Peter Bedford MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2026 · Employment Rights Act 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  The Government’s impact assessment puts the costs of the Employment Rights Act at up to £5 billion, which will hit small and medium-sized businesses since they lack the human resources teams and the expertise to absorb the additional burdens. What advice does the Minister give to small and medium-sized businesses in my Mid Leicestershire constituency on how they should deal with that?

• 29 Jun 2026 · Unemployed Young People · Hansard source

  More

  Over 700,000 young people are now out of work. That figure is up 100,000 year on year, and the youth unemployment rate is now at over 16%—higher than at any point during the pandemic. As this is likely to be the ministerial team’s final question time, will the Secretary of State reflect on the damage that the Employment Rights Act 2025 and national insurance increases have had on youth unemployment? Behind all those figures are stories of young people not earning or learning. They do not need yet more billion-pound Government schemes. They need a growing economy with businesses that want to hire them. Will the next Government finally deliver that?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Local Government Reform · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) on bringing this important debate before us today and on the passion with which he spoke. I wish to focus on the one issue that has filled my inbox since the proposal was first announced: the Government’s approach to reorganisation in Leicester and Leicestershire. Reorganisation must be done with the consent of local residents, which is a point that many of my Conservative colleagues have made today. Unfortunately, the Government, who are so enthusiastic about consultation, appear to be unwilling to give the final say to the very people who matter the most—the people who sent us to this place. Some Government Members may believe that change to local government boundaries is small fry, even inconsequential. They should look at our constituents’ strength of feeling on this issue. The people of Mid Leicestershire certainly do not believe that it is trivial. Many constituents from villages such as Birstall tell me that they left Leicester city precisely because they wanted to be part of a village community away from the hustle and bustle of city life. They say they no longer felt safe in a city increasingly associated with crime and decline. They wanted their children to grow up where they could walk safely in the streets and feel part of a close-knit community. They simply do not want to be back within the Leicester city area. Similarly, residents in Glenfield, and particularly those who live beside the former Western Park golf course, a picturesque and ecologically diverse and rich reserve, fear that the expanded Leicester city council would concrete over it in an attempt to push development still further out into Glenfield’s green and pleasant land, rather than repurposing the abundance of brownfield sites already within the existing city council area. Furthermore, my constituents in Leicester Forest East and Kirby Muxloe tell me that they fear that their rural priorities will simply be overlooked in an urban-focused administration if they are absorbed into the city. Frankly, who can blame them? Perhaps most damaging of all, a constituent from Braunstone Town, who already lives beside the city’s boundaries, told me that they had seen at first hand the decline of the city and want nothing to do with it. My constituents should be under no illusion: I will not accept, under any circumstances, an attempt by the Government to force our beautiful villages into the Leicester city council area. That is why Leicestershire Conservatives, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston mentioned, launched a petition on that matter. Indeed, he and my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) presented that petition with more than 10,000 signatories from the villages surrounding the Leicester city council area, showing the strength of feeling across our communities. That is also why I tabled an amendment to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 to ensure that, before any local government reorganisation takes place, residents must be consulted via referendum. That was not taken up by the Government. I did that because decisions about local government boundaries should be made by local communities, not by Ministers or civil servants in Whitehall who have very little understanding of the character and identities of our local communities. Let me be absolutely clear: if this Government seek to place any of the villages that I represent under the remit of Leicester city council, I will fight tooth and nail to oppose that. While other parties not here today are silent on the matter, I want my constituents to know that I am on their side on this immensely important issue.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  No, I will carry on, because of time. In the other place, 13 of the 14 allocated private Members’ Bills days were dedicated to the assisted dying Bill, so that amendments to it could be discussed fully and in a proper way. Yet despite all that, a select few Lords were able not simply to oppose the Bill but to shut down debate altogether. That should concern all of us. Whatever side of the debate hon. Members are on, if we want our constituents to have confidence in our parliamentary democracy, we must ensure that the right to debate—the right to make considered decisions—is not lost to procedural dark arts. That is what the public expect of us, and it is what will ensure that this place continues to be one of the most respected democratic institutions in the world.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart, and I thank the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for the impassioned way in which he opened this debate. Last week, an article in The Spectator wrongly suggested that a co-sponsor of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill had softened his stance on getting assisted dying over the line. To my surprise, I was that very co-sponsor. Let me be absolutely clear to The Spectator and any journalists seeking to play games and misrepresent this sensitive issue that I continue to support the principle of a compassionate society helping those at the end of their lives to slip away peacefully and on their own terms. I do so in part because of my own lived experience, having witnessed at first hand the cruelty that a terminal diagnosis can bring. I think back to the Christmas of 2019 at the dinner table with my late nan, who was unable to eat and in considerable pain. She turned to me and said simply that she was “ready to go”. Those words have never left me. They have forced me to confront some deeply uncomfortable truths: as a society, we too often shy away from death and in doing so we allow those whom we love the most to suffer for perhaps too long. However, I am a pragmatist and a realist about parliamentary realities. I have concerns that if a similar private Member’s Bill were introduced in future, it would face the same filibustering in the House of Lords, even if a clear and absolute majority in the Commons voted for it on Third Reading. As a Conservative, I value tradition, respect procedure and recognise that the conventions of this House—and indeed of the other place—are central to making our Parliament one of the finest democratic institutions in the world. However, as has been well established, Britain’s unwritten constitution provides the agility to modernise our procedures for the world we now live in, rather than our merely sticking by some of the more arcane procedures of times gone by. It was therefore disheartening to see the ability of a small number of peers to table quite literally hundreds of amendments to frustrate the democratic will of an absolute majority in the Commons. I am well aware of “Erskine May” and I understand the historical precedents that allow for such tactics, but we must ask ourselves: do they show Parliament at its best? This place is at its best when real debates take place, and when arguments are made, tested and challenged. Even when I disagree about something, I recognise the quality of debate. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) in the main Chamber; although I do not agree with his conclusions, I respect the clarity and conviction with which he made his case. In the other place, Baroness May set out her opposition in a similarly considered and coherent manner. On my own side of the argument, colleagues such as the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) spoke with equal seriousness and compassion when they made their speeches. That is Parliament at its best. Parliament is not at its best when Bills such as the assisted dying Bill are simply spoken out; it is not at its best when process replaces principles; and it is certainly not at its best when debate is prevented. The Bill, whatever one’s position on it, certainly did not lack scrutiny. It passed through the House with numerous amendments; each one was debated and voted on. It was considered for more than 100 hours in the Commons alone. That is longer than for most pieces of legislation, which often receive just a few hours of debate at the fag-end of a plethora of urgent questions or ministerial statements. And it was right that it received that attention.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Milburn Review: Interim Report · Hansard source

  More

  As the report highlights, the number of NEETs is set to rise to 1.25 million over the next five years unless something is done. The Government need to listen to the wealth creators that create the jobs that so many of our young people need. Alan Milburn’s report says that 84% of young people really do want to get a job, education or training, but the policies of this Government are making that even harder. Given that the Government are looking for a reset moment, perhaps over the summer, will the Minister ask his Cabinet colleagues to look again at the increases in national insurance and business rates, and at repealing the most damaging aspects of the Employment Rights Act, which are doing so much damage to the life prospects of our young people?

• 14 May 2026 · Getting Britain Working Again · Hansard source

  More

  They say that a week is a long time in politics, yet during this short debate we have seen the Health Secretary leave the Government. Amid the open revolt and factional infighting, one thing remains abundantly clear: whoever will be steering the ship, this Labour Government lack both the courage and the political capital to confront the spiralling cost of welfare. We hear endlessly about the soft left, the hard left and the moderate left, but the story time and again with every Labour Government is that they eventually run out of everyone else’s money. The numbers are stark. We have a welfare bill projected to rise to over £103 billion by the end of the decade—a figure that continues to surpass the revenues that the Government receive in income tax—and more than 4 million people are now claiming personal independence payment. Meanwhile, unemployment continues to rise, and nearly a million young people are not in education, employment or training. This is simply unsustainable. The Conservatives firmly believe in a safety net for those who genuinely need support, but what we have today is no longer a safety net; it is a fishing net that traps people rather than encourages them to stand on their own two feet. I have seen the value of this support at first hand. I grew up in a single-parent household with my two younger brothers. My mother could not read or write. I can remember us turning the sofa upside down at the end of the week to get loose change to put in the electricity meter. Labour Members often think that we on the Conservative Benches are far too privileged to understand real poverty, but that is simply not the case. Many of us on these Benches have experienced poverty in our own upbringings, and because of this lived experience we know where support is needed and where it is being abused. Sadly, we face a culture today in which some treat dependency as a way of life—a badge of honour, even—and in which, for generation after generation, families are boarding the benefits gravy train. We have all heard stories—perhaps in conversations on doorsteps during the recent local elections—of people claiming every benefit going, while ordering a Deliveroo every night and purchasing the latest 60-inch television. Those are luxuries that millions of hard-working constituents have to think twice about before buying. In our alternative King’s Speech, we have set out sweeping reforms that would end this welfare madness. Our welfare reform Bill would restore fairness, ensure that support goes to those who truly need it and ensure value for taxpayers’ money. We believe in the dignity of work and personal responsibility. We will ensure that benefits are restricted to British citizens, so that people coming to this country cannot simply ride on the coat-tails of British taxpayers. We will ensure that PIP is not awarded on the basis of lower-level health conditions that—let me put this bluntly—are just some of the normal challenges of everyday life that we all have to contend with. We will ensure that the people of 6 am Britain—the families who have to tighten their belts because of the spiralling cost of living—do not simply have to pay for the children of those who choose not to work. We will ensure, through the introduction of a household benefit cap, that people are always better off in work than out of work. These reforms are essential if we want a fair society and economic prosperity for our country. However, welfare reform must go hand in hand with reforms that encourage businesses to get people back into work. That is why I am proud that the Conservative party has set out exactly what we will do to get Britain working again, and our approach is a direct contrast to the actions of the current Government. From the hiking of jobs-destroying national insurance to the burdensome regulations introduced in the Employment Rights Act, these rising costs are forcing businesses to think twice before hiring extra staff. This Government have become a barrier to economic growth. Labour is no longer the party that its name suggests; it has become the welfare party. As our alternative King’s Speech makes clear, we would repeal damaging aspects of the Employment Rights Act, from the hospitality “banter ban” to the absurd qualifying periods, in order to give businesses the confidence to hire once again. We would back our private sector—the actual wealth creators—and we would not bow to trade union demands. Most importantly, our plan would tackle youth unemployment. It is shameful that one third of graduates are not in graduate-level jobs and youth unemployment stands at a staggering 18%, and that this Government seem utterly uninterested in doing anything about it. A future Conservative Government, on the other hand, would back our young people by expanding the number of high-quality apprenticeships under our apprenticeship guarantee and by showing young people that there are multiple training routes—not just through a degree—to build a successful career and life. This Government have no plan for welfare reform, no plan for jobs, and no plan for growth, but the Conservatives do. Our alternative King’s Speech shows that we are serious about governing, restoring fairness and rewarding hard work, and about getting Britain working again.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Apprenticeships · Hansard source

  More

  With the number of young people not in education, employment or training hovering at the 1 million mark, apprenticeships now more than ever are key to supporting opportunity and aspiration for so many of our young people. Conservative Members fundamentally believe that the best path out of poverty is being in work and contributing to society, with all the economic freedoms that a job brings. Given that the number of apprenticeships in the Secretary of State’s own Department dropped from 5,000 in 2024 to 3,500 in 2025, is it not the case that the Government’s message to business is, “Do as we say, but not as we do”?

• 23 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T4. Last week, a former Attorney General wrote that there was no legal reason for the Government not to publish a list of the Humble Address documents being withheld by the Metropolitan police. Will the Government publish that list?

• 23 Apr 2026 · Civil Service: Performance Management Plans · Hansard source

  More

  Our constituents must interact with many Government agencies each week to renew their passport or driving licence or to submit their tax returns. Despite record numbers of bureaucrats, productivity remains low, which results in many errors and vast delays for our constituents. The answers to my written parliamentary questions confirm that there is no proper performance management of our civil servants, corrective action or even dismissals for continued poor performance. Without the usual platitudes about how hard civil servants work, I want to know what the Government are doing about the thousands of poorly performing civil servants who are costing our constituents millions of pounds each year.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Civil Service: Performance Management Plans · Hansard source

  More

  8. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of performance management plans in the civil service.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) (Amendment, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for such a comprehensive run-through of those regulations and the changes proposed. I can confirm that the Opposition will not oppose the changes today; we believe, fundamentally, that overbearing and unnecessary red tape should be removed wherever possible. It is worth celebrating the fact that a Government rumoured to be exploring a path back into the EU are taking advantage of one of the benefits of being outside the EU to make these changes. The statutory instrument amends three pieces of retained EU law. Those changes are proportionate and grounded in the recommendations of the Health and Safety Executive. Collectively, they will help ensure a regulatory system that supports the economy while protecting people and the environment. However, I will briefly outline why we support each of the changes. First, the amendments to the Great Britain biocidal products regulation are simply common sense. Extending the expiry dates of 173 already approved biocidal products ensures continuity for businesses and avoids needless costs to manufacturers. These products are safe, so we completely agree that, to avoid disruption, that is the right thing to do. Secondly, the changes to the classification, labelling and packaging regulation are a step in the right direction. They reduce the time taken for the HSE to make classification decisions, and streamline the process. Thirdly, the changes to the prior informed consent regulation are another simplification of rules and remove overbearing requirements for exporting purposes. This is exactly the kind of regulatory reform that businesses want, and one that, we hope, will lead to growth. I hope the Government will carry out this red tape-cutting exercise across broader areas of the economy. We will not oppose the SI today. We believe in supporting innovation, and reducing burdens on business, to drive economic growth in the future.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Free Childcare: Providers · Hansard source

  More

  I recently met several early years providers, who told me that the 30 hours funded childcare scheme is placing real strain on their businesses because the policy does not take into account the setting up time, the packing away time, and the time spent training and dealing with compliance issues with their staff. Combined with the recent national insurance rises, this is threatening the financial viability of these businesses. Will the Minister agree to review the policy’s implementation so that providers, particularly smaller ones that rely on that funding, are kept financially viable and can provide their services to the people who need them?

• 20 Apr 2026 · Free Childcare: Providers · Hansard source

  More

  14. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of 30 hours of free childcare on early years providers.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Is not the hallmark of every Labour Government that they end up running out of other people’s money? When they do that, they end up borrowing. When that runs dry, they end up eyeing up our pensions, as Gordon Brown did. My constituents and many people who contact me are deeply concerned by the mandation powers in the Bill and the impact those will have on their savings. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a real concern? Many people up and down the country are outraged by these powers and what the Government could do with their money.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Draft National Employment Savings Trust (Amendment) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. As with many areas of Government policy, there is a degree of consensus across the House; the draft order is no different, and the official Opposition will not oppose it today. Auto-enrolment, alongside the creation of NEST, was an obvious achievement of the Cameron Government. It marked a fundamental shift in how people across the country look at retirement, encouraging millions to save and take long-term financial planning seriously. The liberalisation of one of the NEST pension schemes by enabling flexi-access drawdown is a logical next step. It aligns with the broader principle of pension freedoms introduced under previous Conservative Governments and represents a positive development for workers and savers within NEST. However, I would like to take this opportunity to raise a few points with the Minister. First, the pensions industry is uncomfortable with the significant use of secondary legislation in the Pension Schemes Bill, but we are where we are with that. Secondly, as I have touched on, the official Opposition strongly support the principle of pension freedoms. With that in mind, will the Minister revisit previous amendments tabled by Conservative Members that would allow greater access to pension savings for the purpose of obtaining financial advice? Perhaps even more radically, will he introduce the sidecar savings pot discussed during consideration of the Bill? People under the age of 57 sometimes fall back on that in hard times. Finally, while reforms to promote pension freedoms are a positive step, the situation ultimately depends on the adequacy of savings and investment performance. Where individuals have not saved enough or where returns have fallen short, those freedoms risk offering a limited practical benefit. Could the Minister update the House on what steps the Government are taking to increase auto-enrolment contribution rates, and will he give a clear assurance that the Government will not use the so-called “reserve power” in the Pension Schemes Bill in a way that prioritises public finances at the expense of individuals’ pension pots? The Opposition will not be opposing the statutory instrument, but I emphasise that cross-party co-operation has long been the foundation of successful pensions policy. I urge the Minister and his colleagues to listen to Opposition parties and the industry to reconsider the inclusion of any form of mandation clauses in the Pension Schemes Bill.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Right to Protest · Hansard source

  More

  People should have the right to protest, but that needs to be coupled with responsibilities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) mentioned, it is outrageous that fringe groups feel emboldened to protest in support of terrorist ideology, contrary to basic British values. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that these people are under no illusion about how they will end up being prosecuted if they openly support fundamentalist Islamist ideology, and that if they have no right to be here, they will be deported?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Youth Unemployment · Hansard source

  More

  This is a socialist economic statement. If it moves, the Government tax it; if it keeps moving, they regulate it; and if it stops moving, they subsidise it. Will the Secretary of State accept that his national insurance rises, the changes to business rates and the “unemployment” rights Act have contributed to the hostile environment to employing young people?

• 9 Mar 2026 · Unemployment · Hansard source

  More

  When this Government came into office, unemployment stood at 4.2%. After a brutal 18 months of job-destroying, anti-business, anti-growth policies, it now stands at 5.2%, with young people bearing the brunt—1 million of them are not in employment, education or training. We Conservatives believe in being in work and off welfare, and that is the best path to eradicating poverty. Will the Secretary of State break with the mistakes of all previous Labour Governments and commit that unemployment will be lower at the end of this Parliament than it was at the start?

• 3 Mar 2026 · Small Charity Sector · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member has made her point clearly, and I am very sympathetic to the argument she puts across. In my constituency, I have seen the impact of these economic policies and the tough environment for small and medium-sized charities such as Wyggestons and Trinity Almshouses, which provides sheltered accommodation and residential care. It believes that the Charity Commission could also be doing more to support these groups. Meanwhile, other charity-funded local care providers, such as Rainbows hospice for children and young people and LOROS, have made it clear that the economic climate is making their future more uncertain. These organisations are incredibly important to my constituents, and it would be an absolute travesty to see them reduce their services or close altogether. The Government need to think about creating a carve-out for the charity sector, so that it does not have to pay astronomical employment costs—something that Conservative Members argued for during the national insurance debate. That would be a sensible move to protect jobs and sustain local services, and it would command broad public support. To conclude, charities are at the heart of our communities. They reduce pressure on public services and command widespread public support, yet we in this place are not doing enough to support and protect them. I urge the Government to listen carefully to the arguments that the CSJ and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green have eloquently presented. My plea to the Government is to create a carve-out for the wider sector to ensure that running costs do not drive many charities, including those in my constituency, to close.

• 3 Mar 2026 · Small Charity Sector · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for introducing this immensely important debate. The UK’s charity sector is facing mounting challenges. Just like many small businesses, charities across the country have seen a sharp increase in their running costs, driven by persistent inflation and, unfortunately, unhelpful economic policies from the Treasury. The increase in the national living wage, the rise in employers’ national insurance contributions and changes to business rates have placed considerable pressures on organisations that do so much for our constituents in need. For a sector that contributes £20 billion in economic value to the country each year, that should concern us all. As we have heard, these organisations are more innovative and grassroots-led, and ultimately they are generally supported by the public. If small and medium-sized charities continue to close at the current rate, it will impact our communities and place further strain on already stretched public services.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is quite frankly absurd to grant children the right to vote, and even place 14 and 15-year-olds on the electoral register, all while maintaining the plethora of age-based rights elsewhere. Just look at the contradictions. A 16-year-old would be able to determine who governs the country, yet not able to enter legally binding contracts such as buying and renting property, purchasing alcohol or tobacco, or making independent medical decisions. It simply does not stack up, and Labour Members know it. Even with these obvious inconsistencies, I do not believe that the Government have thought through the unintended consequences of this Bill. First, on turnout, younger age groups are historically less likely to vote. Lowering the voting age and bringing another 2 million individuals into the electorate will only compound the issue, and as we see turnout levels drop, there will be more questions about the legitimacy of our elections and electing our leaders.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  If the Government get their way, young people will not be able to access social media anyway, so I am not sure the hon. Member’s argument holds up. Secondly, other inconsistencies arise because the Government believe that those young people should be shielded. They should be shielded from fatty foods, smoking alcohol and, as just mentioned, social media, yet overnight—on reaching the age of 16—they are considered sufficiently informed to decide who they want to run the country. Thirdly, and most importantly in my eyes, there is the issue of family voting. In the light of the recent allegations about the Gorton and Denton by-election, this raises serious concerns. Could lowering the voting age increase the risk of undue political influence in households? Could some young people face pressure to vote in line with family expectations rather than exercising genuine independence? Votes at 16, alongside watering down the rules on voter ID at polling stations, lead Conservative Members to question whether our democracy is being undermined still further. To conclude, lowering the voting age is contradictory. It creates inconsistency in our age-based rights system. It carries the potential for serious unintended consequences for turnout and the legitimacy of our elections, political divisions and voter independence. Labour Members should consider these risks very seriously indeed, before inflicting lasting damage on our fragile democracy.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Minister for Men and Boys · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for securing this important debate. Men are often told that we do not talk enough about our feelings and that we bury our heads in the sand, and too often in this House and across Whitehall there is a tendency to overlook the challenges faced by men and boys. We rightly and frequently hear about the importance of protecting the rights of women and girls, and that is obviously very important, but equality must mean fairness for everybody across the United Kingdom. If we want to build a nation that everybody is proud to be part of, we must be prepared to confront the challenges facing men. We have a Minister for Women and Equalities and a Select Committee scrutinising that brief, while the civil service employs diversity and inclusion managers to promote the interests of seemingly any group other than men and boys. I am not claiming that that is done on purpose, but it needs to change. This is not about diminishing the progress made in advancing opportunities for women and girls, but we must acknowledge that in several key areas, such as education, employment, justice and health, men face profound challenges that are simply not spoken about enough or dealt with. In education, the disparity starts early: only about 60% of boys are deemed to be school ready, compared with 75% of girls. The gap does not disappear, but persists through secondary education and beyond. Some 45,000 fewer men go to university and 18,000 fewer young men have started apprenticeships since 2017. At the same time, boys are more than twice as likely as girls to be permanently excluded from school. Alongside the statistics, an unhelpful narrative has developed that boys are a problem to society and that they need to be managed. That does nothing to raise aspiration or instil pride and responsibility in young men. We see the issue even in working life. The number of young men unemployed for more than a year now stands at more than 107,000—the highest level since 2015, in part thanks to the economic decisions of the current Government, sadly. As we all know, long-term unemployment has serious social consequences. As has been mentioned, we have a male prison population of more than 90,000 and we have thousands of young men sleeping rough on any given night. That is not the life that any of us in this place would want for our sons, brothers or friends. Finally, we cannot ignore the realities of men’s health. Men are more likely to become alcoholics or have addictions than women. Physically, men are more likely to be overweight, to suffer from cardiovascular disease and to die earlier than women from a range of conditions, including cancer. Most worrying of all is the fact that in England and Wales suicide is about three times more common among men than among women, and the gap continues to widen. This is the elephant in the room that we are simply not talking about enough. These outcomes demand serious and sustained attention.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Minister for Men and Boys · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more. I think that, at times, Departments work in silos. Strategy is not often cross-departmental and decisions made in one Department mat have a massive impact on another, so I absolutely agree with the point that the hon. Member makes. As I said, these outcomes demand serious and sustained attention. I do see the merits of a Minister for men and boys, but I do not believe that the answer lies in creating another bureaucratic post that politicians can hide behind. When a group appears to be struggling, Whitehall groupthink leads to a new title, a new office or, God forbid, yet another quango, but symbolism does not deliver. We need real systemic and cultural change across Whitehall to improve outcomes for men, just like we do for women. Only then will we truly be able to improve the lives of not just men and boys, but everybody.