Helen Whately
MP for Faversham and Mid Kent · Conservative · United Kingdom
“I thank my right hon. Friend for her important speech. Recently, a development in my constituency for 8,500 homes that was due to go to the local planning committee was suddenly taken away from it, having been called in by my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna).”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend agree that it is completely wrong to take those powers to influence local planning decisions away from local councillors, and that it is absurd that a Government who talk about increasing devolution are the ones taking these powers away from local councillors?”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Those numbers are extremely uncertain; the care service could well cost more—demand tends to grow for something that is free—but scrapping the triple lock could save less. At the very least, Labour’s policy creates a £15 billion black hole in the public finances.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Many could and should be, but instead they are spending decades of their lives on benefits; it is unaffordable and morally wrong. However, the Secretary of State has done nothing of substance about it, and now his party’s refusal to bring down the welfare bill is putting the state pension in jeopardy.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Will the Government scale back its social care plan or push taxes up even higher? The Conservatives introduced the triple lock to give pensioners dignity in retirement after the humiliation of Labour’s pension rise of 75p a week, and we have backed the triple lock ever since.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Listening to the Secretary of State’s statement, it is clear that he is branding this plan as the Pensions Minister’s idea. It is not his first rodeo. I suspect he can see that this is a U-turn in waiting. How long has it got? And all this before the Government’s own Pensions Commission has even reported.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
3,209 lines on record for Helen Whately, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, without an account. Most recent 500 lines shown. Search to find more. Page 1 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“Friend agree that it is completely wrong to take those powers to influence local planning decisions away from local councillors, and that it is absurd that a Government who talk about increasing devolution are the ones taking these powers away from local councillors?”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank my right hon. Friend for her important speech. Recently, a development in my constituency for 8,500 homes that was due to go to the local planning committee was suddenly taken away from it, having been called in by my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna). The decision now sits with the Secretary of State, taking this important decision, which will have a huge impact on the area, out of local hands. This is clearly denying local democracy, given that we have locally elected councillors who know the impact this development will have on my constituency. Does my right hon.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This is Labour doing what Labour does best—dodging the tough choices, ducking a fight with its welfare-loving Back Benchers, leaving a black hole in its fiscal plans and hammering those who have worked and paid into the system to give more handouts to “Benefits Street”. I am appalled, but frankly I am not surprised. All we have seen on welfare is a Government missing in action without the backbone to do what is right. They are clearly not on the side of pensioners or hard-working taxpayers. The question is: whose side are they on?”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Will the Government scale back its social care plan or push taxes up even higher? The Conservatives introduced the triple lock to give pensioners dignity in retirement after the humiliation of Labour’s pension rise of 75p a week, and we have backed the triple lock ever since. Unlike working-age adults, most pensioners live on fixed incomes and most are unable to work. If the Prime Minister wants to make savings, he should start with working-age welfare; that is what a Conservative Government would do. We have a plan to save £36 billion from the benefits bill and get Britain working again. But the reality is that with the Budget looming, the Prime Minister has no plan for fixing the country’s finances, and this announcement is simply a distraction from the tax rises that are coming.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Listening to the Secretary of State’s statement, it is clear that he is branding this plan as the Pensions Minister’s idea. It is not his first rodeo. I suspect he can see that this is a U-turn in waiting. How long has it got? And all this before the Government’s own Pensions Commission has even reported. Did the Secretary of State forget that he had one? The Government asked it to look at whether people will have enough to live on in retirement. Why bother asking for independent advice if he has already made up his mind on the biggest question? The Secretary of State will know that more women rely on the state pension than men. Had he even thought about them before rushing to this change? What happens if the savings from scrapping the triple lock are lower than he expects?”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Those numbers are extremely uncertain; the care service could well cost more—demand tends to grow for something that is free—but scrapping the triple lock could save less. At the very least, Labour’s policy creates a £15 billion black hole in the public finances. And what a way to announce it: a couple of lines in a conference speech—no proper explanation or detail, just millions of pensioners left wondering what it means for their retirement. Labour Back Benchers should remember how these things go. Their last Prime Minister came after pensioners’ winter fuel payments. That was not a plan that stood the test of time; it was the Government’s first U-turn. How many Labour Members in the Chamber today defended that ill-conceived policy, only to see it abandoned in the face of pressure?”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Many could and should be, but instead they are spending decades of their lives on benefits; it is unaffordable and morally wrong. However, the Secretary of State has done nothing of substance about it, and now his party’s refusal to bring down the welfare bill is putting the state pension in jeopardy. The Prime Minister is desperate for cash to pay for his new national care service—that is why he is ditching the triple lock. Let’s not beat around the bush and say that it is some kind of adjustment—it is ditching the triple lock. To look at the numbers, the savings that the Secretary of State is hoping for will hardly touch the sides. Come the mid-2030s, a national care service is forecast to cost over £18 billion, versus potentially £4 billion a year in savings from the triple lock.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Thirty years ago, nearly one in three pensioners in our country lived in poverty. Today, that figure has halved, thanks in no small part to the decisions made by our party, when in government, to stand by pensioners—people who have done the right thing, worked all their lives and paid into the system. That is the fair and right thing to do. Yet we are faced with a Government that do not seem concerned about what is fair and right. Can the Secretary of State explain why his party has chosen to go after pensioners instead of tackling the fastest growing part of the benefits bill: working-age welfare? Working-age benefits are costing us £140 billion a year, and rising fast. That includes the cost of benefits to 6 million working-age people who are not working.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Every DWP Question Time, Labour Members dutifully line up to give the welfare Secretary a chance to make it look like he is doing something about the youth unemployment crisis—a crisis of their own making. Their jobs tax and their unemployment Act have killed 300,000 jobs, hitting young people hardest. We have had enough talk about hubs and schemes. Young people tell me they want real jobs. That is why we will halve national insurance for 21 to 24-year-olds, so it is cheaper for businesses to hire them. Under the Conservatives, there will be thousands more jobs for young people. Will the Secretary of State get the Chancellor to use his Budget to do the same?”
House of Commons12 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The working-age welfare bill is set to reach £170 billion by the end of this Parliament, up £45 billion on the welfare party’s watch. All around the country, the residents of “Benefits Street” are doing better under Labour. The welfare Secretary is always across his brief, so can he tell me the benefits bill for his constituency?”
House of Commons12 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not know the answer, but I can help him. It is £400 million a year. That is why he is dragging his heels on welfare reform. The number of personal independence payment claimants in his constituency exceeds his majority, and the same can be said for 203 of his fellow Labour MPs. It is no wonder all his colleagues ask him who they can tax in order to spend more on benefits. Will this month’s Budget just be more of the same—hiking taxes on working families to pay for “Benefits Street”?”
House of Commons12 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The situation could be horrific this summer: imagine people, including children and elderly people, and potentially pets, waiting in their cars in this heat for around 12 hours. It is a disaster. I implore the Minister to involve the Prime Minister—and, most likely, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), as this could happen under his watch—in the negotiations with the EU to suspend these checks in advance, not to wait and see, so that we can stop these queues happening?”
House of Commons8 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Every holiday period, Kent and my constituency of Faversham and Mid Kent is brought to a standstill, and that has become much worse with the introduction of the EU entry-exit system, despite the fact that our ports and Eurotunnel have invested in the technology. I understand that it is not working because the French have not managed to get it to work. I disagree with the Minister that everything is fine when Operation Brock is on—Operation Brock is terrible for my area. However, I agree with his point that this has nothing to do with Brexit. I hate to break that to the Liberal Democrats and others who have being trying to make that argument, but the problems have nothing to do with Brexit.”
House of Commons8 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. She is making an important point about the fact that we need not just the minimum but the maximum. We need really strong commitments. The Cleve Hill solar development in the village of Graveney in my constituency is huge. It has obliterated 900 acres of agricultural land and marshland. While it has been in construction, there has been enormous disruption to the local village and schools, and damage to the roads and to people’s properties. I want my constituents to get proper compensation and ongoing economic benefit—not just lip service in the form of a playground or cycle path, but something that recognises the massive impact of the development on their lives.”
House of Commons30 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On the point about considering the community benefit, what counts as a community is really important. In some circumstances—this has come up in my local area—a large geographical area is considered as a community, even though the number of households that are very substantially affected is very small. It is what they want that should really matter. Yes, of course I care about what the wider community wants, but we need to think about the small number of households in which there has been a real impact on people’s day-to-day lives.”
House of Commons30 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Well, there we heard it a moment ago: a Labour Back Bencher calling for yet more money to be spent on benefits. What we should be doing is talking about all the households who are avoiding the cap, when 100,000 households get over—”
House of Commons29 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Some 100,000 households get over £50,000 in benefits, and 16,000 households get over £60,000 in benefits. That gives them the same income as the top 10% of earners in this country. British people are sick and tired of footing the bill for “Benefits Street” and seeing welfare claimants living lives of luxury at their expense. The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) has called for more collaborative politics, so will the Minister adopt our plan to toughen up the benefits cap and save £1 billion off the benefits bill?”
House of Commons29 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I associate myself and those on the Opposition Benches with the Secretary of State’s comments about the outgoing permanent secretary of the Department for Work and Pensions. I am sorry that this may be my last exchange with the Secretary of State, as we await the coronation of the king in the north and the appointment of his new team. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not sacked for telling the truth about his fellow Labour MPs, who just want to put up taxes to pay for more benefits. Does he think that our next Prime Minister will have the courage to take on those Labour MPs and bring down the benefits bill, or will the new PM bottle it like his predecessor did?”
House of Commons29 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I heard no commitment from the Secretary of State that the benefits bill was going to come down any time soon. Labour can change its leader, but it is still the same old welfare party. The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) told us this morning that he is going to bring “Manchesterism” to the whole country. In Manchester, he is spending nearly three quarters of a million pounds on helping asylum seekers to claim benefits. British people are tired of seeing their hard-earned money being spent on handouts to foreigners. We cannot be a cash machine for the world. Does the Secretary of State think that this is a good use of taxpayers’ money?”
House of Commons29 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The local government reorganisation needs to be looked at again, and I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that, at the moment, the proposals are a shambles.”
House of Commons10 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend is making a really important point about local identity and about how important it is that Ministers listen. We have a Minister here today listening. I want to talk about the local government reorganisation in Kent, an area that has an incredibly strong historic identity. It is actually England’s oldest county, with a history going back more than 2,000 years—it was the Kingdom of Kent—yet under this local government reorganisation, Kent is due to be broken up, and it is not even getting a mayor. It will be fragmented into multiple parts. The population between Kent and Medway is over 2 million. At the moment, Kent has an identity and a voice. It is set to lose both through this local government reorganisation, and the case for substantial savings simply is not there.”
House of Commons10 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have had a few days of hot weather, and yet again we have had water outages in my constituency and across Kent, on top of what we saw earlier this year and last year. Residents, businesses and livestock owners are frustrated, but they are also really worried, because getting water is the most basic thing in this country. It is right that the chief executive and chair of South East Water have gone; my anger with them was particularly about their response and how they have handled these outages. However, there is a longer-term problem with water infrastructure and supply that will not be fixed overnight. In my constituency, 20,000 more houses are in the pipeline for the next few years, and thousands more in the surrounding area. Is there enough water for those thousands of additional houses in rural Kent?”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to make a statement on the publication of the Milburn report on young people and work.”
House of Commons2 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The answer is jobs, to back businesses, to cut taxes, to get rid of red tape, to get government out of the way and to reform welfare—”
House of Commons2 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This is urgent, but where is Labour’s urgency? This is not the first time Labour has let down young people: the number of NEETs soared to 17% after Labour’s last stint in government. The Conservatives turned that around to less than 10% in 2019. Of course, covid undermined that progress, but the Labour Government have turned a post-pandemic problem into a crisis by taxing jobs, tying up businesses in red tape, making it riskier and more expensive to hire a young person, and destroying hundreds of thousands of jobs in retail and hospitality. Like many young people, one of my first jobs was working in a local pub, but Labour has pulled the plug on that opportunity for this generation. Whenever we do get to hear Labour’s plans, we know what they will be: spending more money and taxing people more to pay for it. That is the wrong answer.”
House of Commons2 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This is a disaster for our country, our economy and, worst of all, for all those young people: Labour’s lost generation. The Minister said that it started under us—yes, the numbers did start going up from the pandemic, so this was not a surprise for Ministers—yet here we are after almost two years of Labour in office and it still has no plan. All it has done is make the situation worse, and of course commission this big report. I welcome Alan Milburn’s contribution—it is a serious analysis—but Milburn himself says it is just a diagnosis; there are no solutions, actual answers or policies. In fact, he even tells us that the things the Government have been doing—their “piecemeal” programmes—are not going to work. He also says that after six months of inactivity, young people are far less likely ever to work.”
House of Commons2 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question. It is a shame that the Minister had to be dragged here. Last week, the Secretary of State was only too eager to talk about this report on the telly. Where is he today? Why so quiet now? I think we all know. The Secretary of State has been caught out telling the devastating truth about Labour MPs: “who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others”? That is what Labour MPs really think, and that is what the Government have done. They have put up people’s taxes, spent more on benefits and left hard-working people with less to live off. Once again, Labour’s shenanigans are getting in the way of something we really should be talking about. Every morning, a million young people wake up in Britain with nothing to do and nowhere to go.”
House of Commons2 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Millions have drifted out of work, and for many, claiming benefits simply makes more sense. For those who are working, each month they are seeing their earnings disappearing in higher taxes and higher bills, with nothing left over. No wonder they are fed up. People who are doing the right thing are paying for people who have opted out. And what is Labour doing about it? Absolutely nothing. The Government are making a big mistake because the bald fact is that alarm- clock Britain is sick of paying out for “Benefits Street”.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Let me read from an email that I received recently from a constituent; I will call her Sandra. She says: “I am writing to you with utter frustration. We work so hard and for what? What is the point of working please tell me. To watch everyone else do nothing and get paid more than you! I’ve done the benefit calculation online and I’d be better off quitting my job…I’d be better off getting universal credit…how is that normal or fair?” My constituent is far from alone. I have heard that feeling expressed time and again since I have been shadow Secretary of State—on the doorsteps, in the pub, in the supermarket, on the train and all over social media. Beyond Westminster, people are despairing. Family breadwinners are losing their jobs, homes are being sold to pay the bills and young people are losing hope.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I respect the Secretary of State. He has talked at some length about what is wrong with the welfare system, but the fact is that there is no welfare Bill in the King’s Speech. I reckon he is stuck between a rock and a hard place: he knows the benefits bill is out of control; he knows that the public are sick of seeing their taxes go on ever higher welfare handouts; he even knows how the savings could be made because I have told him [ Laughter. ] They are laughing, but they are the problem. The Secretary of State also knows that the MPs behind him will have none of it. With the Prime Minister clinging on by a thread, no wonder there was no welfare Bill in the King’s Speech. Here is the problem: failure to grip welfare puts the Government dangerously out of touch with people out there—the people he, I and all of us are here to serve.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“For every day of inaction, hard-working taxpayers pay the price. Doing nothing costs money. The welfare bill will reach £170 billion by the end of the decade and that money could be so much better spent on things such as defence or making our streets safer or—think of this—it could be left in people’s pockets for them to spend.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Yesterday, the Prime Minister had a chance—one last chance—to hit reset, reverse those trends, get people off benefits and bring down the welfare bill. But with his back against the wall, it is no surprise that the Prime Minister’s King’s Speech contained none of that. While hundreds of thousands of people struggle to find work, the Prime Minister is only interested in protecting one job: his own. Yes, the Secretary of State can claim that he is doing something—his work experience programmes, his youth schemes, the savings-free Timms review and all that—but we all know that that is just tinkering at the edges. The Government tried welfare reform last summer and failed. Now, they have given up altogether. They had no plan when they got into office and they still have no plan now, and that matters.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I hate to tell the hon. Gentleman, but Labour is in charge now. It has had nearly two years and nothing is changing. You do not have to take my word for it, Madam Deputy Speaker; here are the numbers. Over 8 million people are claiming universal credit, almost 4 million people are claiming sickness benefits and over 600,000 households are getting over £32,000 a year in benefits. That is more than the take-home pay of the average British worker. Ninety-one thousand households are getting over £50,000, which is enough to put them in the top 10% of our nation’s earners, and 16,000 are getting over £60,000 in benefits every single year. A person who works would have to earn over £70,000 to have that. All that is costing the country £140 billion a year. People know when they are being taken for a ride.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Labour’s answer is always the same: tax more and spend more of other people’s money, and it is the wrong answer. Sometimes in life you have to pick a side. We have picked one: we are on the side of people who get up each day and go to work. They are doing the right thing, and we back them. Sometimes things go wrong and people need help. That is why welfare should be a safety net, not a lifestyle choice. Labour have made their choice: it is to carry on as if nothing is wrong. Yesterday’s King’s Speech was a chance to fix things, and they blew it.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Secretary of State should feel free to do so too, and though the MPs behind him will hate it, we are here to help. This is the most surreal King’s Speech debate I have ever taken part in. People out there are angry, frustrated and fed up. They can see the country is not working. They want the Government to fix it, but Labour are too busy working out who should be in charge. The saddest thing is that it will not make a difference. They can change their team captain, but they are still the same team. I have heard them cheer on taxes for farmers, family businesses and schools. I have heard them cheer for lifting the two-child cap. I have heard them argue against welfare savings. They think you fix poverty by giving out free breakfasts, paid for by people who are struggling to pay the bills themselves.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We will bring back the two-child benefit cap, stop handouts to foreign nationals, stop sickness benefits for anxiety and ADHD, bring back face-to-face assessments, ban “sickfluencers”, reform fit notes and restore the household benefit cap to its original purpose of ensuring work always pays better than benefits. No more gaming the system, no more free cars for tennis elbow or acne—Britain will no longer be a cash machine for the world. People have had enough. They can see our welfare system is not working. It is not even working for people who are seriously ill or disabled. We are not keeping our plan secret; it is all out there. Other parties are adopting our policies. Reform, for instance, has not been shy about doing so, although it has been confused, and its Members are not here today.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am sure that many of those on the Government Benches care about our country, but caring is not enough. The question is: what are they going to do to fix it? If the King’s Speech that we are debating today tells us anything, it is that they do not know. The only things they can think of will make the situation worse; and on welfare, they have given up. I believe in learning lessons whenever one can. One lesson that Labour Members should learn is to make good use of time in opposition; work hard, think hard and make a plan. That is what we have been doing, and that is why we have been able to set out an alternative King’s Speech, which has more in it than the actual King’s Speech. Take our plans for welfare—and to be clear, these are just our plans so far. We have a plan to reform welfare and make £23 billion in savings.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They have laughed and jeered at us, but they are not laughing now because they have found out that governing is hard. They promised voters change, but the only change that most people have seen is that they are poorer. Who knows what they got up to in opposition? Clearly, it was not working out what they would do if they won the election. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury is chuntering. I know that yesterday he called the Leader of the Opposition “rude” when, actually, she was just telling the truth. He does not like to hear the truth. Maybe he should do a little less talking from the Front Bench and a little more listening. Being in power is not an end in itself; what matters is what someone does with the power that voters trust them with.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Many businesses have stopped hiring; others are letting people go. Businesses tell me that they are getting hundreds of applications for jobs that they might have struggled to fill a couple of years ago. No wonder that there are 700,000 graduates on out-of-work benefits. Youth unemployment is at over 14%. This is a disaster. Young people want to get their lives going, earn money, pay their own way, save for a car; instead, hundreds of thousands are stuck. The Secretary of State knows that. That is why he has frantically announced a flurry of schemes at the cost of £2.5 billion. Obviously, a work placement is better than nothing, but the young people I speak to want jobs, not Government-funded work experience. Less than two years ago, the country voted us out and Labour Members in.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Oh dear; what a shame. There were no ideas for savings there at all. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that will get him a job under the next Labour leader, I am afraid that he will have to keep trying. Labour claims to be the party of working people, but the facts do not back that up. Labour always leaves office with unemployment higher than when it arrives, and it is on track to do that again. There are now over 300,000 more people unemployed than when this Government came to power. Their policies—the jobs tax, the Employment Rights Act—have actively killed jobs. Now, as mentioned in yesterday’s King’s Speech, we have the regulating for growth Bill. You couldn’t make it up. Employers are being asked to swim against the tide with bricks in their pockets, and now the Government are planning to make it worse.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Here we have Labour doing what it always does: thinking that the Government are the answer, with the state going where it has no place to go. When the Conservatives return to government, we will remove mandation from the statute book entirely, because at the heart of this policy lies a dangerous assumption that Ministers in Whitehall know better than trustees, fund managers and markets on how to invest the public’s pension savings. I have yet to meet anyone who wants a politician managing their pension, and pensions belong to the people who earn them, not Government Ministers. It is as simple as that.”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Step by step, and under pressure, they have been forced to narrow it, constrain it and hedge it with safeguards. Why? Because the original power was indefensible, and because the Government knew that the concerns were real. The work that we have done has obliterated the Government’s original proposal. As it stands now, the mandation power looks nothing like how it was first imagined. What began as a sweeping ministerial power grab has been stripped back, pared down and boxed in on all sides. Only now, after our intervention, has it become at least palatable. It is a vestige of its former overmighty self—a shrivelled husk. Let me be clear: we do not believe that the Government should direct private capital, or that Ministers should interfere in investment decisions that are properly left to trustees and markets.”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That matters, because fiduciary duty is sacrosanct and must be protected. Nothing is more important in a modern pension system than the duty to act solely in the best interests of savers. That duty is the foundation on which trust in our pension system rests. This amendment means that in a conflict between mandation and fiduciary duty, fiduciary duty wins—again, another important retreat. Finally, the Government have agreed to remove discrimination between investment vehicles by clarifying that both direct and indirect holdings in the relevant asset classes count towards compliance—the final retreat. Every one of those changes tells the same story: the Government introduced a power that was too broad, too vague and too dangerous.”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have been consistent in our view that mandation is not the right solution, but we accept that requiring independent assessment before the power can be exercised is a safeguard against ministerial overreach, and I appreciate the Pensions Minister’s assurances from the Dispatch Box on the weight of evidence required. The Government have also accepted that the reserve power cannot be used before 2028—again, another retreat. The Government have further strengthened the savers’ interest test following yesterday’s amendment. Schemes will no longer have to prove that compliance would likely cause “material financial detriment”. Instead, they need only demonstrate that compliance is likely not to be in the best interests of members, thereby aligning the test with trustees’ existing fiduciary duties.”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Secondly, on sunset and single-use restrictions, the Government have brought forward the expiry date of the reserve power to 2032, if unused. They will repeal the whole regime by 2035 unless it is renewed by fresh primary legislation, and have limited the core mandation power so that it can be exercised only once—another retreat. Thirdly, the scope has been narrowed. Mandation can now apply only to the main default auto-enrolment fund, not the entire pension scheme or every pot—again, another retreat. Today we have had further concessions. The Government now accept that before this power can be exercised, regulators must conduct an independent assessment of whether a genuine collective action problem exists—whereby no one wants to be the first mover—and whether that problem is inhibiting investment in private markets.”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I was clear from the outset that the power was dangerous and had no place in the Bill. After sustained pressure from the industry, from the other place and from this side of the House, the Government have, very slowly, been forced to row back. They have rowed back from a power grab that threatened trust in auto-enrolment pensions and risked damaging savers’ retirement incomes. Let us be clear about what those concessions amount to. First, on allocation limits, the original Bill contained no cap whatsoever on how much of a saver’s pension could be mandated into specified assets. Now, after pressure, the Government have imposed hard limits. No more than 10% of a default fund may be directed into qualifying assets, and no more than 5% may be directed specifically into UK assets. That is a major retreat from the original proposal.”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It would have allowed Ministers to direct their investment in whatever way they saw fit. What happened the moment that became clear to people? Members sitting opposite and, indeed, behind me—not least those in Reform UK—were already queuing up with pet projects and struggling sectors. They thought that savers’ money should be used for net zero schemes, steel and renationalising water. They were not proposing those measures on the grounds of the return on investment for savers, and the income that they would generate for people’s later life; that much is obvious. But we said no—no to politicians having that power, no to Ministers directing pension savings into their pet projects, and no to overriding the interests of savers in favour of politicians desperate for access to capital.”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Let me begin by welcoming the Minister back to his place—we missed him last night, and it is good to see him back in the Chamber. Throughout our many debates, we have broadly agreed on the policy intent behind most of the Bill, but as I have said time and again, agreement on the principles of a Bill is not the same as offering the Minister unqualified support for every measure in it, particularly the power contained in clause 40, the power of mandation—or the reserve power, as the Chief Secretary calls it—which enables Ministers to instruct pension funds where to invest. When the Bill was first introduced, that mandation power was truly breathtaking in its scope. It was extraordinary—an unconstrained power that would have allowed the Secretary of State access to 100% of at least £400 billion-worth of auto-enrolment default pension funds.”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“His Government need to change tack and back businesses to create opportunities for the next generation. I am on their side—isn’t he? Will he help the Chancellor understand before it is too late?”
House of Commons27 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I was disappointed that the Secretary of State did not answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), so let me help him. Unemployment among 18 to 24-year-olds is at 14.3%—that means that one in seven young people is unemployed. There are thousands fewer jobs and thousands fewer vacancies under the right hon. Gentleman’s Government. I speak to young people across the country, who tell me that it is desperately difficult to get a job, and it is no wonder. His Government have made it much harder for businesses to employ people, especially young people. I appreciate that the Secretary of State may be trying his best with his plethora of work schemes, but they are just a sticking plaster for the damage that the Chancellor has wreaked. Governments do not create jobs; businesses do.”
House of Commons27 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗