Mr Peter Bedford
MP for Mid Leicestershire · Conservative · United Kingdom
“Thirdly, before this review began, we were told that spending would not rise beyond existing projections, yet those projections already build in £43 billion of PIP spending by 2030. Does the Minister seriously believe that this amounts to meaningful reform?”
“The Government have now had two years, one abandoned Bill and two reviews, but they have not delivered a single lasting reform. The official Opposition’s position is clear. We would restore face-to-face assessments as the default, because decisions of this consequence should not be made down the phone.”
“I thank the Minister for the advance copy of his statement. I put on record my thanks to the 38,000 people and organisations who took part and responded to the call for evidence. Let us be honest about how we got here. This review was not born out of principle; it was born out of panic.”
“First, after two years of dither and delay, the Government have finally accepted what we have been saying all along: the welfare system is in urgent need of reform. Ministers boast about consulting nearly 40,000 people, yet they appear to have ignored the most important stakeholder of all—the British taxpayer.”
“Meanwhile, the welfare bill keeps rising. Spending on PIP alone is forecast to reach £43 billion a year by the end of this decade. Every month of drift is paid for by working people, and every month of uncertainty is endured by nearly 4 million claimants. The Opposition accept that the system needs reforming.”
“Does the Minister accept that there is a fundamental contradiction between Alan Milburn’s diagnosis of the problem and the Government’s proposed solution? Welfare should be a safety net, never a way of life, and a Government who cannot reform welfare cannot control spending. Disabled people deserve certainty, and taxpayers deserve value.”
The complete record
Every one of 393 lines we hold for Mr Peter Bedford, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 8.
“Does the Minister accept that there is a fundamental contradiction between Alan Milburn’s diagnosis of the problem and the Government’s proposed solution? Welfare should be a safety net, never a way of life, and a Government who cannot reform welfare cannot control spending. Disabled people deserve certainty, and taxpayers deserve value. The country cannot afford yet another year of dithering and delay, so I ask the Minister simply: when will the Government stop reviewing and start reforming?”
“Thirdly, before this review began, we were told that spending would not rise beyond existing projections, yet those projections already build in £43 billion of PIP spending by 2030. Does the Minister seriously believe that this amounts to meaningful reform? Would it not be better for the review to focus on identifying savings and restoring the long-term sustainability of the welfare system, rather than rubber-stamping an ever-growing bill for taxpayers? Finally, the Milburn review concluded that the PIP system is failing to engage young disabled people in meaningful conversations about aspiration, challenges and the support that they need, yet the Government response appears to move precisely in the opposite direction by extending PIP award periods and reducing the frequency of contact between claimants and the system.”
“First, after two years of dither and delay, the Government have finally accepted what we have been saying all along: the welfare system is in urgent need of reform. Ministers boast about consulting nearly 40,000 people, yet they appear to have ignored the most important stakeholder of all—the British taxpayer. When will the Government actually take decisive action to get the system back on track? Secondly, the Minister told the Work and Pensions Committee in June that the review has the power to recommend reductions, and that he had personally asked it to consider conditions such as anxiety and depression and neurodiverse conditions. Will the interim findings address whether PIP is the right benefit for those conditions, and will he tell the House whether he is ruling them in or ruling them out?”
“The Government have now had two years, one abandoned Bill and two reviews, but they have not delivered a single lasting reform. The official Opposition’s position is clear. We would restore face-to-face assessments as the default, because decisions of this consequence should not be made down the phone. We believe that people with milder health conditions are better served by treatment and support to get them into work than by being signed off for a lifetime on welfare. We would restrict access to sickness and disability benefits for those without a long-term connection to this country. We would bring the welfare bill down, because a welfare system that is unsustainable is no protection for those in genuine need. Let me press the Minister on a few points, because there was very little detail in his statement.”
“Meanwhile, the welfare bill keeps rising. Spending on PIP alone is forecast to reach £43 billion a year by the end of this decade. Every month of drift is paid for by working people, and every month of uncertainty is endured by nearly 4 million claimants. The Opposition accept that the system needs reforming. That is why, last month, we launched the Conservative party’s review of disability and sickness benefits. It is a root-and-branch review of a failing system that will look into who should get help, how they should be assessed, what form that help should take, the conditionality of support and how to control the level of overall spending. It asks a much more fundamental set of questions than this review. It sets out to make savings, as well as to build a better system.”
“I thank the Minister for the advance copy of his statement. I put on record my thanks to the 38,000 people and organisations who took part and responded to the call for evidence. Let us be honest about how we got here. This review was not born out of principle; it was born out of panic. Last summer, the Government brought forward proposals for £5 billion of welfare savings, but 126 of their own Members rebelled, and within days, Ministers had abandoned the lot. The Timms review is a fig leaf draped over that failure—a review commissioned not to fix the system, but to get the Government through a difficult week. A year on, what do we have? An interim report. Not a decision, not a reform, but a report about a report, with a promise of full findings in the autumn, and perhaps legislation at some later stage.”
“The farm does not hire an extra hand for the harvest, the guesthouse does not take on extra staff for the holiday season, and the high-street shop does not offer the Saturday job that may lead to a summer job and permanent employment. Let us be honest about the cost: by the Government’s top-end estimate, the Act lands over £1 billion on employers. Small and medium-sized enterprises are the backbone of our economy and a key gateway into work for young people, yet the uncertainty has left too many high-street businesses reluctant to invest, expand or hire. These are not merely statistics to be traded across the House. Behind every percentage point and every headline figure is a young person searching for a first job, eager to build skills, gain experience and achieve independence.”
“Whatever is happening in the labour market is landing hardest, and first, on our young people. It is the plain, measurable consequence of decisions taken by this Government, including the introduction of higher national insurance contributions. As we have heard today, the Employment Rights Act has added costs and burdens to employers large and small. I ask Labour Members to think like an employer for a moment—not a large firm with a human resources department, but the owner of a farm, a hotel or a shop on the high street, who has to decide whether to take someone on for the first time, perhaps over the summer. Under the Act, that decision now carries real legal risk within six months, rather than two years, so the rational choice is perhaps not to take the risk at all.”
“As I am an accountant, it will come as no surprise to Members from across the House that I take a keen interest in numbers. Unfortunately for this Government, the numbers do not make for pleasant reading. Labour Members have been busy crowning their messiah from the north—a coronation conducted with little scrutiny and even less debate—but I wonder whether they are aware that youth unemployment now stands at 16.2%, which is close to its highest level since 2015, and already above the pandemic peak. I wonder whether they know that 735,000 young people are out of work—up by 109,000 on the year. I wonder too whether they know that, for the first time since 2013, the number of young people not in education, employment or training has passed 1 million.”
“I totally agree with my right hon. Friend. I think the pace at which this was brought in has had a massive impact on businesses, particularly smaller businesses, and their ability to adapt to a changing labour market.”
“I have heard what the Minister and hon. Members have said, but it is important that we give young people the dignity of a job, and a Government who are serious about work do not legislate away the very jobs our young people need. A summer job is about not just a payslip, but confidence, responsibility and resilience. This Government’s actions have limited those opportunities, so I urge the House to support our motion, and I urge Ministers to give our young people back their first chance of building a successful career.”
“We would scrap the archaic restrictions that stop young people choosing when they work, such as the outdated limits on Sunday working and the rules that bar them from working after 9 pm. A young person helping in a restaurant or a hotel is not being exploited; they are gaining experience, earning money and developing skills that employers value. We would end the culture of excessive bureaucracy that greets any employer offering a teenager their first opportunity, because every unnecessary form is yet another reason to say no. We would repeal the most damaging aspects of the Employment Rights Act and give employers the confidence to hire again. We would give SMEs proper, simple access to a growth and skills levy, so that a seasonal job can become an apprenticeship instead of simply ending in September.”
“Too many people are growing up believing that hard work is no longer rewarded and aspiration is no longer valued. That is not the message we should be sending to the next generation. We owe our young people better than that. For many of us in this House, a summer job was how we first learned what work is. In my case, it was stacking shelves in a corner shop, then working behind a counter at a local café and then in a greengrocer. Each one of those jobs taught me the same lesson—the value of money and the pride that comes from earning it oneself. That is why I support the action the Opposition are taking to save the summer job. We would cut business rates for the businesses that create those first-rung jobs, not have another round of tinkering with multipliers and reliefs.”
“The Government’s impact assessment puts the costs of the Employment Rights Act at up to £5 billion, which will hit small and medium-sized businesses since they lack the human resources teams and the expertise to absorb the additional burdens. What advice does the Minister give to small and medium-sized businesses in my Mid Leicestershire constituency on how they should deal with that?”
“Over 700,000 young people are now out of work. That figure is up 100,000 year on year, and the youth unemployment rate is now at over 16%—higher than at any point during the pandemic. As this is likely to be the ministerial team’s final question time, will the Secretary of State reflect on the damage that the Employment Rights Act 2025 and national insurance increases have had on youth unemployment? Behind all those figures are stories of young people not earning or learning. They do not need yet more billion-pound Government schemes. They need a growing economy with businesses that want to hire them. Will the next Government finally deliver that?”
“That is also why I tabled an amendment to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 to ensure that, before any local government reorganisation takes place, residents must be consulted via referendum. That was not taken up by the Government. I did that because decisions about local government boundaries should be made by local communities, not by Ministers or civil servants in Whitehall who have very little understanding of the character and identities of our local communities. Let me be absolutely clear: if this Government seek to place any of the villages that I represent under the remit of Leicester city council, I will fight tooth and nail to oppose that. While other parties not here today are silent on the matter, I want my constituents to know that I am on their side on this immensely important issue.”
“Perhaps most damaging of all, a constituent from Braunstone Town, who already lives beside the city’s boundaries, told me that they had seen at first hand the decline of the city and want nothing to do with it. My constituents should be under no illusion: I will not accept, under any circumstances, an attempt by the Government to force our beautiful villages into the Leicester city council area. That is why Leicestershire Conservatives, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston mentioned, launched a petition on that matter. Indeed, he and my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) presented that petition with more than 10,000 signatories from the villages surrounding the Leicester city council area, showing the strength of feeling across our communities.”
“Similarly, residents in Glenfield, and particularly those who live beside the former Western Park golf course, a picturesque and ecologically diverse and rich reserve, fear that the expanded Leicester city council would concrete over it in an attempt to push development still further out into Glenfield’s green and pleasant land, rather than repurposing the abundance of brownfield sites already within the existing city council area. Furthermore, my constituents in Leicester Forest East and Kirby Muxloe tell me that they fear that their rural priorities will simply be overlooked in an urban-focused administration if they are absorbed into the city. Frankly, who can blame them?”
“Some Government Members may believe that change to local government boundaries is small fry, even inconsequential. They should look at our constituents’ strength of feeling on this issue. The people of Mid Leicestershire certainly do not believe that it is trivial. Many constituents from villages such as Birstall tell me that they left Leicester city precisely because they wanted to be part of a village community away from the hustle and bustle of city life. They say they no longer felt safe in a city increasingly associated with crime and decline. They wanted their children to grow up where they could walk safely in the streets and feel part of a close-knit community. They simply do not want to be back within the Leicester city area.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) on bringing this important debate before us today and on the passion with which he spoke. I wish to focus on the one issue that has filled my inbox since the proposal was first announced: the Government’s approach to reorganisation in Leicester and Leicestershire. Reorganisation must be done with the consent of local residents, which is a point that many of my Conservative colleagues have made today. Unfortunately, the Government, who are so enthusiastic about consultation, appear to be unwilling to give the final say to the very people who matter the most—the people who sent us to this place.”
“Parliament is not at its best when Bills such as the assisted dying Bill are simply spoken out; it is not at its best when process replaces principles; and it is certainly not at its best when debate is prevented. The Bill, whatever one’s position on it, certainly did not lack scrutiny. It passed through the House with numerous amendments; each one was debated and voted on. It was considered for more than 100 hours in the Commons alone. That is longer than for most pieces of legislation, which often receive just a few hours of debate at the fag-end of a plethora of urgent questions or ministerial statements. And it was right that it received that attention.”
“This place is at its best when real debates take place, and when arguments are made, tested and challenged. Even when I disagree about something, I recognise the quality of debate. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) in the main Chamber; although I do not agree with his conclusions, I respect the clarity and conviction with which he made his case. In the other place, Baroness May set out her opposition in a similarly considered and coherent manner. On my own side of the argument, colleagues such as the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) spoke with equal seriousness and compassion when they made their speeches. That is Parliament at its best.”
“As a Conservative, I value tradition, respect procedure and recognise that the conventions of this House—and indeed of the other place—are central to making our Parliament one of the finest democratic institutions in the world. However, as has been well established, Britain’s unwritten constitution provides the agility to modernise our procedures for the world we now live in, rather than our merely sticking by some of the more arcane procedures of times gone by. It was therefore disheartening to see the ability of a small number of peers to table quite literally hundreds of amendments to frustrate the democratic will of an absolute majority in the Commons. I am well aware of “Erskine May” and I understand the historical precedents that allow for such tactics, but we must ask ourselves: do they show Parliament at its best?”
“I think back to the Christmas of 2019 at the dinner table with my late nan, who was unable to eat and in considerable pain. She turned to me and said simply that she was “ready to go”. Those words have never left me. They have forced me to confront some deeply uncomfortable truths: as a society, we too often shy away from death and in doing so we allow those whom we love the most to suffer for perhaps too long. However, I am a pragmatist and a realist about parliamentary realities. I have concerns that if a similar private Member’s Bill were introduced in future, it would face the same filibustering in the House of Lords, even if a clear and absolute majority in the Commons voted for it on Third Reading.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart, and I thank the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for the impassioned way in which he opened this debate. Last week, an article in The Spectator wrongly suggested that a co-sponsor of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill had softened his stance on getting assisted dying over the line. To my surprise, I was that very co-sponsor. Let me be absolutely clear to The Spectator and any journalists seeking to play games and misrepresent this sensitive issue that I continue to support the principle of a compassionate society helping those at the end of their lives to slip away peacefully and on their own terms. I do so in part because of my own lived experience, having witnessed at first hand the cruelty that a terminal diagnosis can bring.”
“No, I will carry on, because of time. In the other place, 13 of the 14 allocated private Members’ Bills days were dedicated to the assisted dying Bill, so that amendments to it could be discussed fully and in a proper way. Yet despite all that, a select few Lords were able not simply to oppose the Bill but to shut down debate altogether. That should concern all of us. Whatever side of the debate hon. Members are on, if we want our constituents to have confidence in our parliamentary democracy, we must ensure that the right to debate—the right to make considered decisions—is not lost to procedural dark arts. That is what the public expect of us, and it is what will ensure that this place continues to be one of the most respected democratic institutions in the world.”
“As the report highlights, the number of NEETs is set to rise to 1.25 million over the next five years unless something is done. The Government need to listen to the wealth creators that create the jobs that so many of our young people need. Alan Milburn’s report says that 84% of young people really do want to get a job, education or training, but the policies of this Government are making that even harder. Given that the Government are looking for a reset moment, perhaps over the summer, will the Minister ask his Cabinet colleagues to look again at the increases in national insurance and business rates, and at repealing the most damaging aspects of the Employment Rights Act, which are doing so much damage to the life prospects of our young people?”
“A future Conservative Government, on the other hand, would back our young people by expanding the number of high-quality apprenticeships under our apprenticeship guarantee and by showing young people that there are multiple training routes—not just through a degree—to build a successful career and life. This Government have no plan for welfare reform, no plan for jobs, and no plan for growth, but the Conservatives do. Our alternative King’s Speech shows that we are serious about governing, restoring fairness and rewarding hard work, and about getting Britain working again.”
“Labour is no longer the party that its name suggests; it has become the welfare party. As our alternative King’s Speech makes clear, we would repeal damaging aspects of the Employment Rights Act, from the hospitality “banter ban” to the absurd qualifying periods, in order to give businesses the confidence to hire once again. We would back our private sector—the actual wealth creators—and we would not bow to trade union demands. Most importantly, our plan would tackle youth unemployment. It is shameful that one third of graduates are not in graduate-level jobs and youth unemployment stands at a staggering 18%, and that this Government seem utterly uninterested in doing anything about it.”
“We will ensure, through the introduction of a household benefit cap, that people are always better off in work than out of work. These reforms are essential if we want a fair society and economic prosperity for our country. However, welfare reform must go hand in hand with reforms that encourage businesses to get people back into work. That is why I am proud that the Conservative party has set out exactly what we will do to get Britain working again, and our approach is a direct contrast to the actions of the current Government. From the hiking of jobs-destroying national insurance to the burdensome regulations introduced in the Employment Rights Act, these rising costs are forcing businesses to think twice before hiring extra staff. This Government have become a barrier to economic growth.”
“Our welfare reform Bill would restore fairness, ensure that support goes to those who truly need it and ensure value for taxpayers’ money. We believe in the dignity of work and personal responsibility. We will ensure that benefits are restricted to British citizens, so that people coming to this country cannot simply ride on the coat-tails of British taxpayers. We will ensure that PIP is not awarded on the basis of lower-level health conditions that—let me put this bluntly—are just some of the normal challenges of everyday life that we all have to contend with. We will ensure that the people of 6 am Britain—the families who have to tighten their belts because of the spiralling cost of living—do not simply have to pay for the children of those who choose not to work.”
“Many of us on these Benches have experienced poverty in our own upbringings, and because of this lived experience we know where support is needed and where it is being abused. Sadly, we face a culture today in which some treat dependency as a way of life—a badge of honour, even—and in which, for generation after generation, families are boarding the benefits gravy train. We have all heard stories—perhaps in conversations on doorsteps during the recent local elections—of people claiming every benefit going, while ordering a Deliveroo every night and purchasing the latest 60-inch television. Those are luxuries that millions of hard-working constituents have to think twice about before buying. In our alternative King’s Speech, we have set out sweeping reforms that would end this welfare madness.”
“Meanwhile, unemployment continues to rise, and nearly a million young people are not in education, employment or training. This is simply unsustainable. The Conservatives firmly believe in a safety net for those who genuinely need support, but what we have today is no longer a safety net; it is a fishing net that traps people rather than encourages them to stand on their own two feet. I have seen the value of this support at first hand. I grew up in a single-parent household with my two younger brothers. My mother could not read or write. I can remember us turning the sofa upside down at the end of the week to get loose change to put in the electricity meter. Labour Members often think that we on the Conservative Benches are far too privileged to understand real poverty, but that is simply not the case.”
“They say that a week is a long time in politics, yet during this short debate we have seen the Health Secretary leave the Government. Amid the open revolt and factional infighting, one thing remains abundantly clear: whoever will be steering the ship, this Labour Government lack both the courage and the political capital to confront the spiralling cost of welfare. We hear endlessly about the soft left, the hard left and the moderate left, but the story time and again with every Labour Government is that they eventually run out of everyone else’s money. The numbers are stark. We have a welfare bill projected to rise to over £103 billion by the end of the decade—a figure that continues to surpass the revenues that the Government receive in income tax—and more than 4 million people are now claiming personal independence payment.”
“With the number of young people not in education, employment or training hovering at the 1 million mark, apprenticeships now more than ever are key to supporting opportunity and aspiration for so many of our young people. Conservative Members fundamentally believe that the best path out of poverty is being in work and contributing to society, with all the economic freedoms that a job brings. Given that the number of apprenticeships in the Secretary of State’s own Department dropped from 5,000 in 2024 to 3,500 in 2025, is it not the case that the Government’s message to business is, “Do as we say, but not as we do”?”
“Our constituents must interact with many Government agencies each week to renew their passport or driving licence or to submit their tax returns. Despite record numbers of bureaucrats, productivity remains low, which results in many errors and vast delays for our constituents. The answers to my written parliamentary questions confirm that there is no proper performance management of our civil servants, corrective action or even dismissals for continued poor performance. Without the usual platitudes about how hard civil servants work, I want to know what the Government are doing about the thousands of poorly performing civil servants who are costing our constituents millions of pounds each year.”
“T4. Last week, a former Attorney General wrote that there was no legal reason for the Government not to publish a list of the Humble Address documents being withheld by the Metropolitan police. Will the Government publish that list?”
“I hope the Government will carry out this red tape-cutting exercise across broader areas of the economy. We will not oppose the SI today. We believe in supporting innovation, and reducing burdens on business, to drive economic growth in the future.”
“First, the amendments to the Great Britain biocidal products regulation are simply common sense. Extending the expiry dates of 173 already approved biocidal products ensures continuity for businesses and avoids needless costs to manufacturers. These products are safe, so we completely agree that, to avoid disruption, that is the right thing to do. Secondly, the changes to the classification, labelling and packaging regulation are a step in the right direction. They reduce the time taken for the HSE to make classification decisions, and streamline the process. Thirdly, the changes to the prior informed consent regulation are another simplification of rules and remove overbearing requirements for exporting purposes. This is exactly the kind of regulatory reform that businesses want, and one that, we hope, will lead to growth.”
“I thank the Minister for such a comprehensive run-through of those regulations and the changes proposed. I can confirm that the Opposition will not oppose the changes today; we believe, fundamentally, that overbearing and unnecessary red tape should be removed wherever possible. It is worth celebrating the fact that a Government rumoured to be exploring a path back into the EU are taking advantage of one of the benefits of being outside the EU to make these changes. The statutory instrument amends three pieces of retained EU law. Those changes are proportionate and grounded in the recommendations of the Health and Safety Executive. Collectively, they will help ensure a regulatory system that supports the economy while protecting people and the environment. However, I will briefly outline why we support each of the changes.”
“I recently met several early years providers, who told me that the 30 hours funded childcare scheme is placing real strain on their businesses because the policy does not take into account the setting up time, the packing away time, and the time spent training and dealing with compliance issues with their staff. Combined with the recent national insurance rises, this is threatening the financial viability of these businesses. Will the Minister agree to review the policy’s implementation so that providers, particularly smaller ones that rely on that funding, are kept financially viable and can provide their services to the people who need them?”
“I urge the Minister and his colleagues to listen to Opposition parties and the industry to reconsider the inclusion of any form of mandation clauses in the Pension Schemes Bill.”
“Finally, while reforms to promote pension freedoms are a positive step, the situation ultimately depends on the adequacy of savings and investment performance. Where individuals have not saved enough or where returns have fallen short, those freedoms risk offering a limited practical benefit. Could the Minister update the House on what steps the Government are taking to increase auto-enrolment contribution rates, and will he give a clear assurance that the Government will not use the so-called “reserve power” in the Pension Schemes Bill in a way that prioritises public finances at the expense of individuals’ pension pots? The Opposition will not be opposing the statutory instrument, but I emphasise that cross-party co-operation has long been the foundation of successful pensions policy.”
“However, I would like to take this opportunity to raise a few points with the Minister. First, the pensions industry is uncomfortable with the significant use of secondary legislation in the Pension Schemes Bill, but we are where we are with that. Secondly, as I have touched on, the official Opposition strongly support the principle of pension freedoms. With that in mind, will the Minister revisit previous amendments tabled by Conservative Members that would allow greater access to pension savings for the purpose of obtaining financial advice? Perhaps even more radically, will he introduce the sidecar savings pot discussed during consideration of the Bill? People under the age of 57 sometimes fall back on that in hard times.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. As with many areas of Government policy, there is a degree of consensus across the House; the draft order is no different, and the official Opposition will not oppose it today. Auto-enrolment, alongside the creation of NEST, was an obvious achievement of the Cameron Government. It marked a fundamental shift in how people across the country look at retirement, encouraging millions to save and take long-term financial planning seriously. The liberalisation of one of the NEST pension schemes by enabling flexi-access drawdown is a logical next step. It aligns with the broader principle of pension freedoms introduced under previous Conservative Governments and represents a positive development for workers and savers within NEST.”
“Is not the hallmark of every Labour Government that they end up running out of other people’s money? When they do that, they end up borrowing. When that runs dry, they end up eyeing up our pensions, as Gordon Brown did. My constituents and many people who contact me are deeply concerned by the mandation powers in the Bill and the impact those will have on their savings. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a real concern? Many people up and down the country are outraged by these powers and what the Government could do with their money.”
“People should have the right to protest, but that needs to be coupled with responsibilities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) mentioned, it is outrageous that fringe groups feel emboldened to protest in support of terrorist ideology, contrary to basic British values. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that these people are under no illusion about how they will end up being prosecuted if they openly support fundamentalist Islamist ideology, and that if they have no right to be here, they will be deported?”
“This is a socialist economic statement. If it moves, the Government tax it; if it keeps moving, they regulate it; and if it stops moving, they subsidise it. Will the Secretary of State accept that his national insurance rises, the changes to business rates and the “unemployment” rights Act have contributed to the hostile environment to employing young people?”
“When this Government came into office, unemployment stood at 4.2%. After a brutal 18 months of job-destroying, anti-business, anti-growth policies, it now stands at 5.2%, with young people bearing the brunt—1 million of them are not in employment, education or training. We Conservatives believe in being in work and off welfare, and that is the best path to eradicating poverty. Will the Secretary of State break with the mistakes of all previous Labour Governments and commit that unemployment will be lower at the end of this Parliament than it was at the start?”
“As we have heard, these organisations are more innovative and grassroots-led, and ultimately they are generally supported by the public. If small and medium-sized charities continue to close at the current rate, it will impact our communities and place further strain on already stretched public services.”