a blight on many of our high streets, including in my constituency of Solihull West and Shirley. Councillor Karen Grinsell, the leader of Solihull metropolitan borough council, recently brought forward a motion to have greater statutory powers to close down these stores. Will the Leader of the House provide Government time to debate this issue so that we can close these stores for good?

• 16 Apr 2026 · NHS Federated Data Platform · Hansard source

  More

  I was expecting a promotion there, Dame Siobhain. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) on securing the debate. He has brought forward an issue that sits right at the centre of how we shape the future of our national health service: how we use data, who we trust with it and how we ensure that technology supports care rather than complicates it. The debate has been a thoughtful one, and in many respects it has been revealing. It has shown both the promise of the NHS federated data platform and the unease that still surrounds it. That tension really matters. I am grateful for the significant contributions we have heard from right hon. and hon. Members, with 13 coming from the Back Benches by my count. Let me start by setting out where I think there is common ground across the House. The NHS is under enormous pressure as demand is rising, complexity is increasing and waiting lists remain too high. Too often, clinicians are working without the full picture in front of them. Anyone who has spent time in the health service knows that this is not a system that lacks dedication. It is, however, a system that too often lacks coherence. Data is part of that problem as it is scattered, fragmented and difficult to use in a joined-up way. Records do not always reliably follow the patient, and information is duplicated, delayed or simply not available when it is needed most. The consequence of that is not just theoretical; it is time lost, inefficiencies and, at times, patients not getting the care they should when they should. The case for doing things better is a strong one; in fact, it is unavoidable. The FDP is one attempt to respond to that challenge. It seeks to bring together information in a way that allows the NHS to work more effectively, helping clinicians and supporting managers with the ultimate aim of improving care for patients. There are some early signs that this is beginning to deliver; waiting lists have been cleaned up, and some hospitals have reported better flow through theatres and wards. Those are practical improvements. As is so often the case in government, the easier question is whether something can work; the much harder question is whether it will be accepted. There are clearly concerns here. We have heard about reluctance in part of the workforce. I am not suggesting there is uniform opposition, but there is certainly hesitation and, in some cases, disengagement. We should be careful, however, not to exaggerate that. Big reforms in the NHS have always faced resistance, often at the start. This is not necessarily something new, and on its own it is not necessarily decisive. At the same time, however, it is not irrelevant; if the people expected to use this system do not have confidence in it, its impact will always be limited. Will the Minister say what is the assessment of staff engagement with the FDP and how the Government are ensuring that this is something done with the NHS, rather than done to it? In the end, that will make the real difference. The same issue arises with public trust. People are right to care about their medical data—it is sensitive, personal and deeply private. Once confidence is lost in this area, it is very difficult to rebuild it. There are important safeguards in place: the data remains under NHS control, the access is tightly regulated, and the provider does not own or use the data for its own purposes. The legal framework underpinning those safeguards is strong. Those are not minor points—they really matter. However, we also have to recognise something else. People are not just asking whether the system is safe today, but what it enables tomorrow. Could the data be combined in ways that reveal more than people expect? Could systems evolve in ways not originally intended? Could future Governments choose to use the capability in different ways? Those are not unreasonable questions; they are the natural questions people ask when large new systems are created. Again, I ask the Minister what more will be done to reassure the public about the limits of how NHS data can be used and whether he can set out clearly where parliamentary oversight comes in if the use of data is expanded in the future. Trust is not built by reassurance alone; it is built by clarity and restraint. A significant part of this debate has understandably focused on Palantir, and it is right that it has. Palantir is now a major supplier within the NHS data infrastructure as well as elsewhere across Government, and that raises legitimate questions about not just capability but dependence. For some the concern is political, while for others it is about principle. For many, though, it is something much more practical: what happens if we become too reliant on a single provider for something as critical as health data infrastructure? I think that is a fair question. However, we should also separate those questions from the broader argument about the company’s international work. In a global economy, companies will inevitably work with different Governments, and that alone is not a sufficient reason to exclude them from public contracts in the UK. The question of procurement design, competition and resilience, however, is a different matter.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for his intervention. This is about placing a clear, time-bound duty on the Secretary of State to secure continuity of secondary care for dependants within six months. We want their clinical need to transfer horizontally across, as opposed to vertically downwards. That is the nuisance that amendment 10 is intended to address. Amendment 10 sets out the substance of the regulations that I have suggested that the Secretary of State introduce. They are deliberately straightforward. First, where a patient is already receiving treatment, their status should be preserved when the responsibility for their care is transferred to a different health authority—that is, a horizontal move across. In practical terms, it would mean that a patient should not lose their place in the system because they crossed administrative boundaries. Instead, they should have a seamless transfer of care. Secondly, the amendment would ensure that patients are not required to obtain a new referral solely by virtue of having moved, which would be ridiculous. The need for a referral is, and should remain, a clinical matter. It should not be triggered by geography and movement. Requiring a new referral in those circumstances adds delay, creates duplication and serves no meaningful clinical purpose. Thirdly, the amendment calls for clear guidance on the practical steps necessary to support continuity, including the timely and efficient transfer of patient records, the recognition and continuation of existing treatment pathways, and the preservation of procedures that have been booked or recommended. Those are not novel concepts; in many ways, they are already part of good administrative practice. What is lacking is the consistency of application across the country. It is perhaps worth emphasising what amendment 10 would not do, as much as what it would. It would not confer preferential treatment on service families. It would not seek to move them ahead of others in the queue, nor to secure access to services beyond what is clinically necessary. Its purpose is much more modest: to ensure that service families are not disadvantaged as a result of circumstances beyond their control. That is entirely in keeping with the armed forces covenant, which commits to removing disadvantage, not to creating advantage. In that context, the disadvantage is clear; it arises not from clinical need, but from the intersection of mobility and administrative fragmentation. Addressing it is therefore both entirely justified and absolutely necessary. There is also a broader point about fairness and the implicit contract between the nation and those who serve. Service personnel accept a range of constraints and obligations that do not apply to the general population. They relinquish a degree of control over where they live, where they move and how they organise their family life. In return, it is entirely reasonable for them to expect that the state will take reasonable steps to ensure that those constraints do not translate into avoidable hardship for their families. Continuity of healthcare is a particularly important aspect of that understanding. Health is not a peripheral concern; it is central to the wellbeing and stability of service families. Disruption to care can have a cascading effect on education, employment and the overall resilience of the family unit. In that sense, addressing the issue is a matter not only of fairness, but of operational effectiveness. A serviceperson who is worried about the health of their family cannot fully focus on their duties. At a time of critical need, their ability to do so is absolutely essential. Some may raise questions about the practicalities of implementing such a system, particularly in the context of devolved health systems across the United Kingdom. It is therefore important to be clear about the scope and intent of amendment 10. It would not seek to override devolved competencies or impose a uniform model of service delivery. Rather, it would require that whatever the organisational arrangements are, mechanisms be in place to ensure continuity when patients move between them. In many respects, the steps required are administrative rather than structural. They involve ensuring that information flows effectively, that existing clinical decisions are recognised, and that waiting positions are honoured, based on clinical need. These are matters of co-ordination, communication and guidance; they do not require wholesale reform of the system. There are already examples of good practice in this area. In some parts of the country, arrangements have already been put in place to facilitate the transfer of patients between trusts with minimal disruption to their care. The amendment seeks to ensure that such practice becomes the norm rather than the exception. It is also worth noting that the increasing digitalisation of healthcare records and the development of more integrated healthcare systems provide a foundation upon which this kind of continuity can be built. In many cases, the infrastructure already exists; what is needed is a clearer expectation, backed by regulation, that it should be used to support service families consistently and reliably.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Student Loans · Hansard source

  More

  Education is one of the few forces of life that allows a person not only to imagine a different future but to reach it. It is more than a qualification. It is more than a certificate. It is more than even a career. It is the moment where circumstance loosens its grip and possibility takes hold. A good education does not simply serve the individual; it strengthens families and it uplifts communities. It is the most powerful engine of social mobility we possess, and it is the surest path by which talent can rise, irrespective of where it begins. However, if we are to be true to that belief, we must confront a most uncomfortable question. What does it say about us as a nation if the very ladder we offer is weighed down by a burden that grows faster than the lives it is meant to lift? Today, far too many graduates look not at opportunity, but at a balance that rises year after year, and not simply with the cost of living but more than that. This is a system in which interest is not just keeping pace with inflation, but outstripping it, and where the cost of learning risks becoming a source of anxiety that follows people into their working lives, their families and their futures. This is not just an economic issue, but a moral one. Education should open doors, not cast longer shadows. The reforms that the Conservatives support are a simple settlement, yet they are profound in their principle. They would ensure that student loan interest rises only with inflation, not above it, moving from RPI plus 3% to RPI alone, and preventing the trap of pushing low to middle earners to pay more than the threshold.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet). Although she is on the opposite side of the debate from me, she always speaks with huge passion on these issues. I should start with a couple of declarations. First, my wife is a sitting employment judge, and therefore the tribunal element of the Bill pertains to her. Secondly, like many right hon. and hon. Members in this Chamber, I was a barrister immediately prior to coming into this place, and I maintain my practising certificate. I hope the hon. Lady will indulge me if I pontificate on this issue for a few moments. While I was not a criminal barrister, I did a significant amount of inquest work, so I had face-to-face, first-hand experience with jurors, and I can say without a shadow of a doubt that they are the most remarkable, ordinary people, who give up their time for civic engagement. They sit there quietly, listening to the evidence; they take their role seriously; and they sit in judgment and make findings of fact. That is a huge constitutional principle. We have talked about rights, and I am not going to pretend that there is an innate right to a trial by jury, but there is a firm constitutional principle of ensuring that justice is not merely done to the public, but that it is done with the public. We all know about the problem of court backlogs. It would be a farce to pretend that this is not a significant and serious issue—it is a failure of the state that we have got to this place. It is a failure of successive Governments, and we recognise that across the board, but the question we have to ask ourselves is not whether trial by jury should be abandoned; it is whether the reforms that are before this House, with the scrutiny that has been undertaken and the impact assessment that accompanies the Bill, constitute sufficient evidence for making such a reform to this country’s constitution. What the Bill asks for is very clear, and we have to be honest about it. We are asking for a shift in the balance between the state and its people, and that may lead to inequality before the law. Take the prime example raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox): that of two individuals who, on a factual matrix, committed precisely the same crime. Those individuals appear before the court, but one has a string of previous convictions. Are we really saying that a person should be denied the opportunity of a jury trial if they have not previously been of bad character? That is a nonsense, and it does not achieve what we should be seeking to achieve. The further point, of course, is that if we are making such a constitutional change on the basis that it will enable us to deal with the backlog in the criminal courts, why is there no sunset clause in the Bill? Why are we not saying that the purpose of the Bill is to shift the dial and make progress, but that we recognise that it should not be a blank cheque for the state? We should recognise that if this change has to be made—although I do not believe it does—it should be made on a limited basis, because if we are to change a right that is older than most institutions in this country, the least Parliament should do is base its decision on more than just an assumption in the impact assessment. Let me turn to the modelling, which was also raised by the shadow Justice Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy). In this House on 3 February, I asked the Lord Chancellor a question about the 20% reduction in the time taken by court hearings. He gave me a very clear answer—that he accepted Sir Brian Leveson’s findings, but that the Government would publish their own modelling alongside the Bill. However, page 10 of the impact assessment is very clear that the Government have adopted Sir Brian’s assumption. That is an assumption; it is not modelling. There is a distinct difference. Analysis is helpful, but modelling is critical, and if we are weighing up the evidence base for the Bill, we have to have more than analysis alone.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but this is about choices. We come to this place to make choices about how we spend taxpayers’ money to ensure that it is fair across the board. We can all bring moving individual stories, but there is the reality of how we support Government expenditure across the board so that it is fair and equitable and ensures that families up and down the country are having to make similar choices every single day. What this Bill tells the country is that choices no longer matter. It tells the taxpayer that restraint is optional. It tells Government that limits are now outdated. The Government say that the Bill will reduce child poverty—I understand that, and I respect that intention—but poverty is not conquered by cheque books alone. It is conquered by work, education, stability and ambition. It is conquered when families are supported to stand tall instead of being encouraged to lean forever. For far too long, politics has fallen into the trap of believing that every social problem has a fiscal solution—if only we spend more money, subsidise a little more or borrow more—but history teaches us a much harder lesson. A society that confuses help with dependency does not liberate the poor, but simply imprisons them. The Bill will cost approximately £3 billion a year, which will be paid not by abstractions, but by people—by the nurse working a night shift, the self-employed plumber, the shop worker who is saving for a deposit or the small business owner who is keeping three other people in employment. Those people are entitled to ask whether this is fair. Is it fair that they have to calculate every single pound while the state abandons calculation altogether? I simply do not believe it is.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is right to a degree: there has been failure by successive Governments to invest in the criminal justice system. If we were serious about this issue in this place, we would look at cutting welfare, which spends the entirety of the Ministry of Justice’s annual budget in just two weeks. We need to prioritise spending, and the criminal justice system has been left high and dry for far too long by Governments of all colours. It is now routine for trials to be adjourned because defendants either arrive late or do not arrive at all, with juries discharged, witnesses turned away and days of court time lost as a consequence. These delays have nothing whatsoever to do with the presence of a jury, and everything to do with operational failure in the system. The next point I wish to make, and possibly the most grave, is about the erosion of the criminal Bar. We face a serious shortage of suitably qualified advocates both to prosecute and to defend. Cases are delayed because no one of appropriate experience is available or willing to take them on. That is not inefficiency, but attrition. Curtailing jury trial risks mistaking the symptom for the disease. Worse, it risks creating a system that is perhaps faster, but thinner, and ostensibly more efficient, but unquestionably less legitimate. I think of the words of Lord Hailsham, a former Lord Chancellor and one of the greatest legal minds of the previous century, who warned this very House of the dangers of an “elective dictatorship”, and the slow accretion of power to the state at the expense of the citizen. The jury trial is one of the great counterweights to that tendency, ensuring that the coercive power of criminal law is exercised only with the consent of the community. Juries do much more than merely find facts; they embody public confidence, guard against institutional complacency and remind us that justice is not something merely administered to the people, but done with them. If the Government believe that it is right to curtail that right, they must show clear evidence that jury trials cause the delay, that alternative modes of trial would be demonstrably faster, and that fairness, legitimacy and public confidence would not be diminished.

• 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.

• 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?

• 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.

• 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?

• 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.