Rebecca Smith MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 17 Dec 2025 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  I represent a constituency with two district councils with prudently created reserves and a unitary council with high levels of debt. Understandably, residents in the district council areas are concerned that local government reorganisation will see their reserves usurped by any new unitary council areas—if they have not already had to spend that reserve due to decreased funding under the settlement. Can the Minister reassure my constituents that their prudence is not being penalised and that, under the local government reorganisation, any reserves from a council will be ringfenced specifically for the communities that they come from, rather than being used to reduce the debt of the new council?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Transgender People: Provision of Healthcare · Hansard source

  More

  The NHS has finally issued a call for evidence regarding a clinical pathway for adults who wish to detransition. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is a welcome and long-overdue first step, and that the NHS must continue making serious efforts to improve care for detransitioners?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Transgender People: Provision of Healthcare · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I will be brief because we are running out of time. Detransitioners are an often marginalised and misunderstood group. Ritchie Herron is a civil servant who underwent gender surgery in 2018 in order to live as a woman. That involved rearranging tissue in the genital area to create a vaginal opening. When he decided to detransition, he was concerned that specialists were unable to advise him clearly about the correct dosages of hormones that he should take during the process to avoid increasing his risk of osteoporosis. In brief, I simply ask the Minister what her Department is doing to look at how the NHS supports those who are detransitioning? That is not to say that those who are transitioning should not be able to access the support that they need, but what is the NHS doing to support those who want to detransition, especially those who experienced puberty blockers at a young age?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Uncrewed Defence Systems · Hansard source

  More

  Turnchapel Wharf and the Cattewater in my constituency host many marine autonomous defence innovators, but the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s workboat code edition 3 is hampering the testing, development and utilisation of autonomous vessels. They cannot even get the licences to be out on the water. What conversations has the Minister had with his counterparts in the Department for Transport to stress the urgency of sorting out this issue, so that the promised defence investment for Plymouth actually gets out to sea?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister knows of the Plymouth Violence against Women and Girls Commission, which highlighted the role of pornography in VAWG. It is my view that schools should be a place where pupils can concentrate on learning and not have access to social media, including abusive forms of online pornography, which have been banned online. Australia has tackled this issue outside the classroom, as we know, by banning social media for teenagers under 16. Does the Minister agree with me that banning smartphones during the school day would not only improve pupils’ concentration, but be a practical way to stop boys in particular from accessing content that encourages them to perpetuate sexual abuse?

• 11 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T10. What would the Minister say to businesses such as the Rusty Tractor Farm Café in my constituency? It is already paying long-term staff above the minimum wage, and it is now faced with an inflated wage bill, as it has to increase the minimum wage for its young staff, and potentially inexperienced staff, while also increasing all other wages proportionately.

• 11 Dec 2025 · National Plan to End Homelessness · Hansard source

  More

  The excellent team at Plymouth city council work tirelessly to tackle homelessness, but pressures on the private rented sector in the city, increased because of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, has hindered the supply of permanent move-on accommodation. We know that it does not all need to be social housing and that we need private rented homes as well. The council puts the sustained number of Plymouth households in temporary accommodation at about 440 a month—half of them in B&Bs—of which 40 are families. Although I recognise support for councils to buy properties and aims for new home completions, the reality is that will not be enough. How long must households in Plymouth who are currently in temporary accommodation wait for a home? Is Plymouth one of the 20 local authorities being supported to eliminate B&B use as part of the child poverty strategy?

• 10 Dec 2025 · Tackling Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  The Government’s dithering on grooming gangs has gone on for so long that it is now unlikely that any report into what has happened will be published before the next general election. Does the Minister think that is acceptable, and will she commit to publishing interim findings before the next general election?

• 9 Dec 2025 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend raises an interesting point, which is that the very good conditions that private companies have been forced into by trade unions will end up TUPE-ed across to these state employees and, ultimately, the best conditions will be the ones that get delivered to the most, all in that huge new employer. Many Members from across the House have highlighted the importance of connecting underserved areas, and nowhere in the country is that case more powerfully made than in the south-west. Before closing, I would like to highlight to the Minister two examples affecting my constituency. Both featured in my maiden speech, so I know he is familiar with them. I will continue to champion them, as well as the need to secure the railway line at Dawlish. Many CrossCountry trains currently pass through Ivybridge station without stopping, because the platform is too short. That forces local people to travel by bus or car to Plymouth, Totnes or Tiverton, making rail travel far less convenient. I have secured with local stakeholders the funding for a feasibility study for the extension. That modest project would make a huge difference to our community and I hope it will not be hindered by the Bill. I am also committed to securing a Plymouth metro, including plans for a station in Plympton in my constituency. Plympton’s 30,000 residents have been without a station for more than 60 years, and it would be transformative for that part of my patch. Both Plympton and Ivybridge have many residents working at Devonport naval base and at the growing defence hubs in Turnchapel and Langage. The Government have promised billions of pounds to the city as part of a defence deal, but if that deal does not include funding for transport, what is the point? I urge the Government to ensure a joined-up approach in delivering the railway that the city and surrounding communities need to deliver on the defence role that the Government want. I support the efforts to improve our railways and to bring ticket prices down, but a simple return to a nationalised British Rail is not the answer. As Conservatives, we understand the importance of retaining a strong role for the public sector through open access, protecting rail freight, improving efficiency and providing—

• 9 Dec 2025 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Great Western Railway fares are 2.2 times higher than those of European operators for similar lengths. Rail users in my constituency will be all too familiar with this reality, regularly paying more than £100 for a return ticket to London. Since the Labour Government came into power, we have seen the power of the unions once again, with eye-watering salary increases but no expectations to improve productivity. This means that on the line down to Devon, contracts were not changed when salaries were increased. This would have cleared up the mess that is the lack of seven-day-a-week contracts. Try travelling to Westminster on a Sunday! The creation of Great British Railways is being held up as a panacea to any such issues with our railway. Having served the last year or so on the Transport Committee, where we have been tracking the progress of these plans, I remain unconvinced by the Bill. I gave my maiden speech during the passage of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, the mechanism through which the renationalisation of the railway was enabled. What I said then about that Bill remains true as we debate this one. I said that it was “a Bill that seems to indicate ideological time travel back to the nationalised railway system of the past and a mistaken belief that state-run institutions are the answer to all our woes. Our railway system needs to drive forward into the middle of the 21st century, not creep backwards to the 1970s.” —[ Official Report , 3 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 237.] As a child of the ’80s, I remember the old British Rail. Aside from the excitement of travelling on a 125 between Plymouth and my grandparents in Somerset, I do not recall it being any better than the privatised system we have today. In the development of Great British Railways, the Government must work with industry. There are real concerns that without a strong independent rail regulator, this Bill will squeeze out private investment. Great British Railways will become the second biggest employer in the country—hardly an agile organisation—and it will be calling the shots. As a result, the state-owned operator will be chosen over private sector rivals. The Office of Rail and Road will see its power significantly altered, and some might even say reduced, by this Bill. It is arguable that it will lose its teeth. I would simply urge the Government to keep passengers front and centre of the Bill, but I am not sure that the quango regulator that they are setting up will be in passengers’ best interests. Private investment extends to rail freight, which is competing not only with state owned operators but with road haulage. The Rail Freight Group warns that the Bill risks driving the sector into decline, costing the UK economy up to £ 2.5 billion and adding 7 million additional HGV movements to the UK road network. While the Government have committed to introducing a statutory duty on GBR to promote the use of rail freight, supported by an overall growth target, I would be grateful if the Minister took this opportunity to clarify how the duty will operate in practice and how it will ensure that GBR does not give preferential treatment to state-owned operators. Where the Bill places freight in the hierarchy of railway line use is critical, but it is not yet explicit on that, which is concerning.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Ajax Armoured Vehicle · Hansard source

  More

  Given the issues surrounding Ajax and the operational gap that this leaves in the Army, is the Minister confident that no capability and usability issues with Boxer or the Project Hunter alternative individual weapon system will come out of the woodwork? On Friday I met representatives of a local defence business who shared some of their concerns with me.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Self-employed Adoptive Parents: Statutory Support · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution and particularly for highlighting the case in Northern Ireland. Parental leave and shared parental leave for adopters was something that the previous Government fought hard to bring in, so I agree that that is something that should apply across all our isles. Ultimately, though, that will be for the Minister to talk about; I am guessing it is probably a devolved issue, but no doubt it will come up in his remarks a bit later. As I was saying, in 2022 the previous Government stated that it is essential to the success of an adoption placement that the adopter takes time off work in order to care for and bond with their child. That principle must be fairly applied regardless of whether a parent is employed or self-employed. For self-employed adoptive families, the negative consequences of this disparity are clear. Evidence gathered by Home for Good and Adoption UK through the all-party parliamentary group on adoption and permanence found that 60% of self-employed adopters reported that the absence of financial support directly limited the amount of leave they could take at the start of adoption, and in some cases it prevented them from taking leave altogether following the adoption. In practical terms, that means returning to work within days or weeks of placement, despite being advised by professionals that it is best for them to take time off work to be able to support their child once they are placed. One self-employed adopter summed up the pressure, saying: “We have been through two separate adoptions. The second time I had no choice but to keep working. I sometimes took my son with me. It was very hard.” The APPG’s research also found that around two thirds—63%—of prospective self-employed adopters said that the lack of statutory provision played a major role in delaying or preventing them from proceeding with adoption in the first place. Nearly half of self-employed adopters said that it prevented them from adopting again, while others explained that they could not consider adopting their child’s sibling because the financial impact of taking extended time away from work was simply too great. As a result, children are being unnecessarily separated from their siblings. One family said: “We have already been approached to adopt another sibling and had to say no because there was no financial package available to help.” Further research from the APPG found that the majority—59%—of self-employed adopters reported stopping work altogether for a period once a child was placed with them. They did so not as a lifestyle choice, but because the intensity of needs made continued self-employment impossible. For many families, the absence of statutory provision creates profound pressure at precisely the moment the emotional and practical demands of adoption are at their highest. As one parent explained: “Not having an equivalent to maternity allowance meant the pressure on us was increased, at a time when the pressure on our family was already very high. We didn’t have access to the kind of mental or financial ‘breather’ that a secure income for a set period might have given us. Inevitably it made the whole early placement period more stressful.” That strain is reflected in reported anxiety levels among prospective self-employed adopters, who on average rated their financial worry during the adoption process a seven out of 10. Established self-employed adopters also report elevated anxiety, rating it a six out of 10, showing that stress does not end once placement is secured but often continues long afterwards in the absence of statutory support. Those findings must be understood within the broader context of adoption pressures; it is not just about parental leave. As of September this year, 2,940 children with a placement order were waiting to be matched with an adoptive family in England, and average waiting times from entering care to placement with a family exceeded 20 months. If Government policy is deterring capable families from coming forward to adopt, this does not only disadvantage adopters themselves but, most importantly, directly affects the life prospects of children, who remain in temporary care arrangements for longer than necessary. That is in part because the system has made permanency through adoption unaffordable for too many who would otherwise open their home. As I said at the start, the lack of statutory support for self-employed adopters cannot be considered in isolation from the adoption system as a whole. I am concerned that adoption is still treated as something that ends at placement, rather than as a responsibility that continues for a lifetime. Nearly all adoptive families say that more must be done to ensure that children feel safe and secure as they grow up, and over half report that support drops away once the adoption order is made. There is cross-party recognition that adoption cannot be treated as a single moment in a child’s life. It is not simply a legal process that ends with an order; it is the beginning of a lifelong journey for both the child and the family that welcomes them. When we reduce adoption to a one-off placement, we overlook the ongoing needs that often emerge long after the order is made. If we are serious about giving adopted children the best possible start, we must be honest about the nature of adoption itself. It is a lifelong commitment that requires consistent, compassionate and accessible support. Families should not have to fight for the help that allows their children to flourish. Adoption should be backed by a commitment from all of us to stand with these families not just at the beginning but throughout the years that follow. Current practice too often fails adopted families at moments of vulnerability. Many adoptive parents report long waits for mental health services, difficulty accessing meaningful support, inconsistent local authority approaches and a lack of trauma-informed provision in schools. We need an adoption system that sticks with adopted children and their families over the long term and is flexible and responsive to their changing needs as they face challenges across these areas. These problems affect all adopters, employed and self-employed alike, but their financial impact is unevenly distributed. All of that is being compounded by the sudden and unexpected changes to the adoption and special guardianship support fund announced in April, which significantly reduced the post-adoption support many adoptive families reply on, including families in my constituency, contributing to a growing sense of uncertainty and a weakening of trust towards the system. For families who cannot afford private help, the situation becomes even more difficult, and the financial strain quickly grows. Many simply have no way to cover the costs of therapy on their own. For the self-employed, the pressure is even greater because this burden arrives at the same time as the lack of statutory pay, leaving them with fewer options and even less stability. For self-employed adopters, the impact is even heavier, because any time taken away from work to help support children can immediately affect their income. When post-adoption support is withdrawn, they cannot rely on payroll to cushion the loss. Instead, they absorb it through missed work, reduced earnings and unpaid days spent trying to manage crises on their own. Self-employed adopters are navigating a range of interconnected pressures that overlap, intensify each other and shape every part of their experience. Local authority practice reflects the same fragmentation. Support for self-employed adopters varies wildly depending on where families live. Freedom of information requests reveal that one third of councils have no policy in place at all to support self-employed adopters, and the remaining councils referred to using a means-tested approach to assessing the need for financial help. In those council areas, 90% of adopters were not informed that local support might be available. This produces an arbitrary system in which families adopting can experience different outcomes depending on postcode rather than need. This Adjournment debate follows a recent Westminster Hall debate brought about by an e-petition on maternity and paternity pay, where Members, including me, explicitly raised the position of self-employed adoptive families. The Government have indicated that a review of parental leave and pay is under way and that the issues raised through the recent parliamentary debate will inform this process. If that review is to be taken seriously by adoptive families, it must look properly at the position of self-employed adopters, rather than letting their needs disappear into maternity and paternity reform more generally. Clarity is essential. Adoption pay cannot be an optional extra. It ensures that adopters can establish stability, attachment and routine with a child who may have experienced disruption, neglect or loss. It enables parents to be present, rather than forced to divide their attention between the urgent demands of work and the equally urgent demands of care. I know that the Minister cares deeply about these issues, which is why this debate is a good opportunity to raise them. First, will the review formally assess the position of self-employed adopters as a distinct category within the parental leave and pay review? Secondly, will the Government evaluate the introduction of a statutory entitlement equivalent to maternity allowance for self-employed adopters? Thirdly, can he provide an indication of the timescale for publication of the review’s findings? Finally, I urge the Government to reverse their disastrous decision to reduce the funding available through the adoption and special guardianship support fund. Policy choices must support adoption and adoptive families. Enterprise and self-employment should also be encouraged. Self-employed adoptive families should not be penalised. The removal of avoidable barriers to adoption, while enabling business to flourish, must be a priority.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Self-employed Adoptive Parents: Statutory Support · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to have secured this Adjournment debate on statutory support for self-employed adoptive parents. Self-employed adopters are currently excluded from any statutory parental pay. For far too long, this exclusion has been overlooked as too niche a problem, but in fact it exposes a much deeper inconsistency in the way our parental leave and pay system works—one that affects not only adoptive families but the wider functioning of the adoption system in England. This debate comes at an especially challenging time for adopted children and adoptive families. Demand for post-adoption support is rising, including for mental health services, therapeutic help and emotional support, while the availability of those services has become more uncertain, uneven and under-resourced. A recent investigation by the BBC uncovered systemic issues within post-adoption support, highlighting challenges I will cover later in my speech, and which we will no doubt hear about from other Members. First, though, I would like to address the issue that has led to this debate. There is currently a deep inconsistency in the way our parental leave and pay system works for adoptive families. At present, employed birth parents can access statutory maternity leave and pay; self-employed birth parents can access maternity allowance, which is equivalent to maternity pay; and employed adopters can access statutory adoption leave and pay. Self-employed adopters, however, cannot access any form of statutory adoption leave or pay. The consequence is that self-employed adoptive parents face a uniquely disadvantaged position, with no statutory mechanism enabling them to take time away from work to support a child entering their family—a child who we know is more than likely to have experienced trauma, loss or disruption. Self-employment now makes up a large part of the workforce, with around 4.4 million people working for themselves across the UK. It is estimated that self-employed adopters make up 10% of adopters annually; given that just over 3,000 adoptions took place last year, that means that hundreds of families a year are being left with no statutory financial support at the moment that they take legal and parental responsibility for a child. It is important to be clear about what adoption pay is actually for and why it exists. Unlike maternity provision, which has historically been justified by the Government on health and recovery grounds, statutory adoption pay exists for a different purpose altogether. In 2022, the previous Government stated in a written answer that statutory adoption pay is essential to the success of an adoption placement in order that an adopter can take time off work to care for and, most importantly, to bond with their child.

• 8 Dec 2025 · NEET Young People · Hansard source

  More

  Since the Chancellor delivered her Budget, it has come to light that benefits have been extended for the parents of teenagers with disabilities or illnesses. Although on the face of it that may seem kind and compassionate, it is also contradictory. Parents and carers are no longer required to ensure that their teenagers are attending an educational setting at all to receive additional child benefit, which means that young people living with neurodivergent conditions such as ADHD are being enabled to stay at home and out of education, training or even work. This flies directly in the face of the Prime Minister’s words after the Budget: “if you’re not given the support you need…or if you are simply written off because you’re neurodivergent or disabled, then it can trap you in a cycle of worklessness and dependency for decades.” May I ask the Secretary of State how extending access to benefits for conditions such as ADHD in teenagers before coming up with a plan to ensure that young people remain in full-time education and training delivers on the Prime Minister’s point?

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. Of course financial education in schools is important, as is a whole lot of education about life, budgeting and other things, but I am talking specifically about financial education for people in their professional years—in their 20s, 30s and 40s—who will be affected by changes to the ISA rules. They will potentially need help to make sure that they can still save effectively. The last point I will talk about is the electric vehicle pay-per-mile policy, which will have a huge impact on rural communities, as has been said. It will also be a huge disincentive for any non-inner-city community. I represent an urban area on the outskirts of a city and the rural area around it, and a lot of my constituents—aside from the ones who have a drive and perhaps a detached house—are not able to have an electric vehicle. Pay-per-mile will disincentivise people to even aspire to have an electric vehicle in an area where it is a long drive to the supermarket, or to take their child to the swimming pool. I feel that pay-per-mile contradicts the Government’s obsession with electric vehicles. Perhaps they will speed up development of alternative fuels instead. I do not understand how they can dislike fossil fuels but at the same time disincentivise EV transition. This Budget is completely out of step with the public. They wanted lower personal taxes and welfare spending cut. They wanted to see work pay. They wanted to see stamp duty scrapped, business rates abolished for retail, leisure and hospitality, and a £5,000 first job bonus—policies that would have meant tax cuts, and rewarded hard-working men and women—not the increase in welfare spending and the tax increases we have seen today to prop up some nice little pet projects of the Labour Government.

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  It is important that we take account of the hard-working families who will be affected by Labour’s economic mismanagement, and that their voices are not drowned out by the political drama surrounding the Budget. To ensure that I heard directly from those I represent in South West Devon, I launched a survey ahead of the Budget to gather at first hand the views of as many constituents as possible. Almost 90% of those who responded told me that they were worried about Labour’s Budget, and it turns out that they had good reason. The 3,000-plus small businesses in South West Devon are suffering under the strain of Labour’s job-killing policies. The Resolution Foundation has warned that Labour’s hikes to national insurance contributions and the minimum wage will drive up the cost of employing a part-time, low-paid worker by 14%—the biggest jump on record. Increasing taxes without real spending cuts will undermine growth. I have heard in recent weeks that many people’s experience is that increased wages and national insurance, on top of higher costs, are choking SMEs in my constituency. That is why 75% of those I surveyed supported the Conservative policy of scrapping business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure. What a shame that policy did not feature in the Budget today. Indeed, 63.8% of my constituents want lower taxes, even if it means less Government spending—again, we did not see that today. It is almost a year to the day since the Chancellor promised that she would not come back to the House with announcements of more borrowing or taxes, yet my constituents repeatedly expressed concerns that Labour would do exactly that. They did not believe the Chancellor’s hollow words, because they knew that Labour has never met a tax that it did not want to raise. Today, their concerns have been realised. Let me be clear: the Chancellor’s fiscal mess is not a result of Brexit, covid, the Ukraine war, the fall of the Berlin wall or any other historical event; it stems from the Prime Minister and Chancellor’s inability to stand up to their Back Benchers. Spending on health and disability benefits alone is on track to hit £100 billion by 2030. My constituents know that the country cannot afford that. The Government have abandoned any meaningful reforms after a humiliating climbdown on their flagship welfare Bill. The Chancellor’s decision to lift the two-child benefit cap is not a result of some newfound passion to tackle child poverty; plainly, it serves to throw some happy sweeteners to the Back Benchers who tore apart that flagship welfare Bill just a few short months ago. It has been clear from this debate—I have sat through almost the entire thing—that the policy is pretty much the only thing that Labour Members are excited about. My constituents do not want to lift the cap, nor does the country at large, but yet again it is party before country for Labour, and it is hard-working families who will pay. The Resolution Foundation has estimated that removing the cap in full will cost up to £3.5 billion in this Parliament. The country is in a fiscal black hole, and Labour keeps on digging, expecting hard-working families to fill that hole. I will briefly comment on statistics on the two-child benefit cap. We have heard about its negatives, but there are a lot of statistics that those on the Government Benches have not mentioned. For example, the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that 70% of the poorest households subject to the two-child limit would see the gains from its reversal partially or fully wiped out by the household benefit cap. We have heard nothing about that. This flagship policy is not necessarily going to help the families who the Government seem to think it will. The introduction of the two-child limit has had no significant effect on the proportion of third and subsequent children in England achieving a good level of development at age five, which is the cornerstone metric of the Government’s opportunity mission. Instead, the alternative side of that argument has been presented today. The IFS has also said that lifting the two-child limit is not a magic bullet, and other measures, such as supporting parents into quality jobs, are vital for reducing poverty in the long run. For half of those affected, the two-child limit significantly improves work incentives, so just removing the cap, as has been done today, does not actually help those whom we are seeking to support. I represent a constituency in which defence is a really important part of the ecosystem. It is the future of our area, given what we are trying to do with Team Plymouth. However, we have still not seen the defence investment plan; it was due in the autumn, but we are rapidly approaching the winter. Big figures were announced, but I am waiting to see how amounts will be distributed. Plymouth was mentioned in the Chancellor’s speech today, but if one does a ctrl+f on the Budget document, it is not in there—except on something to do with place-based development. On ISAs, I understand why the Government seek to push people towards stocks and shares, and there are compelling reasons to do with how much more money can be saved in that way. However, it is clear that this policy will result in a need for increased financial education. When the Opposition tried to get the Government to take financial education seriously during consideration of the Pension Schemes Bill, so that we can help people understand fully how to invest for their future, they were not interested in accepting our amendments. I hope that the Government will not assume that it is down to banks to educate everybody on the difference between a stocks and shares ISA and a cash ISA. I like to think of myself as fairly financially literate, but even I struggled to put the effort into finding that out; as much as anything else, I struggled to find the time. I would love to make more money on my savings, but an advert on a bank website is not going to be good enough. I am interested to see what the Government will do to ensure that more people can benefit.

• 25 Nov 2025 · Pension Investment in UK Equities · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) on securing this important debate. Given his experience as a Treasury Minister for many years, it has been a pleasure to hear his thoughts on this issue. My right hon. Friend could not have chosen a better time for this debate, given tomorrow’s Budget. Let us hope that private pension holders are not penalised in comparison with public sector pension holders. Amid all the drama of the Budget, let us not forget that the Pension Schemes Bill comes back on Report next week. Having sat on that Bill Committee, I concur with my right hon. Friend’s point about the need for pension education. That came up many times during the debate, as did the vast majority of what he spoke about. It is really important to expand people’s imagination about where they can invest. It is not just about educating young people; it is about educating people in their 30s, 40s and 50s about where they can invest their money, particularly given what we are likely to hear in the Budget tomorrow. I would potentially be interested in having a conversation about where I can invest my money. Anyway, I do not have that much, so let us crack on with the debate. Having listened to the speeches this afternoon and during our consideration of the Pension Schemes Bill, I know that there is an obvious consensus across the House on this issue. For one reason or another, pension schemes do not feel confident to invest directly into the UK equity market. The facts do not lie. Over the past 10 years, the proportion of private sector defined contribution assets being invested in the UK equity market has fallen from around 30% to 6%. In 2006, around 32% of defined benefit assets were invested in UK equities; by 2023, that had fallen below 2% in favour of UK gilts. As the Financial Times reported, even the Financial Conduct Authority’s own pension scheme invests only around 4% in UK equities. These statistics are all the more stark when one considers that, from 2012, total global investment in equities from UK private sector workplace DC schemes has increased from 70% to 76%. It is not that pension schemes do not want to invest in equities, but something has changed that has made the UK equity market less attractive than others, and we need to figure out what has happened. I know that everyone in this Chamber agrees on that; indeed, we have heard some solutions during the debate. The pensions investment review was a welcome first step in looking at this, and we are glad that many of the recommendations are now in the Pension Schemes Bill. I want to be clear that we support the spirit of the Mansion House accord, which expands on the Mansion House compact that the right hon. Member for Salisbury helped to introduce in 2023. It seeks to persuade those in charge of DC schemes to invest in UK equities, and we think that is reasonable. However, the Minister will not be surprised to hear that we still do not support the reserve mandation powers in the Pension Schemes Bill. While we are behind the spirit of the measure, we cannot support something that goes against trustees’ fiduciary duties. As the Minister has said many times, better returns for members are what is most important, and we agree wholeheartedly with that. However, does forcing pension funds to invest in what the Government wants them to invest in yield the best returns for members? The answer is probably not. It is no wonder that the industry is so heavily opposed to these powers, and that we are yet to hear a convincing argument for their implementation. Perhaps the Minister will be able to provide a more convincing one. It seems counterintuitive for the Government to secure the commitment that they did in the Mansion House accord, and only months later bring in this measure. What makes it more confusing is that the Minister said in a recent interview on the “Making Money” podcast, “I don’t think I’m going to need to use that power…because I see the industry changing.” What is the point, if industry is changing in the way the Government want? Would it not be better to work with industry and give it a chance to reach the target, instead of holding the sword of Damocles over its head? Instead, we need to engage with the industry and acquire a better understanding of the barriers it faces. For example, has legislation created an unattractive environment? Have we been too willing to legislate following the Maxwell scandal? Have the UK’s regulators gone too far and over-interpreted legislation? Are they getting rid of reasonable risk in the market in the pursuit of perfection? What has changed in the market that has contributed to that decline? Do the unbundling rules in the markets in financial instruments directive mean that the UK has not got the necessary equity research or data capabilities to attract investment? These are the kinds of questions that need answering before we give the Government such sweeping powers. A doctor would not operate on a patient if they had not properly diagnosed their symptoms—that would be considered malpractice—so why are we trying to solve an important problem without really knowing what is causing it in the first place? For those reasons, the Conservatives will be tabling an amendment to the Pension Schemes Bill to ask just that question. Our amendment will simply ask the Government to include in their report an analysis of the barriers that pension funds are facing from legislation, regulation and market behaviour. We think that it is essential to obtain, understand and resolve this information before even considering the introduction of mandation powers. We hope the Minister agrees and will see our proposal in the constructive manner in which it is intended. I would welcome his thoughts on it. As I said at the beginning of my speech, there is much agreement on this wider issue and on the need to create an environment that will incentivise investment into the UK. I know the Minister understands that, and we want to work with him to improve the attractiveness of the UK’s equity market and reinvigorate pension funds’ appetite to invest in it. If we get this right, we could really make a difference. Now is the time to do the hard graft, to work together while this Government last and to make the UK the place to invest in again.

• 19 Nov 2025 · Specialist Manufacturing Sector: Regional Economies · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I welcome today’s debate. Plymouth and the surrounding area boast some of the finest examples of British advanced manufacturing. Babcock refits the Royal Navy’s frigates, maintains our nuclear deterrent and assembles the Supacat Jackal armoured vehicles at His Majesty’s Naval Base Devonport. Today, Helsing is opening a resilience factory in my constituency, manufacturing autonomous underwater gliders to protect critical infrastructure. The date was supposed to be last week, so I went to visit. Unfortunately, I am here for this debate today rather than there for the official opening today, but it is an exciting opportunity for my constituency of South West Devon and Plymouth as a whole. The company was attracted to the city because of its easy access to deep water for testing and sea trials of marine autonomy. For similar reasons, Thales at Turnchapel Wharf is delivering the first end-to-end autonomous maritime mine-hunting system to the Royal Navy. Plymouth’s industry is not just defence companies equipping the men and women in uniform with world-class kit. Mars Wrigley, a company I visited last month, manufactures its chewing gum in Plymouth. Alderman Tooling, another advanced manufacturer in Plympton in my constituency, is a metal fabrication company that produces a range of products, including metal bed feet, bus handrails and displays for museums and fashion retailers. Plessey Semiconductors, Demon Pressure Washers and Princess Yachts are all significant to South West Devon, and many other businesses manufacture in neighbouring Plymouth constituencies. It should therefore come as no surprise that Plymouth wears the crown as the south-west’s pre-eminent manufacturing city, ranking ninth across the UK. This is within the south-west region, which has the third highest proportion of advanced manufacturing jobs in the country, employing 86,500 people. Indeed, the Plymouth Manufacturers’ Group represents over 50 local businesses right across the city, employing almost 5,500 people. With the current focus on the defence sector across the country and in Plymouth, it is easy to just focus on the prime companies: Babcock, BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce. However, it is important to also recognise the immense contribution of small and medium-sized businesses to the advanced manufacturing sector—both the defence supply chain and the wider manufacturing sector that populates Plymouth and the surrounding area. Plymouth’s regeneration is being led by manufacturers, small and large, in our city. Our city’s future success is tied to theirs. The city’s offer is impressive and often overlooked. Our advanced manufacturing sector contributes hundreds of millions of pounds of GVA to the local economy and the country as a whole. Defence in the south-west adds £3.6 billion of GVA, with 43,500 jobs. However, it is well documented that Plymouth has a skills shortage. This in turn risks local growth, social cohesion and cost increases to the defence programme. To unlock Plymouth’s potential, we must meet those challenges head-on. Recent data has highlighted that as many apprenticeships are needed by local SMEs as by defence primes—something we must be alive to as we promote our manufacturing sector and the skilled employees required. That is especially the case since high wage inflation—something already mentioned—brought about by the demands from the defence primes can impact those critical SMEs that also provide significant numbers of jobs and need to grow their skilled workforce, too. We are not alone in this reality in the south-west. Recent Transport Committee hearings that I was part of have focused on the skills shortage in transport manufacturing, too. We often hear about welding, but ultimately those welders are needed right across the country in a whole range of jobs. It is very important we ensure that that supply and demand match each other. I am particularly interested to hear how the Minister can address that, because I sit in those meetings hearing about the need for welders, and I am not convinced that there are enough young people out there to fill those jobs, so I am interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts. The need for a laser focus on skills is crucial, and a reality check is needed on the numbers required across all manufacturing sectors to ensure we tackle the demand effectively. Although I welcome the Government’s defence spending and commitment to Plymouth, I am watching to ensure that their investment also addresses the broader systemic challenges I outlined facing Plymouth’s advanced manufacturing sector. Labour has pursued policies that actively harm our SMEs. The jobs tax is costing small businesses £615 more a year per employee, and the Employment Rights Bill is tying them up in red tape. I hope that the Chancellor is taking a second look at the harm that those policies are causing to small businesses ahead of the Budget next week. Plymouth is an exciting place to set up a business, with the Plymouth and South Devon freeport providing incentives and a skilled workforce that is growing every day, even with the challenges I have mentioned, all in the most beautiful place in the country to live. It is clearly the place to be to invest and to seek those jobs. My hope is that the Government will help and not hinder the city’s potential.

• 19 Nov 2025 · Specialist Manufacturing Sector: Regional Economies · Hansard source

  More

  I mentioned skills as a significant challenge in the defence sector and the additional manufacturing. We have five defence technical excellence colleges opening by the end of next year. How well connected is the Minister’s Department with the Department for Education? Does he have any knowledge of when those colleges will be announced? They are surely a key part of what the Government hope to achieve with defence skills, but they will also be important for regions such as the south-west.

• 19 Nov 2025 · Specialist Manufacturing Sector: Regional Economies · Hansard source

  More

  I am not going to do that. Many businesspeople across my constituency have contacted me to stress how damaging the Bill will be. It seems to be more of an ideological issue on which Opposition Members differ. The red tape, particularly around things like zero-hours contracts, will have a massive impact, but I guess the proof will be in the pudding.

• 19 Nov 2025 · Specialist Manufacturing Sector: Regional Economies · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 17 Nov 2025 · Parkinson’s Disease · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that the current pathway for innovative technology to be licensed is both costly and time consuming, meaning inventions that would help his constituents, such as BeechBand, which uses vibrotactile stimulation to decrease symptoms, face delays in testing and potential introduction, and that we need to find a way forward?

• 11 Nov 2025 · Autistic Adults: Employment · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) on securing this afternoon’s very important debate, and I likewise welcome her constituents to the Chamber. It is clear that we all have the privilege of representing autistic adults and children. The debate has brought to mind one particular gentleman in my constituency, Alistair, who I have known for a couple of years. He likes to tell me that he enjoys campaigning for the Labour party, which is fine—I am still very kind to him, obviously—and he sends me little tweet messages every so often, asking me very direct questions, to which I give very direct answers. He is brilliant. Alistair had been volunteering at the Box—for those hon. Members who have not been, that is Plymouth’s award-winning art gallery and museum. The other day, I bumped into him at work in the Grayson Perry exhibition, and I said, “Oh, are you still volunteering, then?”. He said, “No, I’m actually now working here.” That was a really great example, bumping into him a couple of Saturdays ago and seeing what he is doing. As Conservatives, we believe that meaningful work is the surest route to success. We believe in the power of aspiration and are committed to ensuring that everyone in this country gets a chance to pursue purposeful employment. Having a job means more than earning a wage; it means that we have somewhere to belong, a place where our contribution matters and a route to financial self-sufficiency. I am proud of our Conservative record of supporting people into work. We oversaw the creation of millions more apprenticeships and cut youth unemployment by nearly 44% between 2010 and 2023, but right now autistic people continue to face especially high barriers to entering and staying in work, leaving them unable to fulfil their potential, as we have heard time and again this afternoon. Concerningly, only 16% of autistic adults in the UK are in full-time employment, compared with 31% of neurodiverse people and 55% of disabled people overall, according to the National Autistic Society. That is despite the fact that three in four unemployed autistic people would like to be employed, according to Autistica. An estimated 40,000 people with autism said that they were looking for full-time employment in 2024-25. We have already heard about the Buckland review of autism employment, published under the Conservative Government in February last year, which painted a sobering picture of the daily challenges that autistic people face in seeking to access and thrive in work. It found that autistic people face the largest pay gap of all disability groups, receiving on average a third less than non-disabled people. Autistic graduates are twice as likely to be unemployed after 15 months as non-disabled graduates, with only 36% finding full-time work during that period. When they do find employment, autistic graduates are most likely to be over-qualified for the job they have, most likely to be on zero-hours contracts, and least likely to be in a permanent role. Many of those problems stem from employers’ misunderstandings about autism and neurodivergence more generally. Sadly, 59% of line managers did not know how to make a reasonable adjustment to support a neurodivergent employee, according to ACAS. One in five neurodivergent employees have experienced harassment or discrimination at work. The possibility of such discrimination is one reason why around only 35% of autistic employees are even fully open about being autistic. As the Buckland review highlighted, during many interview processes, where the focus is on social rather than job skills, autistic people “feel they must mask their autistic traits to succeed.” To complicate matters further, many people with autism do not have a formal diagnosis, due to a fear of negative reaction from others, long NHS waiting times and so on. The current situation means that everyone loses out. Autistic jobseekers are being denied the opportunity to contribute their valuable skills to the workplace. When they do find a job, they often feel unable to bring their whole selves to work. Employers, on the other hand, are missing out on that wider talent pool we have discussed this afternoon, which comes from creating an inclusive environment for autistic employees. Autism remains an untapped asset in the UK workforce. Autistic people often have remarkable cognitive abilities, including pattern recognition, sustained concentration and exceptional attention to detail. When matched with suitable roles, autistic employees can deliver productivity improvements ranging from 45% to 145%. As the Buckland review notes, many reasonable adjustments intended for autistic staff tend to benefit the wider team, such as noise-cancelling headphones and a designated quiet space if a co-working area becomes too noisy. The number of autistic people out of work is also contributing to the overall unemployment rate, which is set to reach 5% by 2026, at a time when the Chancellor is facing immense financial pressure in the upcoming Budget. Obviously, getting as many people as possible into work at this point will help with the growth challenges she faces. As has been mentioned, the Buckland review identified 19 key recommendations for ensuring that autistic people receive the support they need at work. Those include creating autism-friendly workplaces, via design guides for a range of industries; improving recruitment processes and career advice for autistic jobseekers; encouraging employers to join the autistic and neurodiversity employers’ index; and enhancing IT systems to meet autistic employees’ needs. I welcome the bipartisan nature of this challenge. I do not think anyone here would disagree with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove that it is about the individuality of each individual. I do not think that is just a Liberal thing; I think it is something we could all agree on. In the Government’s response to the Public Services Committee’s October 2024 report on transitions to work for disabled young people, many of the successes listed included work that had already been started under the previous Government. For example, this Government are on track to double the number of supported internships, originally a Conservative Government initiative announced in 2023. It is good to see that almost 800 employment ambassadors have now been recruited to advocate for supported internships within businesses. I look forward to scrutinising the findings of the Government’s independent panel on neurodiversity in the workplace, to ensure that it adequately addresses autism specifically. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has already confirmed that the panel’s conclusions will build on the Buckland review, which is encouraging. However, I look forward to hearing from the Minister on how she plans to take forward the Buckland review more fully. I finish by paying tribute to programmes that serve my constituents, providing a vital bridge into work for many autistic people across Devon. Project SEARCH Derriford is an award-winning scheme, enabling young people with autism or learning disabilities to complete work placements at the University Hospitals NHS trust’s Plymouth sites over the course of an academic year. Nationally, Project SEARCH has seen more than 60% of its interns enter full-time employment after completing the scheme, creating a win-win situation: the interns gain real-life employability skills and an enormous confidence boost, while employers gain committed, well trained staff, helping to reduce hiring costs and improving retention. More broadly, Pluss in Plymouth and elsewhere across the country delivers specialist employment support for people with autism or learning difficulties, including work trials and ongoing mentoring, something I have been able to witness over the past 10 years or so. These organisations are brilliant examples of how effective job coaching can be. To conclude, we must ensure that autistic people are not sidelined from the workplace. They are disproportionately out of work. Most of them want to be in work, yet many employers are poorly equipped to create inclusive environments. The Buckland review was a much-needed start in identifying areas for improvement, and I look forward to hearing how things might progress over the coming weeks and months. We must continue breaking down barriers to opportunity. Every individual deserves the chance to contribute their talents; when we unlock their potential, workplaces become richer in every sense.

• 11 Nov 2025 · Autistic Adults: Employment · Hansard source

  More

  I seek clarification on those numbers. When I have heard them in the main Chamber during questions and statements, I have wondered whether those people are new members of staff or existing members of staff who have moved into a slightly different role. When we say that there are 1,000—or the other numbers that the Minister has just read out—are they brand-new members of staff, who previously did not work for the DWP, or are they members of staff who have changed jobs?

• 5 Nov 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I begin by echoing the thanks expressed to Members in all parts of the House and in the other place who have contributed to the Bill. In particular, I pay tribute to the excellent work of Baroness Finn, Viscount Younger and Lord Vaux, whose detailed and constructive engagement made the Bill stronger, more balanced and more effective. This Bill is about protecting taxpayers’ money, ensuring fairness for those who play by the rules, and giving our public bodies the powers that they need to tackle fraud and error wherever they occur. Every pound lost to fraud is a pound taken from taxpayers, public services and the people who rely on them. Tackling fraud and error and sending a clear message to fraudsters that they will not succeed is vital, and this Bill took an important step towards doing that, but there was more to be done, and our colleagues in the other place have done a brilliant job of scrutinising the legislation. I acknowledge that the Government have been incredibly constructive in their approach. Thanks to the determination of Conservative and Cross-Bench peers, a number of important concessions have been made, improving the Bill. I will touch on several of the Lords amendments. Lords amendment 1 concerns the power of the Public Sector Fraud Authority to conduct proactive investigations. When the Bill was introduced, the PSFA could act only when invited in by another authority. That risked preventing it from acting, even when there was credible intelligence that fraud was taking place. Our Conservative colleagues in the Lords rightly identified that gap, and brought forward an amendment that would empower the PSFA to act proactively where there were reasonable grounds to suspect fraud, without waiting for a formal request. That ability to act swiftly and decisively is essential if we are to stop fraud before more money is lost. The Government’s amendment in lieu reflects the principles in Lords amendment 1, ensuring that the PSFA’s new powers operate in a clear and accountable framework. This is an important issue, so we welcome that concession, which strengthens the PSFA’s ability to intervene early and protect taxpayers’ money. Lords amendments 30 and 31 relate to oversight and accountability, and would ensure that with new powers came clear lines of ministerial responsibility. Conservative peers raised legitimate questions about how serious investigative powers in the Bill would be authorised, particularly those based on the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The principle is simple: when Government officials are to exercise significant powers, Ministers must remain accountable to Parliament for how those powers are used. Following discussions, the Government have tabled amendments in lieu of Lords amendments 30 and 31, which we have accepted as a compromise, on the basis that the initial guidance is subject to a “take note” debate in Grand Committee. That would allow Parliament to consider and scrutinise the guidance in full. I would be grateful if the Minister could, in his closing remarks, confirm that this remains the Government’s position. I apologise if he said so already and I did not quite catch it. Let me turn to Lords amendment 84. Modern fraud prevention increasingly relies on technology, including artificial intelligence and data-driven eligibility checks. Used well, those tools can help to identify patterns and protect public funds, but they must be used responsibly and transparently. Lord Vaux, Viscount Younger and Baroness Finn raised fair concerns; they said that the use of AI or automated eligibility indicators should never amount to reasonable grounds for suspicion on their own. Technology might inform decisions, but it must not replace human judgment, so it is welcome that the Government have listened. Their amendment in lieu makes it explicit that before any intrusive action is taken, such as amending a benefit or launching an investigation, the information must be reviewed by a suitably qualified human officer. We believe that ensures that we get the best of both worlds; we harness innovation to protect the taxpayer, while retaining human judgment to safeguard individuals. Lords amendment 43 concerns the eligibility verification mechanism and its impact on vulnerable people and financial institutions. The amendment would task the independent reviewer of the mechanism with assessing how the system takes into account the additional needs of vulnerable people, whether it risks benefits claimants being prematurely de-banked, and the cost to banks and financial institutions of complying. Throughout the passage of this Bill, Members—including Conservative Members—have emphasised the need to protect those who may be more vulnerable, including people facing financial hardship and those with disabilities. We are disappointed that the Government are not backing Lords amendment 43, but it is reassuring that they have committed to ensuring that all the points made in both Houses are fed directly into the work of the independent reviewer. We understand that a meeting will be set up between Members and the independent reviewer after Royal Assent so that these issues can be explored in detail. We will continue to push to ensure that Ministers deliver on those promises, but we hope that this engagement will ensure that the review proceeds with a full understanding of Parliament’s concerns about proportionality, cost and fairness. As the Minister rightly said, Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment 75 is essentially a technical correction. We have no issue with it, because it tidies up the text but does not alter the substance of the Bill. Finally, I turn to Lords amendment 97, which concerns the issue of reasonable force by Department for Work and Pensions investigators. We do not believe that it was the Government’s intention that DWP investigators should use force against individuals—that power rightly rests with the police, who are trained in its use and accountable for it. However, that was not clear in the legislation as originally drafted. The explanatory note stated that “This power will be limited to using reasonable force against things not people”, but that was not specified in the Bill. After we raised this issue in Committee in the Commons, Lords amendment 97 sought to clarify that DWP officers may use reasonable force only against property, not against people. The Government’s amendments in lieu are a compromise, but the Bill does now distinguish between the use of force against people, and the use of force against property for investigators who are not constables, which was the clarification we were looking for. In summary, thanks to the thorough work of colleagues in both Houses, the Bill today is better than when it was first introduced. It gives the Public Sector Fraud Authority the power to act proactively, embeds ministerial accountability, ensures the responsible use of technology, protects vulnerable people, and provides clarity on how enforcement powers may be used. There remain areas in which we think the Bill could be further strengthened—there is still nothing in it to tackle sickfluencers, nor were amendments requiring the Government to review the whistleblowing procedures in the civil service accepted. It is regrettable that the Minister missed those opportunities, but it is welcome that the Government were at least willing to listen in other areas, and we had some very good debates on the bits that the Government have not accepted. Although we will not oppose the amendments that the Government have tabled in response to the Lords’ amendments, this Bill must not be the limit of their ambition. It is the latest step in cracking down on fraud and error, but we need to see continued effort, action and enforcement from this Government, because the message must be clear that fraudsters must not, and will not, succeed. Every pound stolen through fraud is a pound lost to the taxpayer, our public services and those who do the right thing. That is why we will keep pressing for vigilance, transparency and fairness as this Bill becomes law.