Neil Shastri-Hurst MP: speeches

Speeches

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my constituency neighbour for giving way. I was in the same meeting, and one of the big concerns was the loss of the special school planned for Tamworth Lane. Does my hon. Friend agree that that not only detracts from parents and pupils who would benefit, but puts additional pressures on mainstream schools?

• 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.

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

  More

  At its heart, this debate is about choices, and the choice before us today is whether we believe that compassion is best expressed through limitless expenditure or through a system that is fair, responsible and worthy of the people who fund it. We in this House all share the same objective: we want every child— [ Interruption. ] Well, I hope we do, because we want every child in every corner of this country to have hope and opportunity in their future. If we are truly honest, a good society is measured not by how much it spends, but by how wisely it spends, and that is where the Bill does not meet the test before it.

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

  More

  I will make some progress. I will start with a real-life experience from my own constituency. Some months ago, I met a couple at a community event, both of whom were in work and clearly raising their children with a great deal of pride and care. They spoke to me with a quiet determination about the sacrifices they were forced to make: no foreign holidays, no luxuries, often working long hours and, of course, careful budgeting of the household income. Their message was that they did not expect the state to intervene on their behalf; they were not asking for anything special. Instead, they were merely asking for fairness, and fairness is what is at stake today. The two-child limit rests on the simple principle that the welfare system should reflect the real choices faced by working families up and down the country. Across the United Kingdom, parents weigh responsibility against aspiration every day, asking themselves whether they can provide, whether they can sustain and whether they can provide their children with security.

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

  More

  It would be a safety net if it provided a short-term boost. What it does instead is provide an endless cheque book without any checks and balances in place. If there was a sunset clause, that would be different, but there is not. The two-child limit was about more than blame; it was about balance. It recognised that a welfare system without boundaries eventually loses legitimacy altogether, and when legitimacy is lost, discourse soon follows. That is the great unspoken risk of this Bill: it does not merely expand spending, but weakens trust; it widens the gap between those who give and those who receive and, in doing so, puts the whole settlement at risk. What is fundamentally missing from this Bill is any serious strategy for mobility. Where are the plans for skills, for progression, for family stability and for moving people from welfare into work? Instead, the Bill simply offers the politics of reassurance without reform, comfort without challenge, spending without strategy and debt without direction. The Conservatives recognise the importance of lifting people up, of not holding them down and of providing opportunity and not permanent subsidy. The true measure of social justice is not how many people we support, but, crucially, how many people we no longer need to support. The question before us, therefore, is whether we will tackle poverty at its root or merely manage it year after year; whether we will build a system that strengthens families or one that substitutes for them; and whether we will choose the easy road or the responsible one. This Bill chooses the easy road—it chooses sentiment over structure, expansion over reform and today over tomorrow. I simply cannot support that choice.

• 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.

• 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.