Rebecca Smith MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 Sept 2026 · Young People not in Education, Employment or Training · Hansard source

  More

  The Government continue to point the finger at schools for the number of those not in education, employment or training, when that is one area that is performing comparatively well. Meanwhile, in Labour-led Wales, which ignored the Conservative Government’s education reforms, school standards have fallen and the NEETs crisis is even worse than in England. Why are the Government blaming schools for NEETs when the bigger problem is the collapse of entry-level jobs for young people?

• 10 Sept 2026 · Fathers and Positive Male Role Models · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. Like other Members before me, I congratulate the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) on securing this Backbench Business debate. I was pleased to support the application several months ago, and I am glad to be able to respond to it from the Front Bench today. We need to be honest about what the evidence tells us: good fathers make an overwhelmingly positive contribution to their children’s lives, yet around 2.5 million children in this country have no father figure at home, and by the age of 17, 47% of young people are no longer living with both parents at the same address. The relationship between a child and their father matters. For sons, a father can demonstrate how to be a man, how to behave around women and how to raise a family of their own one day. For daughters, a father can embody the positive attributes that she looks for in a man when she is older, making her less vulnerable to those who would exploit or mistreat her. Children with secure relationships with their fathers are less likely to experience depression, anxiety, low self-esteem or self-harm. I was fortunate to grow up with a strong father figure—my dad, Mike. I slightly disagree with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) about Christmas eve. Since I was four years old, my dad and I have gone shopping together on Christmas eve to buy presents for my mum. He bought them; I, like a bit of a silly girl, went home and wrapped them for him—something I have to admit I still do at the age of 45. It is part of the story and bond I share with my dad, knowing that each Christmas eve, whether it includes lunch and, as we have got older, an alcoholic drink or two, we will go out together, do our shopping and then head home. My little sister never gets to do it, so it is definitely part of my relationship with my dad. Unfortunately, not everybody gets to have that experience. One UK study found that 14-year-old girls who did not have a close relationship with their father or a father figure were at significantly greater risk of mental health difficulties. Researchers also link secure father-daughter relationships with better educational and career outcomes, stronger social skills and better mental health. For sons, close relationships with fathers are associated with a reduced risk of antisocial and criminal behaviour, along with other risky behaviours. Those outcomes affect a child’s life long after they turn 18. When we look at the wider challenges facing boys and men, this topic becomes even harder to ignore. The “Missing Men” report tells us that in the final quarter of 2025, more than 450,000 young men aged 16 to 24 in England—nearly one in seven—were not in education, employment or training. At school just 61% of boys reached a good level of development by the age of five in 2024-25 compared with 75% of girls. Three quarters of children in custody report having an absent father. We must stress that none of that means that an absent father automatically causes poor outcomes. There are many factors involved, but it should make us ask a straightforward question: are we doing enough to support fathers to be involved in their children’s lives? Too often, fathers seem to be an afterthought; that needs to change. We need to look at what happens when relationships break down. There is a widespread perception that family courts make it difficult for fathers to maintain a meaningful relationship with their children. There is a presumption that it will aways be the mother who takes custody of the children, with the father permitted to see them once a fortnight if he is fortunate enough. Meanwhile, that same child has easy access to content from harmful male online influencers, starting as soon as they get their first smartphone, if not before. We are replacing a positive male role model with an inherently negative one and then claiming to be shocked by the results. Where there are safeguarding concerns, the child’s welfare must come first, but where there is a safe, loving and willing father, the starting point should be meaningful involvement and as much contact as possible. The Government’s position, laid out in clause 17 of the Courts and Tribunals Bill, is to repeal the statutory presumption that a child’s welfare is generally furthered by the involvement of both parents. Existing law already allows courts to restrict unsafe contact; repealing the presumption without a suitable replacement, such as a child-centred parental relationship test, could lead to greater inconsistency and conflict. It may also weaken children’s relationships with safe parents. A child should have real men in their lives: fathers, grandfathers, teachers, coaches and mentors can show them what responsibility and good character look like. That brings me to the language we use. We need to ditch the worst excesses of identity politics when it comes to boys and men. For too long, the phrase “toxic masculinity” has been used in a way that blurs the distinction between masculinity and genuinely harmful behaviour. Let me be clear: violence, abuse, cruelty and misogyny are wrong, but masculinity is not. Masculinity should be an extremely positive force for good. There is nothing toxic about being strong, courageous, ambitious, competitive, protective or determined. When combined with responsibility, self-control and respect, they are the exact attributes that enable society to flourish. In Plymouth, where I am a MP, there is a great network call Man Culture, which puts those principles into practice. Man Culture organises workshops for men right across the city, tackling issues such as toxic masculinity and preventing male violence against women and girls. It seeks to address issues identified by the Plymouth Violence against Women and Girls Commission, which I chaired a few years ago. That work was a direct response to two tragedies in the city: the incel-inspired Keyham shooting, where five people and the shooter died, and the abduction from a bus stop and brutal murder of a young woman a few months later. The report also recommended working with young boys, because to challenge harmful behaviours, we need to have honest conversations, and those have to start young. We should teach boys how to use strength responsibly and not to be ashamed of having strength in the first place. We should teach boys how they can use their strength to build things rather than to tear things down. The approach must be not to tell boys that masculinity is the problem, but to give them examples of men worth becoming. Fathers are some of the most important examples of that. A good father can show his son that strength does not mean aggression, confidence does not mean arrogance, and responsibility means keeping your word and looking after the people you love. Positive male role models are also needed beyond the home. As has been mentioned, only 14% of nursery and primary schoolteachers in England are men, and although I am proud that my brother is one such teacher, that figure is not high enough. We need men as teachers in early years and primary settings. The problems will not be solved by another strategy document alone. Prevention starts earlier, with families, fathers and communities, and with giving boys a sense of purpose, responsibility and belonging. I pay tribute to the men who volunteer in scouting and uniformed groups across my constituency; we should recognise and be grateful for such men. However, that is not enough. We need to do even more. Having this conversation does not mean turning the issue into a competition between men and women. It must be about supporting mothers and fathers who are working together to create something greater than the sum of their individual parts, ensuring that family services properly involve fathers, where they can safely contribute, and making sure that, where it is safe and appropriate, children can maintain meaningful relationships with both parents. This debate is not about pretending that fathers are the answer to every problem, but they are an important part of the answer whose absence makes everything else more difficult, and Government policy should recognise that. If we want stronger families, better outcomes for children and boys who grow into responsible men, we need to stop treating fathers as an optional extra. Fathers matter, masculinity matters and male role models matter; it is time that our politics treat them as such. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) mentioned, the former Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, asked the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), to take on a national summit on men and boys. My hon. Friend and I would be grateful to hear from the Minister what has happened since then. Is that summit still going ahead, and when will we hear more information about it?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I welcome this debate. As we know, the petition asks for parental orders to be permitted at birth. I believe that Members should approach the proposal with extreme caution. The number of people who have signed the petition—over 113,000, including 226 of my own constituents—is clearly testament to the strength of feeling on the issues. However, the petitioners frame the parental order process as an obstacle to parental rights, but that is fundamentally misleading. The legal process provides important protections for surrogate women and the children they carry. Currently, intended parents can apply for parental orders only after six weeks from the birth, and they must usually do so within six months. That cooling-off period provides a vital safeguard for the surrogate mother, and we should not dispense with it lightly. I believe we need to take a step back and remember why this House has historically approached surrogacy with so much caution. It is now undeniable that we have moved well beyond the purposes originally used to justify IVF and assisted reproductive technologies. IVF was initially intended to help a childless couple have a child, not to create a contractual market out of pregnancy. That sense of mission creep is also evident when we look at the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985. The Warnock committee, whose report led to the Act, did not regard surrogacy as simply another form of fertility treatment. Now, over 40 years later, surrogacy has become just another service routinely offered at clinics across the country. Technology allows us to separate genetic parenthood, gestational motherhood and social parenthood. However, it does not mean those relationships are interchangeable. Technology may give us choices, but it does not absolve us from making ethical judgments about those choices. It is worth noting that the UK is an outlier in allowing any form of surrogacy at all. Surrogacy is much more strictly limited, or even completely prohibited, in countries including France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. We know that some of those countries are particularly liberal in other areas, so the fact that they are strong on this gives us reason to question why they take that position. That reflects the serious ethical questions that arise when a child is intentionally separated from the woman who carried them in the womb. Commercial surrogacy is illegal across the EU, where it is classed as a form of child trafficking. Indeed, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls has recommended the global abolition of surrogacy. Last year she described surrogacy as characterised by the exploitation of women and children, including girls. In any future reforms of surrogacy legislation, the welfare and safety of women and children should remain our paramount concern. I acknowledge that the desire of many people who turn to surrogacy is for a child, and that that is a profound need within them. I think that is something on which we are all able to agree. Some women face infertility or repeated pregnancy loss, and some face medical conditions that make it impossible or even unsafe for them to carry a pregnancy themselves. For some people, surrogacy may seem to be the only path to having a child with a genetic connection to them. I do not question the deep desire for that, nor do I underestimate the pain that can come from wanting a child and being unable to have one. That said, compassion for those experiences cannot require us to overlook the women and children affected by surrogacy. By its very nature, surrogacy involves a woman’s body becoming a means to an end. She is carrying a child for the benefit of another family. My concern is that our efforts to help people to become parents risk constructing a system in which women’s reproductive capacity becomes merely a resource for others to use. One of my main concerns with the petition is that it implies that surrogacy is closer to natural conception than to adoption; I believe that is again misguided. With adoption we do not pretend that the birth mother is irrelevant simply because she will not raise the child herself. That woman has already nurtured the child in her womb for nine months and the law rightly recognises that her role matters: the original birth record remains in existence and the adopted child can access it later in life, as an adult, if they wish. Similarly, a surrogate may not intend to raise the child she carries, but that does not mean that her role should be legally obliterated at birth. We should also consider the needs of the child. A baby bonds with their mother in utero regardless of whether the surrogate uses her own egg in the pregnancy. The child’s birth mother is an important person in the child’s story and the law should therefore recognise the birth mother’s indispensable contribution in bringing new life into the world. I also have concerns about financial incentives. In this country a surrogate mother cannot simply be paid a fee for producing a baby. She may receive reasonable expenses, including for things such as maternity clothing, travel and loss of earnings, but typical reimbursements now reach as much as £25,000. I think we would all agree that that is quite a substantial sum, which should give us pause for thought. There is an important distinction between reimbursement and income. It is one thing if a woman is compensated for genuine expenses, but if pregnancy becomes a source of substantial financial benefit, we need to ask whether we are still talking about altruism or whether we are creating a market in all but name. Pregnancy is not risk-free; it can involve serious medical complications. However, uncertainty about whether a payment is reimbursement of an expense or a fee clouds the situation. We cannot discuss this issue without considering the wider international picture. Most parental orders for UK parents now involve commercial surrogacy abroad; we have heard a lot about that already. It should concern us all that international surrogacy takes place in jurisdictions where the economic circumstances of surrogate mothers are very different from those in Britain. If wealthy countries normalise the commissioning of pregnancies, there will inevitably be markets that meet that demand. In most cases, the women with the least economic power become the people expected to take the greatest physical risks. I will finish by reiterating that I have enormous sympathy for people who want children and cannot have them naturally. Their longing is real, but true compassion must extend to everyone involved, including to the women whose bodies bear the burdens of pregnancy and childbirth and to the children they bear. Do the Government remain committed to the parental order process and the safeguards that it provides? Those safeguards are not outdated as the petition suggests; indeed, they are needed now more than ever, especially as international surrogacy arrangements are becoming the norm for intended parents in the UK. The parental order process exists to ensure that a child’s welfare comes first and that a surrogate mother’s consent is freely given. Any reform should strengthen those protections for women and children, not diminish them.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  Further to a similar online petition of more than 4,200 signatures, I present this petition on local government reorganisation in Devon. The plans published in July by the Government appear to have been configured entirely to benefit the urban areas of Plymouth, Exeter and Torbay, and call into question service delivery, local democracy, and local identity across the county’s rural communities. Arguably there is no conceivable way that it can result in growth in every postcode. As a result I welcome the Prime Minister’s agreement yesterday to revisit the current plan, and my hope is that the strength of feeling shown by residents in South West Devon, south Devon, and across the county, will result in a meeting with Ministers to discuss a way forward that benefits the whole county, with local services that we can all be proud of, and that do not create a two-tier Devon of urban versus rural. Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of South West Devon and the surrounding area , Declares that the Government's proposals for the reorganisation of local government in the c ounty of Devon have not adequately taken account of local viewpoints; further declares that it will lead to a democratic deficit for rural areas, introduces a rural council area that is too large to effectively administer, will lead to a disparity between total council tax bills for rural compared to urban areas as parish precepts will continue to be charged for rural areas, will result in the prioritisation of urban needs over those of rural areas, and will represent a loss of identity for long-established rural communities . The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to abandon its plans for local government reorganisation in the county of Devon . And the petitioners remain, etc .] [P003232]

• 1 Sept 2026 · Direction of Government · Hansard source

  More

  I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister speak multiple times about his trip to Cornwall, and I hope he enjoyed Exeter services on his way through Devon. It is disappointing that he did not spend more time in rural Devon in particular, because the biggest issue I dealt with over the summer was the Government’s local government reorganisation announcement, which will see a huge rural Devon constituency of 2,200 square miles with just 103 councillors, compared with 220 councillors for three urban centres of about 600 square miles between them. I accept the Prime Minister’s ambition for growth in every postcode, but he mentioned earlier the lack of infrastructure in the south-west. How can that version of local government reorganisation produce growth in every postcode? I urge him to revisit that decision with the Minister responsible, because, quite frankly, constituents across rural Devon are devastated by what it might mean for them.

• 16 Jul 2026 · Maritime Sector · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his answer. He and I have had several interactions over the marine autonomy sector in particular, and I welcome the regulating for growth Bill, as I have said before in this place. However, I am incredibly keen to be reassured that it is coming early in the autumn. Will the Minister help me to meet those drafting the Bill? A request I made to the chief executive officer of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has not been replied to, and I am very keen to ensure that the businesses working in that sector in my constituency are able to influence the Bill and that we get it through as quickly as possible.

• 16 Jul 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State claims that decisions reflect local identities. Well, I can advise him that the majority of my constituents and those living in rural Devon would highly disagree. Instead, we have an urban Labour stitch-up that ignores the plethora of rural voices who oppose Plymouth and Exeter’s land-grab plans and creates a rural council that would be two and a half hours from north to south and two hours wide. Is he also aware that he is creating a two-tier system? Parish precepts are likely to remain on the bills of South Hams residents, who will be paying higher council tax than the city dwellers. Does the Secretary of State agree that this bakes in inequality from day one?

• 14 Jul 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Member has highlighted that, in his view, this is not a binary choice between a debate on the middle east and holding the new Prime Minister to account. I wonder whether I might therefore offer him a solution. Why do we not have the debate tomorrow—it is clearly important, and no one on this side of the House is saying otherwise—and then have a vote, which is also in the right hon. Member’s gift, to return on Monday anyway? We were essentially doing the Government a favour by tabling the motion, because ultimately we all want to hear from this new Prime Minister. With the exception of a few lucky people on the Labour Benches, nobody knows what he is planning to do. For the benefit of my constituents in the south-west, I want to be able to raise his obsession with No. 10 in Manchester. I want to hear his views on defence, welfare, taxation and special educational needs. Those are the things that I believe the House deserves to hear directly from the new Prime Minister before we return in September. Might the right hon. Member consider that pretty simple solution, which would give everyone what they want?

• 7 Jul 2026 · Summer Jobs · Hansard source

  More

  I am glad that the Minister has brought up the subject of fully funded apprenticeships for those under 25. As soon as that was announced, an electrician in my constituency contacted me and said, “That is all well and good, but I still have to pay the higher wages.” Although such businesses are not paying national insurance, this is not as free, or as cheap, as the Government maintain. Will the Minister accept that it is not 100% correct to say that these are fully funded apprenticeships, because those businesses still have to pay increased salaries?

• 7 Jul 2026 · Summer Jobs · Hansard source

  More

  Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the group of people who often get forgotten in these debates—certainly by Government Members—are business owners? They are trying to hang on to these young people, or even to their normal employees, and they want to do the right thing so they pay them before themselves, but often, because the minimum wages have gone up, by the time those businesses close the owners are not benefiting from that income. We tend to forget the small business owners, but they are vital, as we are trying to highlight.

• 7 Jul 2026 · Summer Jobs · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend reminds me that one of the other soft skills that we learn that way is resilience. I am wondering how he got those jobs, because I earned £10 a day in my first job. I was sweeping the floor in a florist and, if I was lucky, bundling up some flowers before I sold them. Part of that £10 was my bus fare to get to and from work, because the place where I was fortunate enough to live was a long way from the city centre. Does he agree that resilience is a skill that is missing in a lot of today’s young people, and that if we are taking away the jobs where they can learn that skill, it is yet another way that we are de-skilling the workers of the future?

• 7 Jul 2026 · Summer Jobs · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister makes a very interesting point about city centres being hollowed out, but the main thrust of this debate is about young people doing summer jobs before they go back to school or university in the autumn. They are the very young people who would ordinarily take those wages to buy a hot chocolate in Lorenzo’s, like I used to, or to go and buy the new pair of trainers that they have saved up for. If they do not have a job in the first place and do not come from a family in which their parents can subsidise all those things, they miss out on that opportunity. While I accept the point he is making, will he accept the point I am making? The very thing we are discussing this afternoon is part of that problem, and removing those young people from the market altogether will not help.

• 6 Jul 2026 · Employment and Training · Hansard source

  More

  This draft order will allow the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board, known as the ECITB, to continue collecting a levy on employers in order to fund training and address skills shortages. The engineering construction industry underpins many of the services that we rely on every day: heating our homes, supplying clean drinking water, or providing the energy and fuels that keep our economy moving. The levy helps to ensure that we have the skilled workforce needed to build and maintain critical infrastructure, a workforce essential to the UK’s future energy security and economic growth. The order continues the board’s established approach of setting levy orders for a three-year period. Under the proposals before us, the levy rates for employees working on site will remain at 1.2% of total enrolments and rates for off-site employees will remain at 0.33%. That is unchanged from the 2023 levy order. As we have heard, exemptions will continue to be in place for smaller employers. This draft order is particularly relevant to my constituency. Devonport dockyard, in the neighbouring Plymouth Sutton and Devonport constituency, and its supply chain provide thousands of highly skilled engineering and construction jobs across Plymouth and the wider south-west. Indeed, the UK’s continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent has been maintained from Plymouth for over 70 years and will need a trained workforce—something that Team Plymouth is working hard to deliver. As major investment continues in defence and nuclear infrastructure, it is critical that we maintain a steady stream of skilled engineers, technicians and apprenticeships. I can confirm that we Conservatives will not oppose the order. However, this debate is a useful opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s plans to address the issues with recruitment and retention. As the Minister has already said, the training levy clearly commands industry support, with 85% of levy-paying employers voting in favour of it in 2025, representing 98% of the levy paid. The levy system plays a vital role in developing a consistent pipeline of home-grown engineering construction workers. According to research commissioned by the ECITB in 2024, 65% of employers felt that, without the levy and grant system, the training would not take place. In an increasingly fragile geopolitical climate, it is vital that we have a well-trained domestic talent pool across those sectors. The levy works because it is driven by industry need. Companies understand their workforce requirements far better than Whitehall ever could, and we should be empowering businesses to create jobs, not burdening them with ever greater costs and then attempting to compensate through Government schemes that seek to manage the consequences of labour shortages after they have arisen. One reason levy rates are not being increased is that employers are already facing higher operating costs, not least because of Labour’s damaging national insurance hikes. That is classic Labour economics: making it more expensive to hire people, then intervening with subsidies to solve a problem of the Government’s own making. As I have said before, most employers would rather keep more of what they earn and invest it themselves than have the Government take with one hand and give a little back with the other. I believe such details are included in the explanatory note. The levy proposals are expected to raise a total of £137.9 million over the levy periods between this year and 2028. We must ensure that this levy delivers the workforce that the industry needs. More than 70% of employers are now experiencing significant hiring challenges, up from 53% in 2021. According to the ECITB’s 2025 report, the main reasons for skills shortages include “a shortage of qualifications and skills among candidates, a mismatch between candidate expectations and what employers can offer, a limited applicant volume, mobility and location issues, and increased competition among employers and other sectors.” To make matters worse, the engineering construction industry faces an upcoming wave of retirements. Almost 15% of the workforce are already over the age of 60. Workers in craft roles, in particular, are in short supply. Concerningly, about one in four welders and one in five pipefitters are over 60. Although the number of workers under 30 has slightly increased since 2021, from 14.7% to 16.8%, new entrants are not yet arriving quickly enough to offset experienced workers leaving the industry. We know that the ECITB invested £28 million in training grants and new entrant programmes in 2024, supporting more than 2,000 new entrant starts, including 1,000 apprentice starts and more than 500 graduates. That is to be welcomed, but those numbers must keep growing if the industry is to replace retiring workers while simultaneously expanding the workforce needed for future projects. The industry will face peak demand for workers in four years’ time, and 40,000 extra workers will be needed for major projects by 2030, according to ECITB forecasts. That does not even take into account the demand in manufacturing sectors not covered by the ECITB. I accept that the Minister said that 5,000 places have been filled but, given that 40,000 figure, we will need further work on this. Can the Minister outline what further steps the Government are taking, alongside the ECITB’s work, to attract new entrants into the workforce? Given the significant training costs that employers incur, does he believe that current ECITB grant support is sufficient to incentivise employers to expand recruitment, particularly in occupations facing the greatest shortages? We know that retention is equally critical, so could he confirm what proportion of apprentices, graduates and new entrants supported through the ECITB are still working in the industry 12 months after completing their training? The Government have recently consulted on proposals to bring together the Construction Industry Training Board and the ECITB in a single body. As those responses are considered, I would welcome further clarification from the Minister on how the specialist needs of the engineering construction sector will be protected. Constituencies such as mine rely on highly skilled engineering and technical workers to support major defence and nuclear infrastructure, but we also need construction workers to build new homes and the like, and it is important that those skills are not overlooked within a larger organisation. I want to ask the Minister another question, if I may. Since the removal of local training groups by the Construction Industry Training Board, I have heard that money for regional employer networks has not been found in certain regions, and as a result those networks have not been properly set up. We have debated that point in the past, and I appreciate that it is not entirely related, but it is about employment and training. How is the Department working to mitigate the apparent failure of the regional employer network hubs that were being set up? To conclude, the engineering construction industry requires a strong pipeline of skilled workers. There is clear evidence that employers continue to support the levy system, but I would welcome the Minister’s response to the points I have raised about recruitment, retention and the future direction of the ECITB. If we are serious about delivering our ambitions on energy, infrastructure and industrial growth, we must be equally serious about investing in the workforce that will make those ambitions a reality.