Rebecca Smith
MP for South West Devon · Conservative · United Kingdom
“His Majesty’s Opposition, the higher education sector and, most importantly, students right across the country need answers to those important questions.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Against this uncertain backdrop, universities are being forced to close courses and sell buildings to cut costs and make efficiencies. The difficulties facing universities are explained well in the Policy Exchange report, “Tarnished Towers”.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is all part of our new deal for young people. I reiterate His Majesty’s Opposition’s firm belief in the strength and value of the UK’s higher education sector; it is indeed a huge strategic asset. However, we must be honest and recognise that it will face huge challenges over the next decade.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am going to make some progress. I do not want to burst the bubble of the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson), but Plymouth has also had dentistry offered as a subject.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They teach young people to think critically and outside the box, skills that I believe will be essential in a Britain where communities are more divided than ever and the spectre of the AI revolution looms over us all. It is beyond clear that universities will play a central role in Britain for decades to come.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, and to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for tabling this important debate and all Members for their contributions this morning.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
1,245 held · 653 searchable for Rebecca Smith. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 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.
“My brother’s Labrador is yellow, so I did not quite get the joke, but I like the value of it. I believe that my hon. Friend has raised some valuable points, and his Bill offers some smart safeguards. This is an important debate, because one of the things that makes the United Kingdom so special is the culture we have of community and historic pubs. We know that they were the coaching inns of the past—places of refuge and safety that people could stop at if they were travelling on long journeys—and they are a particularly British institution. I am very grateful to have been able to contribute to this debate. For those Members who have not yet clocked it, I obviously love a bit of history, so it has been wonderful to be able to talk this morning.”
House of Commons16 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On 21 September, my constituent spent the day with the Minister. It was unsurprising then that on 22 September he went to market. However, he got home at 3.50 pm to complete his agreement, which had already been worked on, to find that he was two minutes too late and £50,000 down as a result. He said: “I am jumping mad! This is a”— insert expletive here— “show! How can anyone be expected to manage a small business and compete in a fastest-to-the-button lottery like this?” How would the Minister have felt if he had had to apply for his parliamentary seat in that way?”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I wonder whether the hon. Lady might like to comment on the fact that from next April pensions will be included in what is being described as “inherited wealth”. Does she agree that pensions are not inherited wealth, but money that has been earned and set aside by those doing the right thing? Now there will be a cost to ordinary families when they hand that money down.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the hon. Member from my neighbouring county for giving way. I think his constituents would be quite shocked at him accusing the Conservatives of being ideological. Where is the aspiration for someone in Austell and this Cornwall constituency to grow those family businesses and to expand their family farms? Ultimately, his constituency is incredibly similar to mine, and I am in no doubt that some of the properties there are incredibly expensive but the salaries are not high. I challenge him; his constituents will have heard him say that they are fine with that, and that he is just tackling us from a point of ideology.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Many of these properties were bought decades ago for considerably less, yet the basic inheritance tax threshold has remained frozen. Others have already mentioned the pension increase whereby pension funds will be included in inheritance tax calculations. Scrapping inheritance tax on family homes is about strengthening the social contract, which is, in the great words of Edmund Burke, the indivisible bond between those who came before us, those who are here today, and those who will follow. Conservatives want to protect that partnership. We are backing parents who save responsibly and want their children and grandchildren to benefit from the sacrifices that they have made.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) has rightly said, inheritance tax has “become a tax for normal people who live on new build estates, not fancy people who have estates.” Just 2.7% of homes were faced with an inheritance tax bill in 2009-10, but that could rise to 8.2% in 2029-30, according to research by Oxford Economics. This issue is particularly relevant in the South Hams part of my constituency, where the average home costs £355,000, the third highest figure in the south-west. In Wembury, Brixton and Newton Ferrers, the median property sold for more than £360,000 in the last year, rising to more than £520,000 for detached homes. In Ivybridge, a property was recently sold for almost £420,000.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Our proposal would give them greater freedom to leave more of what they have earned to the people who matter most to them, whether that person is a sibling, a niece or nephew, or another loved one. As I have said, this is not about the very wealthy who already use trusts and other mechanisms to protect their assets. This is about helping normal families who have seen the price of their family home shoot up over the years, tipping them over the threshold for inheritance tax through no fault of their own. Indeed, in my own Conservative constituency—the so-called wealthy area South West Devon—the Plymouth median salary is £36,500 pounds. Plymouth is generally seen as being quite poor, but in the West Devon and South Hams part of my constituency the median salary is between £26,500 and £30,000. These are hardly wealthy people. As my hon.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We will also raise the general inheritance tax allowance to £500,000 per person, or £1 million for a married couple. Crucially, this increased allowance will also benefit those who are unmarried or do not have children. Currently, a single person has an inheritance tax limit of only £325,000, which I think is completely wrong. There are many single people out there who work hard, and who sometimes have money that they have themselves inherited and on which they have also paid tax at multiple points. I hear from single constituents on my patch who are just so frustrated at being expected, time and again, to pay tax in order to pay for everyone else.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) imply that anyone who was not relying solely on the state pension was earning a lot, which is preposterous. Buying a home is the biggest financial commitment that many families will ever make. It involves decades of saving, mortgage repayments and sacrifices along the way. The Conservative pledge to abolish inheritance tax on the family home would ensure that families were not penalised for passing on the home that they had worked so hard to own, often at the expense of doing other things. We know full well that people on benefits are able to get all sorts of discounts. It is the hard-working families across the country who do not go to theme parks at discounted rates, because they are paying a mortgage or, indeed, saving for one in the first place.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will follow on from my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), who set out a huge amount of what I will talk about, not least about the constant referral to the wealthy that we have heard in this debate. Frankly, it is offensive to any person out there who is working and, in many cases, not earning very much money, but saving a lot of it and working tirelessly to be able to buy a property, to invest in a business and to do the right thing. Frankly, the one thing that I will take away from this debate is the massive generalisation that anyone we represent is somehow wealthy, and anyone Labour Members represent is somehow not. It is a complete fallacy, and it shows a complete disdain for working people. Indeed, we heard the hon.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I think that is called general taxation, and these people have paid that throughout their working lives. Why are we now targeting them at the point at which they die, or indeed inherit money? I just do not think that is a workable opinion, and I deeply disagree. The Conservatives want to protect the social contract. We are backing parents who have saved responsibly, and who want their children and grandchildren to benefit from the sacrifices they have made. As we have heard, that stands in stark contrast to Labour, which is widening the inheritance tax net ever further by sucking in family farms, pensions and family businesses. As Conservatives, we believe that hard work should be rewarded. Families who have done the right thing should be able to pass something on to the next generation.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 17 would repeal the presumption of parental involvement contained in section 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989. That presumption currently provides that unless the contrary is shown, the involvement of each parent in the life of the child will further the child’s welfare. Amendment 67, tabled in the name of my hon. Friends the Members for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) and for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), would keep the presumption that parental involvement is beneficial for the welfare of the child. It is my belief that our legal system should reflect the fact that in most cases, a child benefits from having both parents involved in their life. Clause 17 would do the opposite. It sends a serious social signal that the active involvement of both parents is no longer our expected starting point when considering a child’s welfare.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and for her powerful speech earlier. Ultimately, the impact assessment for this Bill says that there would be no impact, but I believe that the impact on families more broadly is not worth the change.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Exactly. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. My concern is that, in some cases, clause 17 will increase the state’s power to erase one parent from a child’s life, and we know that that is often their father. It will rebalance the relationship between parents and the state.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Fundamentally, parental involvement is a relationship recognised by the state, not a privilege granted by the state. Both parents matter, and we should not be afraid to say so.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As I said in a recent debate on fathers and male role models, “There is a widespread perception that family courts make it difficult for fathers to maintain a meaningful relationship with their children.” —[ Official Report, 10 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 450WH.] One possible solution is a child-centred parental relationship test. The test would direct courts to consider the quality and sustainability of the child’s relationship with each parent. It would help courts to distinguish between safe and harmful contact. As things stand, there is a real risk that clause 17 will weaken, not strengthen, children’s relationships with safe parents without addressing the current failures that leave children exposed to their unsafe ones.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If we remove this principle from the law, we take another step towards a system in which parental involvement becomes discretionary and the state’s role becomes paramount. That is not a healthy direction for family justice. I recognise, of course, that this is a sensitive issue for survivors of domestic abuse. To be clear, there is no absolute right to contact under existing law. Courts already have the power to restrict unsafe contact. The presumption of parental involvement is already qualified by risk of harm to the child, so why do we need this clause at all? Surely we in this House should be ensuring that current safeguards work properly instead.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“No, I have already given way twice. I will not get any more time. I am very sorry. We must avoid a situation in which the law views children as the state’s ultimate responsibility while parents must justify their involvement on a case-by-case basis. We must also avoid anything that presumes that the state makes a better parent than the actual parents themselves. Of course, the state should intervene when a child is at risk, but our default position should be that, wherever it is safe and appropriate, children benefit from the love and guidance of both their parents. The state should step in only when there is clear evidence that it should do so, and we do not reject that point.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“So will the Secretary of State step in and stop this apprenticeship, and others like it that are also being consulted on, being scrapped?”
House of Commons12 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I recently visited Portugal to observe a NATO exercise using maritime uncrewed systems, and the young man who drove our safety boat had done his apprenticeship at SeaRegs in Plymouth. However, it came to light over the recess that Skills England is consulting to axe the small commercial vessel crewmember level 3 apprenticeship. This 18-year-old did that apprenticeship for the Plymouth Cattewater harbour authority, but he would not have been able to qualify if it had been scrapped. The small enrolment numbers for this course reflect the specialist nature of the industry, not a lack of value. The apprenticeship gives young people in coastal communities such as mine a direct route into skilled jobs that support our national defence.”
House of Commons12 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons16 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons16 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons14 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons14 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons7 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons7 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons7 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons7 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons6 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons6 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons6 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons6 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons6 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons6 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons6 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons6 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons6 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons6 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) that the Supreme Court has clarified the meaning of sex in the Equality Act 2010 and that Scotland has taken the relevant steps. The Minister responded to my hon. Friend with a fairly vague answer about what needs to happen in England. We know that there are women who are not biological females in the women’s estate in England and Wales. When will women get the same protections as in Scotland?”
House of Commons30 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have asked before about the future of the amphibious fleet and the replacements for HMS Bulwark and Albion, and Ministers reassured me that the multi-role strike ships were forthcoming and that the Government would recapitalise the Royal Navy’s amphibious fleet, with these new vessels ready to replace existing RFAs by 2033. The DIP implies that they are no longer being pursued. Is that the case? If so, does this change in plan mean delayed delivery and a capability gap for our amphibious forces?”
House of Commons30 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am not surprised that Labour Ministers and Back Benchers are patting themselves on the back for their youth guarantee, but it is a sticking plaster solution to a problem of their own creation. Rather than U-turn on their triple whammy of increased business costs, higher national insurance, higher wages and higher business rates, the Government would rather use the state to subsidise jobs for the same young people who businesses can no longer afford to employ. Will the Secretary of State finally concede that no amount of Government work programmes can undo the damage that they have done to the labour market and to opportunities for young people?”
House of Commons29 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I was recently in Washington DC. On several occasions, our American counterparts raised concerns about the future of the EU-UK relationship and realignment. What discussions has the Paymaster General had with his US counterparts, as well as with EU counterparts?”
House of Commons25 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Leader of the House for his recent reply to my letter offering my support for the “regulating for growth” Bill, which was announced in the King’s Speech. However, while he was effusive in his gratitude for my interest in the Bill, he definitely ignored my question about its timetabling in the House. The Bill is vital for the marine autonomy sector, based in my constituency. The sector is very keen to hear when the Bill will come forward. Given the comments of the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), about how light Government business is at the moment, may I urge the Leader of the House to think about starting the process before the summer, so that scrutiny can be carried out by businesses, and by people like me, ready for the September sitting?”
House of Commons25 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Of course, no one wants unnecessary stress, but we must remember what reviews are for—they are there not to catch people out, but to ensure that support is going to the right people, at the right level and for the right reasons. In fact, for people who continue to have genuine needs, reviews can provide certainty by extending existing rewards. In cases where someone’s condition has deteriorated, they can also lead to higher levels of support. We believe that this statutory instrument is merely a symptom of a wider problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) has said, we are becoming far too quick to sign people on to welfare and far too slow to help them into work. We are seeing a passive and permissive approach from this Government when what this country needs is an active and ambitious one.”
House of Commons24 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In many cases, people with the most severe and lifelong disabilities already receive longer awards, where appropriate—the system already contains that provision. To maintain confidence in the system, PIP and other welfare entitlements must be accurate and fair. People’s health situations change, circumstances evolve and some conditions naturally worsen, but others improve. For those with less serious needs, this measure will reduce the opportunities to review whether the support being offered is still appropriate. That is not reform; it is retreat—a retreat to the la-la land of ever more state handouts and ever less oversight. I know that some will say that regular reviews create anxiety, and I understand that.”
House of Commons24 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Once rules have been relaxed, people adjust their expectations—the horse has bolted. One day, the backlog may be cleared—we hope—and the Department may seek to increase the frequency of reviews again, but if that happens, I worry that claimants will quite understandably resent the return of more frequent checks. There has been no public consultation on this secondary legislation, because it is supposedly a mere administrative tweak to support the delivery of PIP. Labour is in effect using this opportunity to extend assessment periods by the back door. Responsible welfare reform means building a system that works as best it can for those who need it most. For many, PIP is a lifeline; it helps them to live independently, to stay connected and, for some, to remain in work.”
House of Commons24 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“At best, however, this secondary legislation is a blunt tool to fix a difficult situation; at worst, it grants the Secretary of State discretionary powers that are wide open to future misuse. It moves us away from proper oversight towards a system where awards can continue for ever longer periods without appropriate checks—in simple terms, more benefits, less scrutiny. The Government’s answer to that objection appears to be little more than a reminder letter. If reviews are pushed further apart, Ministers will rely more heavily on claimants to self-report changes in their circumstances, but given the longer timeframes, will people have a genuine incentive to report changes that could lead to their award being reduced or withdrawn? It is easy to loosen the system, but far harder to tighten it.”
House of Commons24 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Under the previous approach, people’s awards were regularly reviewed to ensure that they received support that reflected their actual circumstances, yet under the new approach, most claimants will get only two checks in 10 years—one review period will last four years, with subsequent reviews lasting six years. That is just not good enough. Taxpayers deserve confidence that support is being targeted correctly. Previously, 77% of PIP awards were for up to two years, according to the Department for Work and Pensions, so many people will experience substantial extensions to their review periods. We must acknowledge the serious problems with PIP caseloads, which shot up after covid.”
House of Commons24 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 (S.I., 2026, No. 457). It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I appreciate that it is incredibly warm in here, but bear with me, because this is an important debate. I want to sound the alarm about the statutory instrument: it hands the Government sweeping discretionary powers, with too few safeguards and too little scrutiny, by allowing the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to extend the length of fixed-term personal independent payments. The measure is intended to tackle the backlog of award reviews following covid-19, but we believe it takes us backwards, not forwards.”
House of Commons24 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Speaking of work incentives, Members are being asked to trust the Government with a significant new power under the statutory instrument, but why should we place that trust in Ministers when they cannot even tell us the scale of the backlog in Access to Work? I have been told by the Department that it does not hold information about average waiting times between the approval of an Access to Work application and when support actually starts, because—so it says—it would require a painstaking manual review of individual records. If the Government cannot easily access that kind of basic data, is it any wonder that they have been so reluctant to grasp the nettle on other areas of welfare reform?”
House of Commons24 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗