UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Laura Trott

  • Chris Philp – 2025 Speech to Conservative Party Conference

    Chris Philp – 2025 Speech to Conservative Party Conference

    The speech made by Chris Philp, the Shadow Home Secretary, in Manchester on 7 October 2025.

    In the last reshuffle, the Prime Minister removed more ministers from the Home Office than he has illegal immigrants back to France.

    Now, let’s start with a simple fact. Keir Starmer lied to get power. He lied to the Labour Party about what he believed in, he lied to the country about what he would do, and he lied to himself that he was up to the job.

    No wonder Labour spent their conference plotting to replace Keir Starmer, who believes nothing, with Andy Burnham, who apparently believes anything.

    Keir Starmer came to office with no proper plan, no competent team and no principles. The result? The worst start for a newly elected government in decades.

    So, we must learn not just the lessons of our defeat last year, but also the lessons of Labour’s victory. We must never repeat Labour’s mistakes: winning an election on a false prospectus and arriving in power with no plan.

    The last general election was incredibly tough for us. But I know this: Conservative values and Conservative principles are more important today than ever before. We have a Labour government taking us back to the 1970s – inflation doubling, unemployment rising, taxes skyrocketing, successful people fleeing the country in droves. A real fiscal black hole opening up to swallow Rachel Reeves. Rampant trade unions dictating policy. All led by a weak Prime Minister who’s lost control of his government and watches passively as they drift a million miles from moderate Blairism. It’s a cross between incompetence and old-school, destructive socialism, and we Conservatives will fight it tooth and nail.

    And what does Reform offer? They offer simple slogans with no substance, scribbled in a pub on the back of a fag packet. That will not fix our country.

    So, we must show we have the right principles and the right plan. Because if we apply Conservative principles with courage and conviction, I know our country will be strong, prosperous and safe again, and that our best days still lie ahead.

    And that’s why I’m proud to be a Conservative. As a south London grammar school boy, I believe in opportunity. Having studied Physics at university, I believe in practical solutions which actually work. Before Parliament, I set up and ran several businesses. My very first business, set up when I was 23, was a delivery company. I started off driving the delivery van myself and generally managed to avoid crashing it.

    A few years later, that company was listed on AIM and was bought by a large competitor, which in turn is now part of Tesco.

    So, I believe in hard work and free enterprise, and I literally know what it is to deliver.

    It’s a shame no Labour cabinet minister, not even one, has ever set up a business. Although some do seem to have worked in the creative industries – mainly CV creation.

    Look, Rachel Reeves may not be a real banker, but she did work in customer complaints, which I imagine is coming in handy now.

    Now, let me start with Labour’s clearest failure, which is on borders. Their weak gimmicks have not worked. First, they said they would smash the gangs. Well, that is laughable. Then they said the French would stop boats near the coast. That hasn’t happened either.

    Next, they said they would send a handful of people back to France. Maybe one of them can have a turn at being French Prime Minister.

    But none of their gimmicks have worked. This year so far has been the worst in history for illegal immigrants crossing the Channel.

    And Channel migrants have committed some terrible crimes, including brutal rapes and sexual assaults of young children. Some have even blamed that on their own culture. Labour has lost control of our borders, and they are not fit to govern.

    And Keir Starmer has been saying for decades that calling for border control is somehow racist. We have seen him smear campaigners as “far right” for demanding the very inquiry into rape gangs he was finally forced to agree to.

    His government even instructed lawyers to argue that the rights of illegal immigrants were more important than the rights of people in places like Epping. It’s disgusting.

    Well, I’m here to say border control is not racist. Standing up for rape gang victims is not far right. And if Keir Starmer won’t stand up for Britain, then this Conservative Party will.

    Now, this weekend saw a historic announcement: that a Conservative government would leave the ECHR. Because we cannot, any longer, remain part of a system that prevents us from controlling our borders, no matter how noble its original aims. Those aims have been twisted over the years by judges here and in Strasbourg, so the ECHR now protects dangerous foreign criminals and illegal immigrants.

    This madness has to end. We must leave the ECHR. We must do it as soon as possible.

    And we will use the freedom provided by leaving to ban asylum and other claims for illegal immigrants. We will abolish the immigration tribunal, thereby getting rid of every single activist judge. We will stop vexatious judicial reviews, and we will end legal aid for immigration cases, so our money is no longer wasted on this.

    We will use visa sanctions to make sure countries take back their own nationals. We will set up a removals force to remove 150,000 a year who have no right to be here – three quarters of a million over a Parliament.

    And we will deport all illegal arrivals within a week and all foreign criminals. That’s our plan: back to their country of origin if safe and possible, or a third country like Rwanda if not.

    So, Labour’s gimmicks are not working. And Reform’s slogans, written on the back of a fag packet, collapse after a few minutes of cursory scrutiny. We are the only party with the courage to act and the diligence to do detail. We will secure our country’s borders. We will end illegal immigration.

    Let me turn to legal migration. I’ll start by being brutally honest. For many years now, legal migration has been far too high – high under successive governments, including the last one.

    It was a mistake. It should never have been allowed to happen. And under new leadership, we pledge it will never happen again.

    Here’s another truth. Mass low-skilled immigration is not good for our country. It puts pressure on housing. It puts pressure on hospitals and schools. And before the open-borders Left say anything, less than 3 per cent of recent immigration has been for NHS doctors and nurses.

    It also undermines social cohesion. Over a million people speak little or no English. In one east London borough, a shocking 73 per cent of children don’t speak English as their first language.

    For some nationalities, workforce participation – especially for women – is pitifully low. And Afghan national men are 22 times more likely to be convicted of a sex offence. We can’t carry on like this.

    A nation that is not united by common values and a common identity will fracture and break. As Abraham Lincoln said, a house divided cannot stand. And so it is with our society. A fractured society will lead to a broken country.

    Being British is not about colour. But it is about accepting and embodying our long-standing values as a nation. It is about loving this country and its history, and believing in this United Kingdom. It means caring more about this country than about any other. That is what it means to be British.

    And here’s another truth. We must also be honest that mass immigration is not good for the economy. Just one in seven of recent arrivals from outside Europe came here primarily for work. And even those who did come here to work, around half did so for low wages. People who work on low wages pay less in tax than they consume in services. So, it is a myth – it’s untrue – that mass low-skill immigration is good for the economy. It isn’t.

    Perhaps one reason that productivity has stagnated is that some businesses have relied on importing low-skilled workers instead of investing in technology and automation, as many other countries have.

    And one of the reasons there are nine million adults not working is that business has hired low-skilled foreign workers instead. So, rather than import low-skilled workers, let’s get people here into work and let’s invest in technology.

    Now, of course we welcome limited high-skilled immigration – in the tech sector, in the finance sector, in scientific research, or for medicine. We should make it easy to come and work in those high-skill, high-wage sectors. But the days of mass low-skilled migration have to end.

    And that is why we will ensure that those who have come here to work, but have not worked or have only worked on low wages, must leave when their visa expires.

    And that is why only those who are making a contribution can stay permanently, and those who are not citizens cannot expect to receive any benefits funded by taxpayers.

    And that is why we will set a binding annual cap on immigration, voted on each year by our sovereign Parliament. A Conservative government will set that cap at a low level to ensure more people leave than arrive. We will deliver sustained negative net migration.

    This is a common-sense plan. Strong policies, properly worked through. Real change. Building a genuinely united society. That is the change we will deliver.

    And we will have a common-sense plan for crime and policing too, supporting the fantastic Conservative Police and Crime Commissioners we have elected. Stand up and have a round of applause. There we are. Fighting crime up and down the country.

    And while I am saying thank you to our team, I should say thank you to Katie Lam and our shadow ministerial team, and to Matt Vickers, Alicia Kearns and Harriet Cross.

    Now, nothing is more important than keeping our families safe. And this calls for zero tolerance on crime.

    But Labour seems more interested in what people say on social media than in catching burglars. It is time to end the madness of police showing up on someone’s doorstep because they have offended someone online. The police should catch real criminals, not off-colour tweets.

    Policing non-criminal social media posts is a catastrophic waste of time, and it tramples on free speech. In government we would end this nonsense, and we will abolish non-crime hate incidents. So you can tweet away.

    Conference, there is no room in policing for politically correct posturing. And what I have to tell you now will shock you: there is a so-called anti-racism commitment plan from the College of Policing and the Police Chiefs’ Council that literally says policing should not be colour-blind.

    Let me be clear: yes, it should.

    Treating racial groups differently to engineer the same arrest rate even if offending rates are different is immoral. It’s plain wrong. People should stand equal before the law. It is that simple. Woke nonsense in policing has to end, and as Home Secretary I will scrap that absurd document.

    Now, we left office with record-ever police numbers – nearly 150,000 in fact, 149,769 to be precise, in March 2024. Not that I was counting. Now, under Labour these numbers are already going down, while shoplifting has surged 20 per cent to a record level, and overall crime went up 7 per cent in Labour’s first year, reversing the declining trend under the last government, I might add.

    Real crimes are going uninvestigated. Weak on crime, weak on the causes of crime. That is Labour today.

    So, we need to turn this around. We commit today to hiring 10,000 extra police officers at a cost of £800 million per year, funded by some of the Chancellor’s savings announced on Monday.

    These 10,000 extra police officers will catch more criminals, and they will protect our streets. That is our commitment.

    And we will use some of these extra officers to deliver surge hotspot policing in 2,000 high-crime neighbourhoods across the country. They will deliver eight million hours a year of hotspot surge patrolling and prevent 35,000 crimes.

    Every area where there is a serious crime problem should have intensive patrolling, all year round. That will deter crime and catch criminals. All of the evidence clearly shows that this works, as I saw with Katy in Brighton a year or so ago – Katy Bourne, the PCC for Sussex. So, we will mandate this hotspot patrolling. And I hope there will be support for her mayoral campaign too.

    Now, we will also take knives off the streets. As a London MP, I’m afraid to say I’ve seen first-hand the devastating effects of knife crime, including the unimaginable grief of bereaved parents at their child’s funeral. I will never forget that as long as I live.

    Stop and search takes knives off the streets. It catches criminals. When its use is measured not against the general population, but against the offending population, the use of stop and search is not racially disproportionate.

    Under the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, stop and searches dropped 60 per cent – and what do you think happened to knife crime? It went up by 86 per cent under Sadiq Khan. People are losing their lives as a result of this piece of Labour woke ideology.

    It’s insane that the smell of cannabis alone, or someone wearing a menacing mask, does not generally allow a stop and search.

    In my view, a single suspicion indicator should be enough. So, in our hotspot areas, we will allow routine stop and search without suspicion – anyone can be searched. We will change the law to do this, and we will triple the use of stop and search. Lives will be saved, and knives will be taken off our streets. We have the courage to do that; Labour does not.

    We will also continue to fight for victims of rape gangs, where the sickening rape of young girls was covered up because the perpetrators were of mainly Pakistani origin. The government only agreed to a national inquiry, as you saw from that video, because they were forced to. And months later, that inquiry has still not been set up. Keir Starmer may think standing up for rape gang victims is a far-right bandwagon, but we think it’s justice, and we will keep fighting until we get it.

    We will also fight the scourge of terrorism. We stand here on the anniversary of the atrocity committed on 7 October 2023 – a day that will live in infamy. And we saw it on the streets of this city, just a few miles from where we now stand, at 9.31 last Thursday morning.

    But let me say this: we will never be intimidated by terror. We will stand with this country’s Jewish community and fight, with all our energy and all our resolve, the ancient evil of antisemitism wherever it is found.

    And we must be honest. Islamist extremism makes up the clear majority of counter-terrorism caseloads. We must all stand up, all of us in society, to extremism wherever we see it. Because standing by and saying nothing when encountering extremism is complicity. Those expressing extremism, antisemitism, racial or religious hatred of any kind, or support for terrorism, who are not British citizens, should be removed from this country, including those at the student marches today.

    I would like to thank all the officers who responded bravely to last Thursday’s terrorist murder, and all the officers and security services up and down the country who take risks to protect us every single day. So let us say this to them: thank you.

    Now let me finish by saying this. There is now only one party that will stand up for working families and for business; only one party that will stand up for pensioners, for farmers, for parents and pupils; only one party that will stand up for our military; only one party that will stand for law and order; only one party with a proper plan to protect our borders; and only one party that will stand up for Britain and all its people. That party is the Conservative Party. And if we stand together, if we stick together, we will win together, and deliver the change this country needs.

  • Laura Trott – 2025 Speech to Conservative Party Conference

    Laura Trott – 2025 Speech to Conservative Party Conference

    The speech made by Laura Trott, the Shadow Education Secretary, in Manchester on 7 October 2025.

    Conference, hello.

    It is an honour to address you as Shadow Education Secretary, a job I have always dreamed of doing.

    Education Secretary would obviously be better, but I am working on it.

    Three people are on my mind as I speak to you today, three people who have shaped my thinking, whose stories I want to replicate across the country.

    The first is a girl called Celine, who I heard about from her headteacher.

    She lived on a dangerous council estate in Sheffield.

    The closest school to her home was not delivering for children.

    It was unsafe, with dismal results and terrible behaviour.

    It had been that way for years, as was the case with all the schools in the area.

    That is, until the arrival of the free schools programme, a Conservative policy pioneered by the formidable Michael Gove and Nick Gibb.

    Thanks to them, a brilliant headteacher called Dean Webster was able to establish Mercia School.

    When Mercia opened, Celine got her sliding doors moment: a chance to attend a different, better school.

    When she started at the new school, the headteacher Dean visited Celine in her flat.

    He told me how, on his way there, he passed gangs on the corner and had to step over people passed out on drugs.

    It was a glimpse into the world awaiting Celine. However, through a traditional academic education, a longer school day, and zero tolerance for bad behaviour, Mercia School gave Celine a lifeline.

    I am delighted to tell you that this summer, Celine achieved top A-Level results and is now going on to study Law at university.

    A brilliant school set her on a very different path, a school which did not exist 15 years ago and would never have existed without Conservatives in Government. That is the difference we can make.

    The second person whose story I would like to share today is a young boy I met in Ilford. I shall call him Mason, but that was not his real name.

    He had a horrendous home life and, for understandable reasons, was acting out terribly at school.

    He was not coping.

    He was making life a misery and learning impossible, not just for him but for the other 29 children in his class too.

    Enough was enough, and Mason was rightly removed from mainstream education and placed in alternative provision for children with behavioural problems.

    That is where I met him. This specialist provision helped change his life. It was his version of intensive care, helping him to get back on his feet, with the highly specialised support that he needed and so craved.

    There are too many who think it is compassionate to keep a child like Mason in mainstream school, at the expense not just of his future, but that of his classmates’ futures too.

    Let me tell you what real compassion looks like:

    It is taking Mason out of a setting that was failing him, letting him get the extra support he clearly needed.

    That is what we need to fight for, for children like Mason.

    The third person whose story I would like to share is a teacher called Kat.

    I met Kat on a recent visit to her school, Trinity, a free school in a deprived area in Leeds where she is the Principal.

    Sixty-one per cent of her pupils are disadvantaged, and over 70 per cent do not have English as their first language.

    Kat radiates passion for her school, her teachers, and her students, and her energy is infectious.

    She was rightly proud of the curriculum they have developed, the high standards of behaviour they expect from every student, and the results they are seeing every day, which far outstrip anything previously achieved in the local area.

    Results, I might add, that they can only achieve because of the freedoms that come with being an academy.

    Freedoms that I refuse to let the Labour Government take away casually without any thought for the consequences.

    Celine, Mason, and Kat: I am in their service, and that of the thousands like them.

    They are why I do this job.

    Unlike Bridget Phillipson, I will never come to work thinking only about the unions.

    Conference, we know that this Party, the Conservative Party, is the true party of opportunity.

    We know it is not about where you have come from, but where you are going.

    You should not be defined by who your parents are or where you were born, but by your ideas and what you have to contribute.

    That is why the Conservative Party is the party of opportunity. We Conservatives never succumb to the soft bigotry of low expectations, because we believe that every child should have a chance in life.

    Reforming schools unleashes opportunity. Plain and simple.

    However, it is not enough just to believe in public service reform. The inconvenient reality, and other parties might want to note, is that you actually have to have a plan to deliver it too.

    That is exactly what the Conservatives in Government did.

    An Academies Act passed in 77 days.

    Hundreds of new free schools.

    Thousands of new academies.

    A rigorous curriculum.

    High-quality technical education.

    Tougher exams.

    Better teaching standards.

    Phonics.

    A stop to grade inflation.

    Calculators in exams thrown out.

    Millions more children in good and outstanding schools.

    That is what Conservatives did in Government.

    We reformed schools, and standards went through the roof.

    Those schools have improved not through words, but through strong accountability, academic rigour, rigorous inspection, and freedoms.

    Crucially, all of that happens with teachers, not bureaucrats, in control.

    Conference, under us, English children became the best at reading and maths in the Western world.

    This is an achievement that other countries marvel at. They look to us as an example of what they want to replicate in their schools.

    They are eager to learn how this was achieved. However, unbelievably, all of these reforms are under threat.

    They are under threat from a Labour Party who believe in backing unions over backing children, a Labour Party that even booed one of Britain’s best headteachers in the House of Commons, simply because she runs a school that was opened by a Conservative Government.

    The only consistent strand of this Labour Government is that union demands come ahead of the interests of children in this country.

    It should be no surprise to anyone that Bridget Phillipson is running to be deputy leader of the Labour Party.

    As Education Secretary, she has spent more time appeasing union bosses than standing up for children.

    From the outset, her loyalties were clear.

    In her first few months, she held dozens of meetings with union leaders, allowing them to write her policies.

    What was the result?

    A Schools Bill that nobody voted for.

    Botched Ofsted reforms.

    A dumbing down of standards.

    A misguided curriculum review.

    Every single time the Education Secretary has been confronted with a tough decision, she has capitulated to the left.

    This might help with her deputy leadership election, but it does not help children at school.

    In all the chaos going on in the world, we must stop and realise the extent of the damage that Labour are doing to schoolchildren, and that starts with unpicking our school reforms.

    There is no evidence that Labour’s so-called reforms driven by unions will improve a single school. Not one.

    The sad fact is, we already have a live case study of why Labour’s changes will not work. It is a little over 40 miles away from this hall.

    Over the border, children in Labour-run Wales are being let down. They are untouched by the education revolution seen here in England. Unfortunately, Wales has seen plummeting standards and poorer outcomes.

    Just look at this graph. Instead of learning what not to do from Wales, the Education Secretary is inexplicably repeating the very same policies. The very same mistakes.

    Why? Because union bosses want her to.

    Trading policy for their votes.

    All to the detriment of children’s education.

    Shame on the Labour Party.

    Shame on them for letting that waste of potential happen here.

    Labour are turning their backs on everything we know improves schools, everything that people in this hall have worked so hard for, everything that Celine, Mason, and Kat need.

    This is a quiet betrayal of all children, but it is the poorest who will be most affected.

    This is nothing less than educational vandalism.

    Conference, together with my brilliant Shadow Education team, Diana, Saqib, Rebecca, and Jack, we will fight it every step of the way.

    Let me turn now to one of the key problems facing our schools: behaviour.

    We must ensure that every child who goes to school is given the chance to learn from excellent teachers and without fear for their safety.

    I went to a good comprehensive, with some brilliant teachers to whom I am extremely grateful.

    However, I also saw the consequences of bad behaviour.

    I can tell you, being at a school where teachers are sometimes locked in cupboards, things are thrown in the classroom, and fights break out in the hallway does not make it easy to learn, or for teachers to teach.

    The truth is that children cannot learn if they are stuck in a chaotic environment where bad behaviour runs rife.

    You would think this is obvious, but not, it seems, to the Labour Party.

    Sadiq Khan thinks that when you bring a knife into a classroom, you should not be expelled.

    Andy Burnham, who has been a popular topic of conversation recently, called for an end to pupil referral units, so no more expulsions for the most disruptive pupils. That is mad.

    North of the border in Scotland, the SNP have actively sought to keep disruptive pupils in mainstream schools, to the point where last year just a single pupil was permanently excluded over an entire academic year, across the whole of Scotland.

    Conference, turning a blind eye to aggression, disruption, or violence is not moral leadership; it is an abdication of responsibility.

    Pursuing inclusion at the expense of order is the opposite of compassion.

    It abandons the child who needs real specialist help and who is crying out for support.

    Instead of this left-wing nonsense, we have a blueprint to improve discipline, building on the work of the last Government.

    It starts with being honest about the need for permanent exclusions.

    We cannot shy away from setting clear boundaries, excluding pupils when they have been extremely violent or are carrying a knife.

    This is not about giving up on those children. It is the opposite.

    Children must learn that actions have consequences. That is how the world works.

    Under the Conservatives, our policy is simple: one knife and you are out.

    If you assault a teacher, then you are out.

    If you sexually assault someone, then you are out.

    If you have been expelled from not just one but two mainstream schools, then it is clear that mainstream classrooms are not for you.

    If children bring knives into the classroom, then they should not be there.

    If they are violent, then they should not be there.

    Under the Conservatives, they will not be there.

    However, the important piece of the jigsaw here is that, once children have been excluded, it is our duty to them and their future to give them the support they need, moving them into specialist alternative provision, where they stand a real chance of success.

    Staff in these settings work with extraordinary dedication to turn around the lives of children.

    I have seen this first-hand. When done well, it is a quality of education that can be tailored to their needs.

    I saw that with Mason. However, we need more places like this.

    It is clear to me that there is not enough high-quality alternative provision, and as a result, disruptive pupils are being kept in mainstream education for far too long.

    Our blueprint will create more high-quality places in alternative provision, reducing disruption for the many who suffer from it and delivering specialist support for the few who need it.

    Every local area should have specialist provision, partnering with football teams and sports clubs who are brilliant at engaging young people.

    Just yesterday, I visited Old Trafford and saw the amazing work that Manchester United Foundation are doing to provide young people with role models, mentors, routine, and discipline. This should be everywhere.

    Girls should have separate provision from violent young men. We should push standards up through every academy chain, partnering with one.

    We should make alternative provision independent of local authorities. We should ensure that every provider is registered so that every setting is inspected by Ofsted, ensuring proper accountability and rigour, especially in those settings for some of the most disadvantaged and challenged children.

    We must ensure that those children, especially the most violent, are turning up to their alternative provision, that they are not slipping out of sight and into criminality.

    We believe children should be in the classroom, not on the street. Fines should be issued automatically when they are not there, because these children need help, and we need to ensure they get it, and they only get it if they turn up.

    If we do all this, we can show compassion for those who need it most, not by some false inclusivity that damages everyone, but by challenging and fixing the behavioural issues.

    Now, let me address another problem causing behaviour issues: smartphones.

    Time after time, teachers have told me that smartphones are one of the biggest causes of bad behaviour.

    The government’s own research shows that they disrupt nearly half of GCSE classes every single day.

    Look abroad: in Portugal, schools that banned smartphones saw a huge drop in bullying.

    Australia, Norway, Finland, and France are all tightening restrictions on smartphones.

    Meanwhile, Labour ignore our calls for action.

    The single biggest thing Labour could do, right now, to improve behaviour is to get smartphones out of the classroom.

    Yet, the Prime Minister says a ban is unnecessary.

    Bridget Phillipson calls it a gimmick.

    While they stick their heads in the sand, who suffers the most?

    It is the most disadvantaged.

    When I first started going into schools to talk about this to the students, I did not necessarily expect to be the most popular person.

    Taking away smartphones from teenagers is not something you think will go down particularly well.

    Yet I have been overwhelmed by the response.

    The most frequent reaction from students after a ban has been put in place is one of pure relief.

    I will never forget the face of one boy when he told me that it made him feel safe.

    Young people do not want this to be an issue they have to deal with. They want the adults to sort this out.

    I am speaking to Bridget Phillipson directly now:

    For goodness’ sake, just get on and do it.

    The sad truth is this: we have had broken promise after broken promise from the Department for Education.

    You simply cannot trust Bridget Phillipson when she says she is going to improve our schools.

    Conference, you all know about Labour’s plans to become the only country in Europe to tax education.

    It was one of their core manifesto pledges and one of their most vindictive.

    The result of their attack on the independent sector is not more teachers in state schools, but fewer. Four hundred fewer, to be precise.

    We have not got a better state school system from Labour’s education tax. We have just got more crowding in classrooms, because independent schools are closing at a record rate.

    Pressure is being piled on the state sector in a way that teachers across the school system warned about.

    The Prime Minister himself admitted money is not going to state schools.

    Conference, and I promise you I am not making this up, instead of using the money to hire more teachers as the manifesto said, the Prime Minister is using the money to house illegal migrants.

    Under the Conservatives, we will never tax education to make our state schools worse off.

    Conference, as I have laid out for you today, by blindly following trade union orthodoxy, Labour are taking us backwards.

    It took real courage and conviction for us to get those school reforms through 15 years ago. Headlines of local papers at the time read: “Hands off our failing schools.”

    Unions were allergic to the change, competition, and accountability.

    Decades on, Labour’s stated ambition for their so-called reforms is to create more consistency in the education system. Not excellence.

    In practice, that means levelling down across the board.

    In recent decades, parents and children have voted with their feet.

    Bad schools closed. Good schools thrived. That is the strength of choice. Those are Conservative principles in action.

    Labour’s Schools Bill rips that apart, handing local authorities sweeping new powers, not only to block good schools from growing, but even to stop an outstanding school from keeping the same number of pupils. This is madness.

    It risks shattering the life chances of some of our most deprived children.

    We know that turning failing schools into academies is the single most effective way of helping children.

    Yet Labour will keep children trapped in failing schools for longer, denying them the opportunity they deserve.

    This will be Labour’s record.

    That will be Bridget Phillipson’s legacy.

    That is why we must fight them all the way.

    Fight the educational vandalism of Bridget Phillipson, who puts the unions’ interests above British interests, above the interests of Celine, Mason, and Kat.

    Teachers deserve better. The next generation deserves better. Our country deserves better.

    It is the Conservatives who have reformed education for the better before.

    We will do so again.

    Thank you.

  • Laura Trott – 2023 Speech on Raising the State Pension Age to 68

    Laura Trott – 2023 Speech on Raising the State Pension Age to 68

    The speech made by Laura Trott, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, in the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.

    I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) for raising this important issue, and all the other Members who have contributed to the debate.

    The Government remain committed to ensuring that older people can live with the dignity and respect they deserve, and I absolutely reaffirm that the state pension is and will remain the foundation of state support for older people. As has already been pointed out today, changes in the state pension age have been made in a series of Acts by successive Governments from 1995—when the state pension ages of men and women were equalised—onwards, following public consultations and extensive debates in both Houses.

    The state pension age is currently 66, and will increase to 67 in 2026-28. As was mentioned by the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), Labour legislated for it to increase to 68 in 2044-46, but, following the Cridland review of 2017, the current Government policy is to bring the increase to 68 forward to 2037-39. That is the baseline; we are required under law to review it every six years, and that is what is now being undertaken.

    As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley, the coalition Government of 2010 to 2015 were committed to the “core principle” that people should spend, on average,

    “up to one third of their adult life drawing a State Pension.”

    They were also committed to giving individuals at least 10 years’ notice of any changes affecting them. The first review of the state pension age following the Pensions Act 2014 was undertaken in 2017, informed by both the Government Actuary’s report and the independent report undertaken by John Cridland. As I have set out, Cridland recommended bringing forward the increase in the state pension age to 68 from 2044 to 2026, as set out in legislation, to 2037 to 2039.

    Sir Stephen Timms

    The two documents from 2017 to which the Minister referred were published four months before the Government’s announcement. Why have the Government not published the documents before their announcement this time around, and will she do so now?

    Laura Trott

    I had a suspicion that the right hon. Gentleman might bring that up. As he rightly pointed out, I have written to him today to explain the rationale behind this, but I will confirm that both documents will be published in full. I look forward to discussing them with his Committee in due course.

    Sir Stephen Timms

    I just want to know why they have not been published. What is the public interest in keeping these things hidden?

    Laura Trott

    As I have said, they will be published in full. On the timing of publication, there is work going on in Government to undertake the review. Once it is finished the documents will be published.

    The 2017 review was based on a recommendation to aim for “up to 32%” as the average proportion of adult life spent in receipt of state pension. The review used 2014-based life expectancy data. The Government accepted those recommendations, subject to a further review, before tabling the requisite legislative amendments. The savings from bringing forward this rise to 68 have already been included in published fiscal forecasts.

    On 14 December 2021, the Government launched the second periodic review of the state pension age, and work is now under way to complete it, as required by legislation. The review must be published by May 2023, in accordance with section 27 of the Pensions Act 2014. At the autumn statement, the Chancellor committed to concluding the review in early 2023.

    As part of the second review, the Secretary of State is considering evidence from two independent reports. The first, a report from the Government Actuary, assesses the latest life expectancy projections from all regions of the UK. There has been a lot of talk about life expectancy today, so I want to put on record the fact that the most recent projections from the Office for National Statistics show a slower rate of improvement in life expectancy than those that informed the Pensions Act 2014 and the Pension Schemes Act 2017. Nevertheless, despite the slower improvement rate, ONS projections continue to show increasing life expectancy over time, and the number of people over state pension age is expected to continue to rise. I can also confirm for the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) that the review will consider the latest recommendations, as well as a wide range of other evidence, before reaching any conclusions about the state pension age.

    The second report that will be taken into account is an independent report by Baroness Neville-Rolfe, which will consider recent trends in life expectancy and the range of metrics that we could use when setting the state pension age, including the metrics mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley. We will publish both documents in full. With respect to the question of whether Baroness Neville-Rolfe will appear before the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, that is a matter for the Committee and for her.

    Alongside examining the implications of the latest life expectancy data, the Government review is assessing the costs of an ageing society and future state pension expenditure, as well as considering labour market changes and people’s ability and opportunities to work up to state pension age, bearing in mind recent trends in life expectancy.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley highlighted the position of those who cannot continue to work. The review will evaluate the impact of previous changes to the state pension age for all individuals, including those with long-term health conditions or disability. The Government continue to provide substantial support for people who are unable to work.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) made some important points about age discrimination. The Government’s business champion for older workers, Andy Briggs, spearheads the Government’s work to promote the benefits of older workers and multigenerational workforces across England, influencing them strategically and by offering practical advice. I will ensure that my hon. Friend’s points about discrimination are passed on to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

    The review will aim to keep the right balance between affordability, sustainability and fairness between generations. The review has not yet concluded—it is very important to emphasise that, given some of the comments today—and I will not pre-empt its outcome. The Government are committed to ensuring that older people have dignity and security in later life, regardless of where in the UK they are living. The Government introduced further targeted support, including cost of living payments of up to £900 for the most vulnerable households and an additional £1 billion, including Barnett impact, to enable the extension of the household support fund in England in the next financial year. Since 2010, the full yearly amount of the basic state pension has risen by over £2,300 in cash terms. That is £790 higher than if it had been uprated by prices, and £945 more than if it had been uprated by earnings. For the first time, from April 2023, the full rate of the new state pension is worth over £10,000 per year.

    Automatic enrolment is having a transformational effect on private savings. Over 10.8 million people have been automatically enrolled in a workplace pension, helping to deliver about an additional £33 billion into pension savings in real terms in 2021 compared with 2012. The hon. Member for North East Fife mentioned the PHSO inquiry. She will know that that is ongoing, so it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it until it concludes.

    The Government are committed to ensuring that the state pension continues to provide the foundation for people’s retirement income and are proud of the support they have given pensioners since 2010. I welcome today’s debate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley. As I have outlined, the Government take the setting of the state pension age very seriously. I look forward to being able to discuss this matter further—I am sure we will—when the Government finally publish their second review.

  • Laura Trott – 2023 Speech to the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association

    Laura Trott – 2023 Speech to the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association

    The speech made by Laura Trott, the Pensions Minister, to the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association on 30 January 2023.

    Good afternoon, it’s great to be here at the PLSA, as we launch further measures to ensure people saving into a workplace pension are treated fairly, are properly protected and can enjoy the secure retirement they expect and deserve.

    Today’s measures are just one part of our wider reforms to the private pensions sector. Reforms, which, together, recognise and respond to a sector that has undergone significant change over the past few decades.

    The move we’ve seen from Defined Benefit to Defined Contribution schemes means it is individuals who now shoulder greater responsibility for growing their pension pot.

    It is a structural shift that has led to stark generational differences between those who can expect a predictable level of retirement income – guaranteed by their employer – and those for whom there are no such guarantees.

    There is increased risk and uncertainty compared to decades previously and often less adequacy.

    The introduction of Automatic Enrolment in 2012 under the Conservatives was a game-changer.

    For over ten years, it has been embedding a culture of retirement saving for a new generation within a new pensions landscape.

    Millions more people are now saving into a workplace pension – with 10.8 million workers enrolled so far and £33 billion more saved in real terms in 2021 than in 2012.

    But as well as coverage, we also need to focus on quality and outcomes.

    Having created a new generation of savers, it’s only right that we help them maximise the value of their hard-earned retirement in later life.

    Pension Freedoms have provided more flexibility for people to choose how and when to access their pension savings.

    Alongside a record number of workplace pension savers and assets, there’s more choice and more freedoms.

    But with more choice, comes increased variability in terms of the retirement outcomes that schemes are delivering for savers.

    More freedoms put more decisions into the hands of individuals to make.

    As scheme members, many feel they are navigating through a hugely complex financial world.

    There is more that we can do to help. My plans for reform focus on three pillars. Increasing are Fairness, Adequacy and Predictability.

    On Fairness, if your scheme is underperforming and you don’t know about it, you could be losing out on thousands of pounds.

    When I started this role, I was shocked to see analysis showing a difference in returns between schemes over a 5-year period of up to 48% in some cases.

    This means that a saver with a pot of £10,000 will have notionally lost £5,000 over a 5-year period from being in a lowest performing scheme.

    This simply isn’t fair. Bringing fairness to our new system is the first pillar of my vision for pensions.

    All savers deserve to be confident that their pension scheme is working hard on their behalf and on track to deliver fair and predictable outcomes – reassurance that the generations that proceeded them would have had from their Defined Benefit pensions.

    To date, we have introduced “value for members” assessments which came into force in 2021.

    Today I am announcing that we will be going further, with a new Value for Money framework.

    The consultation I am launching today will seek your views on proposals to require all occupational pension schemes to publish a full assessment of the value their scheme is delivering relative to others.

    But what does value for money mean?

    When I talk about Value for Money, I don’t just mean low costs. Value for money means that savings are invested well, they are not being eroded by high charges and that schemes are helping members make the right decisions throughout their accumulation period.

    The consultation has been jointly developed with The Pensions Regulator and the Financial Conduct Authority. It proposes a framework that will increase transparency, comparability, and drive competition across the pension market.

    It will help to deliver long term value for hard-working savers, and it proposes giving the regulator the powers they need to tackle underperforming schemes.

  • Laura Trott – 2022 Speech on the State Pension

    Laura Trott – 2022 Speech on the State Pension

    The speech made by Laura Trott, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 12 December 2022.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. I thank all hon. Members for their valuable contributions, and the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for opening the debate.

    The Government disagree with the petition’s proposed approach. It makes two suggestions: to increase the state pension and to lower the retirement age. I will first address the proposal to increase the state pension to £380 a week. That would equate pensioner income with the national living wage in 2022-23. However, the national living wage and the state pension are two very different provisions, with distinct purposes. A direct comparison cannot be drawn between the levels of the two. The national living wage aims to protect low-income workers and to provide an incentive to work, by ensuring that workers benefit from being employed. However, most pensioners have already left the labour market. Comparisons made in the e-petition between headline state pension amounts and the national living wage do not consider the full package of state measures available to support people in retirement or the fact that pensioners do not pay national insurance or into a pension scheme through automatic enrolment.

    We need to be clear with the public that a state pension of £380 per week for every UK pensioner would be unaffordable. It would mean an annual cost of up to £251 billion if it was applied for 2022-23. That compares to the £110 billion we are currently forecast to spend on the state pension. In the UK we have a system of state and private pensions, which jointly provide an income for people in retirement. Most people will have a private or occupational pension on top of the state pension. In the 2021 financial year, the average net income of all pensioners was £361 per week, after housing costs. Crucially, the Government also provide around £67 billion each year in tax relief to boost private retirement savings. It is important to consider all aspects of Government support for retirement, rather than solely the state pension amount.

    The Government are committed to ensuring that the state pension continues to provide the foundations for people’s retirement income, and we are proud of the assistance we have given pensioners since 2010. Since 2010, the full yearly amount of the basic state pension has risen by over £2,300 in cash terms. That is £720 more than if it had been uprated by prices, and £570 more than if it had been uprated by earnings.

    As all hon. Members here today recognise, the Government have announced plans to apply the triple lock this year. It was announced, according to the normal parliamentary timetable, that from April the state pension will be over £3,000 per year higher in cash terms, which is double what it was in 2010, £790 more than if it had been uprated by prices, and £945 more than if it had been uprated by earnings.

    Pension credit has come up a lot today, as it should. Pension credit provides vital additional financial support by topping up the state pension and other retirement incomes. The hon. Member for Battersea referred to the minimum income guarantee, which is what we put in place to ensure that pensioners do not fall below a certain base. It also acts as a gateway to other help, including assistance with rent, council tax, NHS prescriptions and heating bills. Of immediate importance, it is a gateway to the additional cost of living payments we are paying to those on qualifying means-tested benefits. There is more that we need to do to link that up with other information that the Government have. I will be pleased to work with Opposition Members, as well as the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), in order to try to make that happen.

    We have taken direct action when pensioners have needed it, both through the pandemic and now with the rising cost of living. That includes the £650 cost of living payment, paid in two instalments, to help those on pension credit with the rising cost of living. As we all know—and I would like to emphasise this again—it is not too late for pensioners who are not already getting pension credit to qualify for the second instalment. That is because a claim for pension credit can be backdated for up to three months, provided the entitlement conditions are met throughout that time. To ensure that a successful backdated claim falls within the qualifying period for the second cost of living payment, we are urging people to claim pension credit as soon as possible, and by no later than 18 December.

    David Linden

    I appreciate that the Minister will not necessarily have the figures to hand, but would she be willing to write to me with information on how much the Government are spending on, for example, billboard campaigns and radio advertising to encourage pensioners to take part—in the same way they do with the levelling-up campaign?

    Laura Trott

    I would be more than happy to do so. I know that we spent £1.2 million over the summer. I have signed off a campaign for this winter, with more coming after Christmas, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the exact amounts.

    That leads me nicely on to the hon. Member for Battersea, who referred to the take-up campaign. We have had a huge take-up campaign over the summer, and we have done one recently as well. We have further communication planned. It is something I am very focused on, and I would like to work with all hon. Members who are interested to ensure that it happens.

    Marsha De Cordova

    Is any work being done to measure the impact of the summer campaign on the take-up of pension credit? Going forward, I am very happy to work with the Minister on this.

    Laura Trott

    We know that claims for pension credit have tripled since the summer. On average, we used to get 2,000 claims a week—that has gone up to 6,000. The seven out of 10 figure that everybody uses comes from the family resources survey, which was last done in 2019-20, which has caused the difficulty with exact details on eligibility. Because of the pandemic, the survey has not been repeated, and there is an 18-month delay on the figures. It is very difficult to get up-to-date data on actual eligibility levels, which is something that we need to address over the longer term. In the interim, though, we have the numbers of people who are making the claims through the line, which, as I have said, have gone up threefold.

    Matt Rodda

    Could the Minister explore the issue of pensioners who do not have English as their first language and other hard-to-reach groups whom Government information often struggles to reach? There have been success stories in the past where particular approaches have worked with some minority groups. Perhaps the Minister could write to me and other colleagues present on that matter.

    Laura Trott

    I am very happy to do so. If there are any specific approaches the hon. Gentleman thinks the Government should be taking, I am very open to any ideas he may have and would happily take them forward.

    The £650 cost of living payment is one of a number of measures in the Government’s £37 billion cost of living support package, which will ensure that the most vulnerable households will receive at least £1,200 this year. The package also includes a £400 reduction on energy bills for all domestic electricity customers over the coming months, plus a £150 council tax rebate for 85% of all UK households.

    In addition to the steps we have taken to address the cost of living for pensioners, we have also made long-term reforms to the state pension and introduced automatic enrolment to boost private saving. In 2016, the Government introduced the new state pension, which forms a clear foundation for individuals’ private savings to provide the retirement they want. At the heart of its design, we sought to correct some historic unfairness in the previous system, in particular for women, self-employed people and lower-paid workers. More than 3 million women are set to receive an average of £550 more a year by 2030. State pension outcomes are also expected to equalise for men and women by the early 2040s—more than a decade earlier than they would have aligned under the old system.

    I want to pause here to mention pensioner poverty, which was brought up by a number of hon. Members. I know it is something we all care deeply about. The Government are committed to action that helps to alleviate the levels of pensioner poverty. We are forecast to spend more than £134 billion on benefits for pensioners in 2022-23, which amounts to 5.4% of GDP and includes spending on the state pension that is forecast to be over £110 billion in 2022-23. Thankfully, there are 400,000 fewer pensioners in absolute poverty, both before and after housing costs, than in 2009-10, but there is, of course, always more to do.

    Automatic enrolment, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter), is transforming private saving. More than 10.7 million people have been automatically enrolled into a workplace pension and more than 2 million employers have complied with their duties to date. This has helped to supply around an additional £33 billion into pensions savings in real terms in 2021 compared to 2012. I want to bring up the findings of the 2017 review of measures for automatic enrolment, as the hon. Member for Battersea mentioned her support for the lower earnings limit. The 2017 review of automatic enrolment set out the ambition to enable people to save more and to start saving earlier by abolishing the lower earnings limit and reducing the qualifying age for automatic enrolment to 18 by the mid-2020s. We have always been clear that changes would be made in a way and at a time that are affordable, balancing the needs of savers, employers and taxpayers, and the Government are absolutely still committed to that.

    Together, the new state pension, automatic enrolment to workplace pensions and the safety net of pension credit will provide a robust system for pensioners for decades to come. A number of Members talked about international comparisons; OECD rankings show that, thanks to this Government’s reforms, the UK pensions systems will provide future workers with income replacement rates comparable to the OECD average and higher than countries such as Switzerland, Norway and Germany.

    Let me turn to the second suggestion: decreasing the state pension age to 60. The Government have no plans to reverse changes to the state pension age. Previous reforms have focused on maintaining the right balance between affordability, the sustainability of the state pension and fairness between generations. Changes to state pension age were made through a series of Acts, and by successive Governments, from 1995 onwards. Those reforms followed public consultations and extensive debates in both Houses of Parliament. The state pension is funded through the national insurance and tax contributions of the current working-age population. Like increasing the state pension, reducing the state pension age to 60 would massively increase the tax burden on the current working-age population and carry significant cost.

    David Linden

    I wonder whether the Minister might put on record the point that she just confirmed. In the debate on Scottish independence, Unionist campaigners often talk about how the UK somehow furnishes pensions. However, as the Minister just pointed out, the state pension is funded by ongoing national insurance contributions each and every day, which rather bursts the myth that is made by the Better Together campaign in Scotland.

    Laura Trott

    State pension entitlement is obviously built up through contributions over a period of time, but equally there is a huge burden on the state, and that has to be met at a given point. As we have discussed, pension pots are funded widely by both the working-age population and people later in life.

    The Government previously estimated that, had we not increased the state pension age for both men and women, the total additional cost to taxpayers—in 2018-19 prices—would have been around £215 billion for the period from 2010-11 to 2025-26. Lowering the state pension age is clearly unaffordable, and would place an ever-increasing and unfair burden on taxpayers. That would not be right, particularly as life expectancy continues to rise.

    A number of hon. Members mentioned the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. The PHSO is undertaking a multi-stage process, and it has not given its final findings on the overall investigation. If the PHSO finds injustice, it will move on to stage 3 and consider any recommendations. The DWP will wait before taking any further steps.

    The UK has an ageing population and workforce. The proportion of people aged 50 years and over compared to those aged 16 and over is projected to increase from 42% in 2010 to nearly 50% by 2035. That is nearly 29 million more people. Older workers will bring a wealth of skills and experience to the workplace, and they are vital to the economy. By working for longer, older people have the opportunity to improve their retirement income and benefit from the social engagement that employment brings. The hon. Member for Battersea was absolutely right that we need to support workers in later life, and BEIS is working on exactly that.

    In conclusion, I welcome today’s debate and acknowledge the proposals set out in the e-petition. As I have mentioned, the Government provide wide-ranging measures to support people in retirement. Our recent announcement of plans to apply the triple lock this year demonstrates our commitment to providing a strong foundation of support for pensioners.

  • Laura Trott – 2022 Speech on the State Pension Triple Lock

    Laura Trott – 2022 Speech on the State Pension Triple Lock

    The speech made by Laura Trott, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, in the House of Commons on 8 November 2022.

    I thank all hon. Members for their valuable contributions to the debate.

    Since 2010, pensioner incomes have gone up, absolute pensioner poverty has gone down and we have corrected the historic inequalities towards women in the state pension. That is a record that we on the Government Benches can be proud of. The decision on how to uprate state pension for this year is taken by the Secretary of State at the same time as the uprating decision on all benefits for those of working age and over state pension age.

    Alan Brown

    The Minister is repeating what the Secretary of State said earlier about pensioner poverty going down. The reality is that it is down only on old statistics. Pensioner poverty is increasing. Fuel poverty is increasing. So will the Government update the House on what the true figures on poverty are in the UK?

    Laura Trott

    We absolutely recognise that this is a very difficult time for pensioners. That is why we put a substantial package of support in place, which I will come on to later.

    The Secretary of State set out, when opening the debate, that the results of his uprating review will be announced alongside the autumn statement on 17 November. To nobody’s surprise, I will not be pre-empting the outcome of that review today. However, reflecting the debate this afternoon, it is important to highlight how pensioners have been supported since 2010.

    The yearly amount of the basic state pension has risen by over £2,300 in cash terms, rightly highlighted during the debate by my hon. Friends the Members for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), for Torbay (Kevin Foster) and for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson). Average weekly pensioner incomes have increased by 12% in real terms and as a result absolute pensioner poverty has fallen by 400,000 since 2010.

    We are forecast to spend over £134 billion on benefits for pensioners in 2022-23. That amounts to 5.4% of GDP.

    Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)

    If everything has been so good since 2010, why did the Government stand on a manifesto commitment in 2019 to protect the triple lock? What was the point of that?

    Laura Trott

    We have been absolutely clear about our record since 2010. I have been clear that I cannot pre-empt the decisions of the Secretary of State. The point is that we on the Government Benches have put plans in place to help pensioners this winter. We are not waiting until next April.

    Mr Mohindra

    I welcome the Minister to her place. Can the Minister confirm to the House again that, if we wait nine days, we will be given all the information this House seeks on the financial statement, which is due next week?

    Laura Trott

    My hon. Friend, on this as with so many other things, is absolutely right. I will make some progress now on my speech.

    At the heart of the 2016 reforms we made to the state pension was a correction of some of the historic unfairness in the previous system, particularly for women, the self-employed and lower-paid workers.

    Paula Barker

    Will the Minister give way?

    Laura Trott

    I am just going to make some progress, I am sorry.

    That means women no longer need to rely on the pension contributions of their husbands, and it is more generous to those who spend time looking after their children, as my hon. Friends the Members for Guildford (Angela Richardson) and for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) pointed out. As a result, more than 3 million women stand to receive an average of £550 more a year by 2030.

    Paula Barker

    Will the Minister give way?

    Laura Trott

    I am sorry, but as I said, I will make some progress.

    Under the state pension, outcomes are projected to equalise for men and women by the early 2040s, more than a decade earlier than they would have done under the old system.

    The other important pillar of the 2016 state pension reforms was automatic enrolment. That was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford), for Broadland and for Heywood and Middleton. Automatic enrolment into workplace pensions has had a transformative effect on pension-saving participation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland pointed out, private savings for pensions went down under Labour.

    Over 10.7 million people have been automatically enrolled into a pension by more than 2 million employers in every sector of the economy, seeing an additional £33 billion saved into workplace pensions each year compared with 2012. Automatic enrolment has helped many previously under-represented groups to begin pension savings, such as low earners, young people and women.

    Margaret Greenwood

    The Minister is being generous in giving way. It is good to see her being so keen on auto-enrolment. Will she be clear with the House that that policy was designed by the Labour party?

    Laura Trott

    But it was not implemented under the Labour Government.

    In 2012, 40% of eligible women working in the private sector participated in a workplace pension. As of 2021, that had increased to 87%—higher than for eligible men.

    Paula Barker

    Will the Minister give way?

    Laura Trott

    I will make a bit of progress; I have been quite generous on interventions.

    We know that the coming months will be tough for everyone, but especially for pensioners. I thank all hon. Members who have raised cases on behalf of their constituents. The Government fully understand the difficulties that pensioners will face this winter and will stand by those in the most need. That is why the Government have made substantial support available for pensioners struggling with the cost of living this winter. As my hon. Friends the Members for Wantage (David Johnston) and for Gloucester (Richard Graham) pointed out, we have not heard much from the Labour Front-Bench team today about what their plan would be for this winter.

    We have a plan that includes the £650 cost of living payment for those on pension credit to help with the rising cost of living. There is a £400 reduction on energy bills for all domestic electricity customers over the coming months and the £150 council tax rebate received by 85% of all UK households. Those on state pension will also receive an increased £500 winter fuel payment if they are under 80 or a £600 winter fuel payment if they are 80 or over. In total, that will mean that all pensioners receiving the state pension could receive up to £850 of additional support in the coming months and that pensioners on the lowest income who are claiming means-tested benefits will receive up to £1,500.

    Alan Brown

    Will the Minister give way?

    Laura Trott

    I will make a bit of progress and then come back to the hon. Gentleman.

    Pension credit was raised by a number of Members, including the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton), my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley and the hon. Members for Arfon (Hywel Williams) and for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood). My predecessor—the Minister for Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman)—put in a huge amount of work to increase awareness of pension credit. We have seen a significant increase in the number of claims, peaking at a 275% increase year on year during pension credit awareness week in June. We know, however, that only seven out of 10 people who are eligible to claim it do so. That means that £3,300 of additional support is not being claimed by around 850,000 households. Clearly, it would make a significant difference if even some of that money—totalling £1.7 billion—made its way into the pockets of the poorest pensioners.

    The benefit of pension credit is that, as many Members have mentioned, it passports to an array of additional support, even when a person’s entitlement is very small. A pension credit recipient will receive a TV licence if they are over the age of 75 and get access to housing benefit and council tax support. The second half of the Government’s cost of living support—worth £324—will also be paid to all pension credit recipients. However, time is running out for those who have not yet claimed pension credit. The crucial date is 18 December. If someone claims pension credit by then and is eligible for the maximum three-month backdating, they will receive £324 of support to which they are entitled. It is therefore essential that all of us here urge our constituents to visit the pension credit page of gov.uk or to call the number listed to check eligibility of claim.

    On automatic enrolment, the right hon. Member for East Ham and my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay raised an interesting idea. From the information that I have, the Government do not have the data to be able to do it, but I will definitely explore further the point about local government and what more we can do with data.

    Alan Brown

    The Minister spoke about the extra support for pensioners—I think she said it was £850. Does she realise that that does not even cover the increase in the average energy bill, which has gone up from £1,100 to £2,500? More importantly, what does she think energy bills will be when the Government’s support ends come April?

    Laura Trott

    That does not include the energy price guarantee.

    As the Secretary of State set out to the House and as I said at the start of my speech, we cannot pre-empt the fiscal statement, but it is the Conservatives who have increased the state pension, it was the Conservatives who introduced automatic enrolment and it is the Conservatives who have reduced absolute pensioner poverty. This Government have always protected and will always protect the most vulnerable: that has been our track record since 2010, and that is what we will continue to do.

  • Laura Trott – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II

    Laura Trott – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II

    The tribute made by Laura Trott, the Conservative MP for Sevenoaks, in the House of Commons on 10 September 2022.

    It is a privilege to hear the incredible tributes we have heard today.

    Her Majesty touched the lives and hearts of everyone in Sevenoaks and Swanley. When I went to sign the book of condolence yesterday, it was full of incredible stories and tributes, but I thought I would reflect today on Her Majesty’s relationship with one of my more famous former constituents, and her first Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill. Describing Her Majesty on the day of her coronation, Sir Winston said she was

    “a Lady whom we respect because she is our Queen and whom we love because she is herself.”

    I think that sentiment is shared across the House today.

    Chartwell, Churchill’s country home for more than 40 years, is filled with his most cherished possessions. One photo stood out on my most recent trip there and it has been on my mind since Thursday evening, when we heard the statement from Buckingham Palace that we all dreaded. In Churchill’s bedroom, among many pictures of horses, is a framed photograph of Sir Winston on Buckingham Palace’s balcony on VE Day. He is standing next to the then King and Queen, and Princess Elizabeth and Princess Margaret. The photograph is signed by all four members of the royal family and celebrates one of the most important moments of Churchill’s life and career, as well as in the history of Britain. For Churchill to hang this picture on his bedroom wall, in his inner sanctum, shows just how important it was to him. The photo symbolises not only victory against tyranny but the vital role the royal family played in his wartime leadership and the strength of the relationship between Parliament and the Crown, a relationship that has never been more evident than in the past few days.

    On behalf of everyone in Sevenoaks and Swanley, I say, “Thank you, ma’am, for everything. We owe you so much.” May she rest in peace. God save the King.

  • Laura Trott – 2022 Speech on Energy Price Capping

    Laura Trott – 2022 Speech on Energy Price Capping

    The speech made by Laura Trott, the Conservative MP for Sevenoaks, in the House of Commons on 8 September 2022.

    My thoughts and prayers, and the thoughts and prayers of everyone in Sevenoaks and Swanley, are with Her Majesty the Queen and the royal family at this time.

    I warmly welcome today’s announcement. It will relieve a huge amount of anxiety for my constituents, for businesses such as Donnington Manor that are worried about being crippled by prices, and for schools such as Dunton Green Primary School whose energy bills are going up by 500%.

    I am glad that heating oil and heat networks are included in the announcement, although I question whether those prices will be frozen. The prices have gone up extensively this year and have tripled in some cases, such as for the Bourchier Court heat network, so it would be helpful to have clarification on whether that price will be frozen or whether it will be allowed to go up, with compensation provided later.

    I have previously spoken in this House about how it is illegal to cut off a household’s water supply. A water company can recoup its costs through the courts, but it cannot cut off a household’s water supply for reasons of non-payment. We should consider extending that to energy supply. There are some protections in place, and energy companies are not allowed to cut off a customer’s supply during the winter months if they live on their own, if they are of state pension age or if there is a child in the house.

    However, there is not enough protection. Ofgem has shown that one in seven households on a prepayment meter disconnected in 2019, so we should look at this seriously. We cannot have that number of disconnections, and the number is likely only to go up, when there is something we can do to send a very clear message that energy consumers will be safe this winter, so they do not need to worry, if it really comes to it, that their energy supply will be cut off. There would still be the mechanism by which costs can be recouped, but there would be a safety net for everybody. I think that would go a huge way towards reassuring people.

    I welcome today’s announcement, as it will really help my constituents. I hope to see further effort and work on ensuring the energy supply to households.

  • Laura Trott – 2022 Speech on the Cost of Living Crisis

    Laura Trott – 2022 Speech on the Cost of Living Crisis

    The speech made by Laura Trott, the Conservative MP for Sevenoaks, in the House of Commons on 17 May 2022.

    I welcome the opportunity to debate this topic and discuss what we can best do to help all of our constituents who are suffering today. Inflation is running at 7% here, 7.5% in Europe and 8.5% in the United States of America. The Bank of England Governor has been clear that 80% of the inflationary forces are outside the Government’s control and the reach of monetary policy, so we must look to fiscal policy to do as much as we can, while not making the problem worse by being inflationary.

    I turn first to the windfall tax. It is important to get the quantum in perspective. A windfall tax is not a silver bullet. It would be worth £2 billion overall, I think, which is about £72 a household or, if we targeted that at the lowest 25%, £280 a household. Of course that is helpful, but would it solve the problem? No.

    I have three concerns about the design of a windfall tax and whether we employ it. First, on protecting consumers, it is unorthodox to suggest that price reductions in a sector are best served by whacking a tax on the producers. It is difficult to see how that would result in price reductions in the sector. Of course, we have the price cap, and that would help in some respects, but without proper controls it is difficult to see how the costs would not ultimately be passed on to consumers.

    Secondly, on competition in the market, we all know that the industry is volatile: BP’s profits last year were at a record low, and they are now at an enormous high. The right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) was absolutely right that BP and Shell have not said that a windfall tax would be a disaster for them, but in many ways they would not say that, because they are huge players in the market and they could absorb it. The problem will be much more with the smaller players and the discouragement to competition that such a tax might result in. I strongly believe that the best way to drive down prices in the market is by encouraging competition. We have lost that recently, and I do not see how a windfall tax would encourage it or get it back in place.

    Finally, we need to be clear that the best thing we can do to help everyone is drive up economic growth, which is best served by businesses creating jobs and driving consumption. If we put a windfall tax on industries at random, that will discourage investment. I am not talking about individual projects here and there, and I recognise what BP has said, but in the business environment overall we need to be extremely clear about what our criteria are for imposing windfall taxes and, therefore, the impact those will have on investment in business overall. What we cannot do under any circumstances is give up our reputation for being a stable, low-taxation economy.

    That aside, I have one idea of my own to put to the Front-Bench team. I think that we should introduce a measure to make it illegal to disconnect the energy supply, similar to that for the water supply. Following privatisation in 1989, the Water Act 1989 prohibited the disconnection of the water supply to domestic customers for reasons of non-payment. Companies can therefore still take people to court for moneys owed, but they cannot cut off supply. Currently, energy suppliers cannot disconnect households over the winter months in some situations, such as those who live alone or with other people who have reached the state pension age. I propose that we extend that more widely to ensure that, in the very worst circumstances, we do not have people’s homes cut off. I hope that can be taken away and considered. More broadly, when we are talking about these issues and how we best help people, let us think about the potential quantum for the windfall tax: what it will raise, the potential harm it may cause and what the alternatives are.