Rebecca Smith
MP for South West Devon · Conservative · United Kingdom
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
The complete record
Every one of 601 lines we hold for Rebecca Smith, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 13.
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“The pressures they face from increased operating costs and changes to business rates risk driving prices higher throughout the entire food supply chain, ultimately placing additional strain on small business owners and putting our high streets at risk. If this is not taken seriously by the Government, the impact on food costs and inflation will be huge. The one thing I would love to hear from the Minister about is the point on food wholesalers; in that respect, what is he going to do at the big end to make sure that our high streets remain intact?”
“This was compounded by the Chancellor’s £40 billion tax raid, funded off the back of hard-working small business owners. Thanks to the small business rates relief brought in by the previous Government, a third of properties were taken out of business rates all together, but this Labour Government seem intent on undoing that progress. Finally, last week I visited Bidfood UK in Lee Mill, which raised with me serious concerns about the knock-on effects of these rising costs on food wholesalers. This is important because wholesalers play a key role in connecting food producers with local shops, restaurants and public services.”
“For the avoidance of doubt, the jobs that are not being given are to the young people we have heard much about this afternoon. The contribution of small businesses cannot be measured purely in pounds sterling. Our high streets form the centre of our communities, and are places where generations have shopped, socialised and worked. For many, the decline of the high street is the clearest sign of the nation’s decline, so it is surprising that this Labour Government seem so determined to kill Britain’s entrepreneurial spirit. The Labour Government’s business rates reform is nowhere to be seen. Subsequent Treasury reforms have raised concerns that larger businesses, which act as anchor tenants by drawing people to town centres, may be forced to close, which has an impact on smaller retailers by cutting the number of visitors to high streets.”
“Many of these businesses can be found on high streets like the Broadway and the Ridgeway in my constituency—businesses including Therapy Hair and Beauty Boutique, owned by Effi and her husband Daniel; the new Plymstock post office, which postmaster Steven Boyd has opened this month, taking a huge risk at a time of great uncertainty; and Tubb pharmacy in Newton Ferrers. There are also many off-the-high-street businesses in my constituency, such as Serpells farm stores, owned by Scott. That is a classic example of a business that is a critical part of the local rural economy, and which, because of the Labour Government’s Budget decisions, has had to stop hiring new staff as employment costs rise. In addition, it is experiencing a doubling in its business rates, not the reduction that was promised by the Chancellor.”
“Those are the challenges facing the self-employed, the sole traders, the family business and the small team. For over 30 years, my parents had their own small business, which is called Mainly Kitchens. They made huge sacrifices. Dad worked six days a week. They survived the recessions of the 1980s and the financial crash in the early noughties. Because of their financial prudence, they had a business to sell to my brother when Dad retired. Britain is built off the back of small businesses like those in my constituency and the one owned by my family. They account for 99.2% of the business population, employ 16.9 million Britons—60% of private sector jobs—and contribute £2.8 trillion to the UK economy.”
“Napoleon’s famous remark that “England is a nation of shopkeepers” was meant as an insult. However, for many of us up and down these isles, the high street and its many small businesses are a source of immense pride. My constituency is home to one of the highest concentrations of small businesses in the country, with more than 3,000 operating locally. Although not all are on the high street, they are all part of the entrepreneurial ecosystem that makes up the local economy. I have seen at first hand the sacrifices that SME owners right across my constituency make day in, day out: the sleepless nights as financial pressures hit; the long hours away from family, working six or seven days a week; and people’s Herculean efforts to make sure that they might even take a holiday.”
“Faced with such a disparity, it is easy to understand why living off welfare is a more attractive option for many. I am a Conservative because I believe in personal responsibility and living within our means. I see our welfare system as a safety net for the most vulnerable, not a lifestyle choice, as has been mentioned several times in the debate. However, that safety net has reached its breaking point. By 2030, around £1 in every £4 of income tax will be spent on health and disability benefits. That is nearly £100 billion—an eyewatering sum that surpasses our entire defence budget. Only the Conservatives have a realistic and sustainable plan for reforming the welfare system. We will get more people into work, while providing support for those facing genuine need.”
“That is why I believe that reforming Britain’s welfare system is a moral imperative. As Conservatives, we believe in the dignity of work. We believe that work provides purpose, independence and, ultimately, a path from poverty to prosperity. We want to empower people to take control of their own lives, not abandon them to a lifetime on benefits. But right now, as we have heard multiple times this afternoon, work simply does not pay. A person on sickness benefits can get between £2,500 and £5,000 more per year than a worker on the minimum wage, which is something that my constituents have been at pains to ensure that I am aware of. They are hard-working business owners who cannot believe that those figures mean that somebody working is often less well-off than somebody who is not.”
“I want to start the debate by acknowledging the fact that many Members here do not know that much about me. The debate so far, with this caricature of Conservatives who do not care, has saddened me. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who is no longer in his place, I am entirely motivated by social justice and care for the most vulnerable, as are many colleagues on the Conservative Benches. Indeed, it was my right hon. Friend who founded the Centre for Social Justice, which I know feeds in a huge amount of work to what the Labour party is doing. So I just want to set the record straight. We just differ in how we help. We are also that voice for the voiceless, the hard-working individuals and families who want the system to be fair for them, as well as for the most vulnerable.”
“Secondly, we must stop benefits for those with lower-level mental health conditions. Under this Government, 5,000 people are being signed off work sick every single day. This figure has ballooned to twice the size it was last year, mainly because thousands of people are signing up to benefits for less severe mental health issues, including anxiety and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.”
“To truly encourage people into work, we need to look at long-term solutions. It is easy to dish out sickness benefits. It is harder to provide the right combination of physical and psychological support to ensure that people facing challenges can keep or find meaningful employment. Yet these are the solutions we owe it to people to deliver, offering them a chance at a better future, one that is not entirely reliant on the state. That is why the Conservatives have set out a clear plan that will reduce the welfare bill by £23 billion. We urge the Government to consider our proposals. First, we must prioritise British citizens in our welfare system. That means making the system fairer and preventing non-UK citizens from claiming benefits such as universal credit, the personal independence payment and the carer’s allowance.”
“I do not think I will ever forget the day the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Bill became simply the Universal Credit Bill mid debate—a parliamentary pantomime, or even a farce, that encapsulates the Labour party’s inability to take welfare reform seriously. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has admitted that his much-anticipated review being conducted by the Minister for Social Security and Disability, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), the Timms review, will not involve any welfare cuts. That means that our public spending will continue to rise, running out of control, and taxes will inevitably rise at the next Budget. Labour is now staring at a £9.3 billion welfare black hole. Scrapping the personal independence payment reforms alone will cost £4.5 billion by 2030.”
“I am going to make some progress, if I may. Youth unemployment had fallen by nearly 380,000, giving far more young people the security of a meaningful career. However, under this Government, the unemployment rate is set to reach 5% by next year, compared with 4.1% a year ago. We have already heard that graduate jobs have gone down by a third since last year, and we have 1 million young people not in education, employment or training. So far, Labour has shown little appetite for making tough decisions. As we have already seen, the Prime Minister’s plan to reduce welfare spending ended with a U-turn, with key measures being ditched in a last-minute attempt to win over his own MPs.”
“Since the covid-19 restrictions, the number of face-to-face assessments has tanked, with 90% now happening over the phone. This is unacceptable, and has opened the door to so-called sickfluencers, who are coaching people online on the right words to say to get the maximum amount of benefit. Insisting on in-person appointments will mitigate this issue. With the Chancellor now beginning to blame covid for the economic challenges she faces, other Departments should be free to acknowledge the same and crack on with changing things back—in this case, to in-person assessments. Fourthly, we must reform the Motability scheme so that only those with serious disabilities qualify for a vehicle.”
“I bow to my hon. Friend’s medical wisdom. I agree that we need to give people hope and ensure that our policies tackle the most severe mental health problems. However, if is mental wellbeing that we are talking about, we need to do more to ensure that people have the skills and tools to stay in work, so that they can enjoy the future that they can have. Given the right support, many people benefit enormously from the social interaction and sense of achievement that comes from regular employment. Holding down a job provides a sense of agency, and breaks the cycle of dependency. Enabling access to benefits for those whom we should be encouraging to work feels perverse and is a dereliction of duty. Thirdly, we must increase face-to-face assessments for disability benefits.”
“Sorry; I am going to continue. Motability is a lifeline for those with serious mobility issues, yet under Labour, Motability costs have surged by almost 10%.”
“These welfare savings will enable us to axe stamp duty on primary residences, helping first-time buyers to get on to the property ladder. We will introduce a permanent 100% business rates relief for the retail, leisure and hospitality sectors, enabling a quarter of a million businesses to invest in better premises, more staff and lower prices. We will deliver a £5,000 first jobs bonus, giving a boost to young people’s savings or home deposit. The Conservatives are the party that backs ordinary working people who play by the rules, while Labour seems bent on making our country into a welfare state with an economy attached. We urge the Government to reform the welfare system. They must continue to provide support for those who need it, while refusing to consign people to a lifetime on benefits.”
“Of course we want children and families to thrive, but fairness requires that families on benefits should face the same decisions as those in work about whether they can afford another child. The Conservatives are the only party that believes in keeping the cap and living within our means; Labour, Reform and the Liberal Democrats would all scrap it, costing £3.5 billion by the end of this decade. As I have said before, scrapping the two-child benefit cap, like rolling out universal free school breakfasts, is a sticking plaster at best that will not tackle the root causes of poverty—something that I believe we all want to do. By returning to sustainable levels of welfare spending, a Conservative Government will build a stronger economy.”
“I am going to continue because I am running out of time. We will stop taxpayers subsidising new cars for people with ADHD and tennis elbow, and will ensure that the scheme is targeted at those with genuine mobility issues. It is not compassionate to pretend that our welfare system can solve everyone’s problems. If we continue turning a blind eye to misuses of the system, it will not be robust enough to help those who need it most. Lastly, we must keep the two-child benefit cap in order to encourage people into work and to strengthen our economy. Having parents with a stable job is the best foundation from which a child can better their prospects in life.”
“The Minister rightly promotes our world-class maritime sector in the south-west, where considerable private investment is being made, including a new resilience factory opening in my constituency next week. Such innovative young companies live or die on the pace of Government contracting, but we continue to wait for the latest defence investment plan. How will the Minister reassure the new tech companies in my constituency that the pace of their private investments is matched by the urgency of MOD contracting to ensure that economic growth through defence becomes a reality?”
“My asks of the Minister are simple: I ask him to allocate dedicated funding to expanding supported lodgings; to reduce reliance on high-cost residential placements; and to improve national data collection, so that we can properly evidence the scale and impact of this vital provision. We are all agreed this evening that every young person, whether in care, leaving care or facing homelessness, deserves not just a place to stay, but a home where they belong.”
“Supported lodgings also cost only a tenth of what residential provision costs, while delivering far stronger long-term outcomes for young people. However, despite what we have heard this evening, awareness remains low. Only 30% of the public have even heard of supported lodgings, and most local authorities report difficulties in recruiting new hosts. That is why I am proud to support the launch of the first National Supported Lodgings Week, which takes place next week, during Care Leavers Month; over 60 local authorities and independent schemes are taking part.”
“According to research from Home for Good, which runs the supported lodgings national network, 84% of young people say that supported lodgings feel like home, 89% had a positive relationship with their host, and 90% feel more confident about living independently as a result. As one young person put it, “Being in supported lodgings allowed me to take the college course I wanted to take and ultimately the career path I wanted to follow.” Supported lodgings can make a transformative difference. Further research from Home for Good found that when young people live in supported lodgings for six months or more, we see an average 44% decrease in the number of those not in education, employment or training.”
“I congratulate the hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) and everyone who has intervened. I will keep my remarks even briefer than I said I would. We have already heard a huge amount about supported lodgings, and that is what I wanted to speak about briefly, as much as anything to highlight the cross-party support for what they represent, and the role that they can play for our care-experienced young people. Supported lodgings—a family-based form of supported accommodation for young people aged 16 or over—play a vital role. They accommodate predominately care leavers, but also young people at risk of homelessness. In supported lodgings, a young person lives in the home of a host who offers not only a room but guidance, encouragement and belonging.”
“5. What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the adequacy of accommodation for asylum seekers in Wales.”
“Under the Welsh Labour Government, waiting lists, educational standards and opportunities for young people have all ground to an abrupt halt. It is therefore shocking that the Welsh Labour Government are not prioritising issues that would make a real difference to the people of Wales. Instead, Labour Ministers, supported by Plaid Cymru, are ploughing tens of millions of pounds into their nation of sanctuary policy, which is believed to support services for some illegal immigrants. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is high time her colleagues scrapped this wasteful, non-devolved policy and instead focused their time on lowering NHS waiting times and improving standards?”
“The hon. Member talks about broken dreams, but no Government Member has spoken about the hard-working families in the middle—not the ones struggling to buy their first home and not the so-called rich people at the top who in the Government’s world this will benefit, but the hard-working families, who he has no doubt spoken to, who cannot buy a property with an additional bedroom for their growing family because of stamp duty. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) referenced, that stamp duty is the difference between the price of the home they wish to buy and the dream of actually succeeding in doing so.”
“I am just perplexed as to where the hon. Lady is going with this. Ultimately, the statistics that she has just quoted would have saved her constituents £5,000, but if the Government do not scrap stamp duty, anybody who aspired to buy a slightly bigger house with that increased income would not be able to afford to do so.”
“Does my hon. Friend agree that when the policy was announced at our party conference in October, it was the first solid political idea to have come forward from any political party since the last election that genuinely offers aspiration for hard-working families? We are talking about not just hard-working families who need to get on the housing ladder in the first place, but those in constituencies like hers and mine who are desperate to expand their families and continue contributing to the society we all live in.”
“My hon. Friend speaks of intergenerational fairness. Does he agree that the status quo hinders older householders who may be asset-rich and cash-poor, because the value of their property has increased—fortunately for them—but not necessarily their income? Stopping this policy in its tracks would stop older people who may be desperate to downsize, knowing that to do so would be to play their part in providing homes for other families, but who simply cannot afford to because the stamp duty on more expensive properties is unpayable.”
“The hon. Member is making a powerful speech, as he always does. However, there is a gaping hole in his argument when it comes to people who are looking not for their first home, but for a bigger home, which may be a new property or a property that already exists. What would he say to his Taunton constituents who are in that middle bracket, given that he will be voting not to scrap stamp duty? That land tax will hinder them from taking a step up the ladder, whether by buying one of the many new homes that he admirably wants delivered in his constituency or by buying a home that already exists.”
“I recognise the calls for us to consider how we can help parents whose children are sick and unwell with the costs of that, and I hope that the Minister heard them. I have seen it at first hand, and I am sure lots of other Members will have seen similar issues. The Conservatives are proud to be the party that champions family life. We recognise that strong families are the bedrock of a healthy society—that is something else that has come up this afternoon. Britain is one of the best places to have a child and raise a family, following measures introduced by Conservative Governments to extend free childcare, support flexible working and enable shared parental leave.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) for so competently introducing the debate, with an excellent speech, and I thank everyone else who has contributed to it. I was particularly struck by the comments made by the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) about Hugh’s law and the need for further work on bereavement support. That reminded me of one of my constituents, Clara Gilley, who has a very unusual brain cancer. The real-life issues that she faced, and which I was dealing with as her MP, were the travel costs to Bristol—that is a long way to go from Devon—and the costs of adaptations.”