MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition

Anna Turley Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Minister without Portfolio (Anna Turley)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I want to reassure you before I begin that I have notified the Members I will be mentioning today.

I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for a really important debate and for his long-standing, committed and passionate campaigning on such an important issue. I look forward to seeing his Bill. The time for these changes has come—a time that is long overdue. I also thank hon. Members for their contributions to today’s important and timely debate.

The Government were elected on a manifesto that committed to returning to a politics of service—something that we have heard a lot about from many hon. Members today. We want to ensure that public office holders are held to the highest standards, as the public rightly expect. Hon. Members remember the damage caused by scandal after scandal in the last Parliament, including the lobbying scandals of Matt Hancock, Owen Paterson and Scott Benton, which undermined the trust that people place in us to lead by example.

On top of our commitment to further tighten the rules on second jobs, I am really proud of the work that the Labour Government have undertaken so far. As per our manifesto pledge, we have established the independent Ethics and Integrity Commission, which has an independent chair and an expanded and ambitious remit to promote the highest standards in public life. I thank its members for the dedicated work that they have already completed to strengthen standards in public life.

Let me turn to the topic of this important debate. Our manifesto also said:

“The absence of rules on second jobs…means some constituents end up with MPs who spend more time on their second job, or lobbying for outside interests, than on representing them. Therefore, as an initial step, Labour will support an immediate ban on MPs from taking up paid advisory or consultancy roles. We will task the Modernisation Committee to take forward urgent work”—

in the context of this debate, I stress that it will be urgent—

“on the restrictions that need to be put in place to prevent MPs from taking up roles that stop them serving their constituents”.

We can be a bit frustrated at the pace of progress on the second part of that manifesto commitment, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) described as glacial.

To put some urgency behind this, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), stated in February:

“The Government are committed to the principle that second jobs for Members of Parliament should be banned outside very limited exceptions, such as maintaining a professional qualification.”—[Official Report, 9 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 567.]

The Government’s view is that MPs must prioritise their duty to Parliament and their constituents. The public would expect nothing less from us all. That is a very clear indication from the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister that the Government’s view is that second jobs should be banned outside very limited exceptions.

I am pleased that, on taking office in 2024, we immediately instructed officials to work with House authorities on tightening the rules about MPs and second jobs, in line with our promises. Just a month after the 2024 election, we put a motion before the House that closed two loopholes, which had allowed MPs to provide paid parliamentary advice on public policy and current affairs, and advice in general terms on how Parliament works. Frankly, I was shocked that that was possible before we came to power. Those rules clearly did not meet the public’s expectations of what MPs should focus on during their time in Parliament.

Following that, the previous Leader of the House of Commons, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), as Chair of the Modernisation Committee, wrote to the Committee on Standards to invite it to consider whether MPs’ ability to hold outside interests should be further restricted. The Leader of the House of Commons has worked closely with the Committee since it started its inquiry. I thank the current Leader of the House and his predecessor for their diligent work in this space and the support they have offered to the House as the inquiry has proceeded. The Leader of the House wrote to the Committee again in June to set out the Government’s expectations.

It is right that the Committee on Standards is at the heart of looking at the future rules governing the behaviour of MPs, given its deep expertise and the proven ability for its members to work together on a cross-party basis to promote high standards in public life. Again—I will come back to this later in my speech—I encourage it to heed the very clear words of the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, who said that second jobs should be banned “outside very limited exceptions”. We will urge it to increase the pace of its review.

As this debate has highlighted, there is some discussion about what constitutes a second job or outside interests, which can be varied. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) saw my jaw hit the desk when she talked about social media income—I had not seen that. It is absolutely astonishing that MPs can profit from clickbait and from driving hits and likes. The public can clearly see the contradiction and the conflict with representing constituents that could ensue from that, so I thank her for raising the issue.

Based on the letter that the Leader of the House sent to the Committee on Standards in June, I want to set out what the Government want to achieve and what we want the Committee to focus on. We believe that there are three core areas that need to be considered when determining whether an MP should be able to undertake an additional role: time, money and influence. I believe—and I hope all Members agree—that being an MP is an enormous privilege. I know from having lost and come back that nothing will ever eclipse the privilege that we get in this role; it is precious to all of us. It would not be right for the focus of anybody elected to this place to be diverted from delivering in the best interests of their constituents. The fact that it remains open to MPs to treat their parliamentary and constituency responsibilities as secondary to other work is outdated—Victorian, as others have said today. In the view of the Government, it has to change now.

How can it be right, for example, that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has 16 jobs, as we have heard? Just yesterday it was revealed that he is paid £22,500 per hour. Let us think about that: he is paid £22,500 per hour, as a brand ambassador for gold trading. That blows my mind. The same Member has taken £2 million on top of his parliamentary salary. He receives £400,000 for presenting shows on GB News. Up until March of this year, he was filmed doing Cameo clips, including offering best wishes to a far-right rioter and being paid to say, “Up the Ra!”

As of March 2026, he has spent the equivalent of 140 working days on his second job, according to Byline Times. I am not sure how anyone can see that as compatible with his obligations to the people of Clacton. Those are just the things we know about. Journalists uncovered a £5 million donation from a Thai crypto billionaire, which was not declared to Parliament.

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that direct criticism can be made only on a substantive motion. The particular language or assertion was perhaps not appropriate.

[Anna Turley]

I appreciate the Chair’s reflection, thank you. I will simply say that it is nice for some Members of Parliament to see a safe and secure future, which I am sure many of our constituents would dearly love for themselves.

My concern about the examples I gave is not just that it diminishes the individual Member in the eyes of the public. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), the shadow Minster, said that the onus is on the public to make a judgment. I completely appreciate that; it is true that the public will make a judgment. Such actions, however, do not just diminish the individual Member of Parliament. They diminish this place and our democracy, and they do a great disservice not just to the people of Clacton but the people of Britain.

The Government believe there is a clear difference, as the shadow Minister mentioned, between a second job and a ministerial or parliamentary role, such as being the Chair of a Select Committee, not least because, in performing those roles, Members are accountable to Parliament and are acting on behalf of the House to scrutinise the work of Government. As I have said, the Government do not believe MPs should have a second job that poses a distraction from an MP’s primary duty to Parliament and constituents. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said they should not be able to compromise, which is a similar approach. It should not be a distraction or compromise an MP’s ability to do their duty. Put simply, being an MP is a full-time job—more than a full-time job, as many of us know. Members should spend their time doing the best possible job, representing their constituents who put their trust in them in the general election.

The second principle is that any earnings from a second job must not create the impression that the second job is the MP’s primary source of income. MPs should decide whether they are brand ambassadors for gold bullion or ambassadors for the people they represent.

Thirdly, a job must not have an influence, or be perceived as having an influence, on an MP’s behaviour and the way they undertake their parliamentary duties.

I hope hon. Members across the House feel they can get behind those three reasonable tests and standards, and that they will reach out to the Committee on Standards to ensure their views are properly reflected in its considerations. I appreciate, as others have said, that we also have to be pragmatic and recognise that colleagues have had careers outside politics and many will need them again. The House is enriched by the experience of those roles—for example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) mentioned as a nurse, in the NHS.

Individuals are required to maintain professional qualifications, which is why changes must include qualifying exemptions, so the House can retain the expertise brought to it by those with successful careers before they came to this place. However, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) that this cannot be a loophole that is exploited. It is also important that some professions are not more equal than others. Everybody ought to have the ability to have a successful career after they leave Parliament, but that cannot be used as an excuse to justify earning a second income that could be detrimental their role as an MP.

This Government were elected on a manifesto that promised to change how our politics is conducted and bring an end to the lobbying scandals that defined the previous Government’s time in office. We are committed to returning to a politics of service and to upholding the standards in public life that our constituents demand we maintain. This Government remain committed to the promise we made to the country at the last general election. I am proud that we implemented immediate changes to lobbying, but as we have heard today, there is so much more to be done. I welcome the ongoing work of the Modernisation Committee and look forward to the recommendations the Committee on Standards will make to the House.

However—I will say this carefully, deliberately and as clearly as I can, perhaps in the hope of catching the ear of the next Prime Minister—this Government have the ability to draft and propose legislation and a big majority in the House. As I mentioned, parliamentarians here today and the Government have both the power and, crucially, the responsibility to protect this place and the privilege of being MP, not just for ourselves, but for those who come after.

I very much look forward to seeing the Bill drafted my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East. I look forward to all of us using our collective voice and working with the Committees to sort this matter now, because it is long overdue. I thank hon. Members for taking part in this debate and for ensuring that their constituents’ views on this important issue have been heard in this place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anna Turley Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)]

10. What steps he has taken to support the relocation of civil service roles.

[The Minister without Portfolio (Anna Turley)]

This Government are committed to delivering a truly national civil service, one that lives and breathes the communities that we represent across the UK. We have exceeded our target, having relocated 23,000 roles from London, and are now committed to over 50% of the senior civil service and our fast streamers being based outside London by 2030, so that our leadership is closer to the communities that we serve. We have also launched three new thematic campuses in Aberdeen, Manchester and the west midlands, building on the success of those in Sheffield, Leeds and Darlington. This work will drive a truly national civil service, and it will only continue.

[Ms Minns]

The Minister will know, because she represents a constituency not dissimilar from Carlisle, that our post-industrial towns and cities have ageing populations. In Carlisle, only 7% of the population is aged between 18 to 24, and the next smallest group is those aged 25 to 34. Will the Minister ensure that future civil service relocations give particular consideration to smaller cities and towns with ageing populations, so that we retain our young people, attract working-age populations, and support the long-term prosperity of those communities?

[Anna Turley]

I thank my hon. Friend for a really important question. I started my career as a civil servant, and I recommend that career to all young people; it is a truly brilliant career to start off in. We want those opportunities to be everywhere around the country, so we are working with all Departments to strengthen our presence in every English region, and in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Smaller towns and cities will continue to support our talent pipelines and remain crucial to our overall national presence, which includes 2,000 civil servants based in Cumbria. Across the north-west, we are establishing greater opportunities and more career pathways. North-west bootcamps have supported over 200 local professionals into entry-level civil service roles, and over 4,000 roles have been relocated to the region since the beginning of our Places for Growth programme.

[Will Stone]

Following the fantastic opening of the indoor drone testing facility in Swindon, what backing is the Minister giving to the relocation of civil service and Government roles in order to support this centre?

[Anna Turley]

I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in welcoming the opening of the Ministry of Defence indoor testing facility in Swindon; it is great news. He is right that it is vital that the civil service opportunities that it provides are strategically located, partly through the relocation of roles, but it is also crucial to ensure that this fantastic facility harnesses the skills and talents of his constituents.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her answer. I am very supportive of the Government’s tactic and policy. Back home in Northern Ireland, the relocation of civil service roles has been very important, but there is an issue that concerns me, and my constituents have asked me about it. Civil servants who are settled in, for example, Dundonald, outside Belfast, might then relocate to Londonderry or somewhere like Newry, many miles away, but they have a commitment to the communities they live in. Those who have permanent jobs and have been working somewhere for many years have children at school, a home and a mortgage, and a local social circle. Sometimes relocation is just not acceptable or even possible for them. Could the Minister indicate that there will be fair play for civil servants who have shown many years of commitment, that they will not have to move, and that there will be provision made for them?

[Anna Turley]

The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. We have to get the balance right. We have many fantastic civil servants embedded in their communities and delivering for them, which is great, but I am sure that he will agree with me on the importance of the opportunity that civil service roles offer to stimulate growth in regions across our nations. I am sure that he would support that. I look forward to continuing this discussion with him.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

9. What steps his Department is taking to improve cross-Government co-ordination on national resilience planning.

State of the Estate in 2024-25

Anna Turley Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister without Portfolio (Anna Turley)]

I have today laid before Parliament, pursuant to section 86 of the Climate Change Act 2008, the “State of the Estate in 2024-25”.

This report describes the progress made in improving the efficiency, sustainability and performance of the central Government estate.

The report confirms that the central Government estate comprised 203,400 assets in 2024-25. This included 181,100 built assets and around 22,400 land assets. The built estate had a total floor area of 159.1 million square metres, while the Government also held 640,400 hectares of land. The freehold value of the estate increased by 9.1% to £208.4 billion.

For the central Government estate within the scope of the greening Government commitments, the following changes were reported through that framework against the baseline 2017-18 financial year: by 2024-25, overall emissions had reduced by 42.1%, with energy costs reduced by an estimated £323.6 million.

Annual running costs reduced by 0.9% to £26.6 billion, despite continued inflationary pressures across utilities, maintenance and facilities management. Costs remain concentrated in a small number of operationally intensive portfolios, particularly health, defence and schools.

Efficiency savings reached £750 million, surpassing the £500 million target a year early, with the Government also raising £2 billion from property disposals ahead of time.

The “State of the Estate” report is published on an annual basis.

[HCWS1546]

Manchester Digital Campus

Anna Turley Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister without Portfolio (Anna Turley)]

Today I want to inform the House that the Manchester digital campus programme is progressing well following the formal approval of its outline business case.

This programme will change how Government works, bringing together Departments with a major digital focus on a new, purpose-built site in central Manchester. It supports our places for growth policy, wider Government priorities, and our Government digital and data strategy. The Manchester digital campus is expected to open in 2032.

By consolidating our footprint and moving high-quality decision-making roles out of London, this transformation will drive long-term estate efficiencies and deliver a more resilient shared infrastructure.

We will continue to work closely with local partners and across Government to ensure the campus delivers value for money and a clear strategic advantage for the United Kingdom. We will keep the House updated.

[HCWS1422]

Member Defections: Automatic By-elections

Anna Turley Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Minister without Portfolio (Anna Turley)]

I, for one, feel robbed of your contribution to this debate, Sir Roger; I think it would have been fascinating. It genuinely has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and a privilege to listen to the debate. I have certainly learned a lot about historical precedents and other things; it has been fascinating.

I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and the many thousands of people across the country who have signed the petition and taken part in our important democratic and parliamentary processes. I also thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for his thought-provoking contributions—it is important that we all challenge ourselves in this place—and, as I mentioned, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) has given me lots of food for thought as well. I thank everyone for their contributions.

At the last general election, the public voted for change following years of Conservative chaos. We saw a whopping 23 by-elections in just four and a half years prior to 2024. Those by-elections were caused by lobbying scandals, tractor videos, sexual misconduct, bullying—a horrible track record of MPs falling short of the standards that the public rightly expect of them. It is absolutely right that, in such circumstances, we have by-elections and the public are able to get rid of their MPs in that way. However, while I personally share the view of, I think, many of the petitioners from certain constituencies that defecting from the Conservatives to Reform is an awful thing to do—I notice that none of the hon. Members concerned is here today—I am not sure that it reaches the bar of requiring a by-election.

I have listened carefully to the contributions made by hon. Members from across the House, and I understand the concern at the heart of the petition. I am a true believer in party politics. I fundamentally believe, to quote the Labour party’s clause IV, that

“by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone”.

Only by working together with shared values can we ever truly achieve change.

I wanted to flag that in particular in answer to the point that the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley made about being an independent. We can bring so much more when we work together with our shared values, and that is a fundamental way in which we have been able to achieve change throughout history.

I joined the Labour party because I grew up in the ’80s and early ’90s under a Tory Government who seemed to accept that unemployment, inequality and poverty was a price worth paying. I made that choice to join a political party, and I could never be part of a party that believed in, or sought to uphold, a system of unequal privilege in this country.

I am Labour for a reason: I saw that only one party, throughout its history, has fought to give more power and opportunity to ordinary people, built great institutions for the many, such as the NHS, the Open University and Sure Start, and provided rights and protections for working people—and that only one party, at its heart, has the fundamental view that every child deserves to flourish, whatever their background.

[Robbie Moore]

I am always amazed when a Minister says at the Dispatch Box, “I have listened very carefully to the contributions,” yet they are reading from a speech that was written before they turned up to the debate. Let me ask the Minister this. A proportion of people will vote for the individual based not only on their name, but on their association with a political party. If they change their political allegiance during the Parliament, how does the Minister think that is fair to the wider electoral base?

[Anna Turley]

The hon. Gentleman is very impatient, because I was barely getting started on my speech. I will address that, because it is an important question that we have to challenge ourselves with, and it is right that we are here to debate it today, but I wanted to set out the primacy of party politics because, to me, it is about values. It is about what we believe in, and what kind of country and world we would like to build.

While I disagree fundamentally on many issues with Opposition Members, I recognise and respect that so many of them hold equally strong beliefs and values as those of us on the Government Benches, and that they are here to champion those party values in the name of public service, too. I appreciate—I am sure the hon. Gentleman will share this view—that when we cast our ballots at general elections, so many of us do so with a specific party manifesto, set of values or policy priorities in mind. People often elect the party that they want to govern based on a set of principles and priorities that they support or at least believe are preferable to those of the other parties.

As we have heard, people are also voting, albeit indirectly, for a particular Prime Minister. We cannot assume that the public do not see the weeks of general election coverage. The Prime Minister was on the front of our manifesto. People know that they are voting for a Prime Minister, because they know that the party with the largest number of MPs will send that person to 10 Downing Street.

When an elected MP leaves a political party, it is entirely understandable that voters may feel that the contract between them and their local MP has been broken, that trust has been broken and that a remedy, such as a by-election, is required to repair it. They may feel that they voted for that person not as an individual, but because of the shared values they believed they represented. They may feel strongly that they do not share the values of the new party that the MP has moved to. All of that is entirely understandable.

While I acknowledge why the petitioners—and, as we have heard, some in this place—may want to see a by-election to repair that, I believe that it is up to those MPs themselves to examine their conscience and their relationship with their voters, and not for this place to tell them what their principles should be. I have enough respect for and faith in the British public that, when that individual next goes back to their constituents to ask them for the sacred privilege, which we are so lucky to hold, of representing them in this place, the public will make their decision on the basis of all the evidence. They will decide whether that MP has their interests at heart, and whether they jumped ship out of principle—we have heard examples of that—or out of shameless political ambition. I will not point to any particular instances that we may have seen of that recently.

It is true that, while values tend to stay the same, parties can shift and evolve. I have seen that with my own party, as hon. Members have discussed. For example, in 2019, the British public had their say on whether they felt the Labour party had moved too far from where they were, or from where they felt we ought to be. Many people wrestled with that. Ultimately, we should have enough faith in the British public that they will assess the decision that their MP has made in defecting to another party and have their say. Some MPs have won after defecting to another party; others have lost. Ultimately, the public will weigh it all up and pass their judgment.

As the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley flagged, it is also important to remember that the public will make their judgment on the basis of a number of issues, not just the party allegiance of the MP. Despite the political differences I have with colleagues in this House, we have all come here to champion our communities and constituencies. Day in, day out, we support our constituents with casework issues, highlight the noteworthy work our local charities and organisations undertake across our communities, raise local issues closest to our constituents’ hearts and fix problems. As we all know, that vital work is personal to us individually, no matter which political party we come from. As such, much of the value of being an MP comes directly from our work with constituents, and they will ultimately price that into the decisions that they make.

It has been a long-standing constitutional principle in this country, most famously put forward by Edmund Burke, that MPs should deliberate and use their reason and judgment, as the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) said, and not simply be a delegate of either party or populist opinion. A by-election on the basis of a defection would undermine that principle.

If we mandated that an MP must lose their seat the moment they leave their party, we would fundamentally alter the nature of our democracy. We would also shift from a system in which an MP’s first responsibility is to their constituents, to one where, once elected, they are accountable to their party’s leaders in Westminster. As the Prime Minister himself has said, “Country first; party second.”

[John Lamont]

I am grateful for the Minister’s analysis. I wonder whether she applies the same logic to her colleagues who have lost the Labour Whip because they have not complied with instructions to vote for Government policy that their constituents do not agree with.

[Anna Turley]

The hon. Gentleman raises a really important point. There is always a balance and a trade-off, which we all make as MPs, between that judgment and a sense of shared and collective responsibility. It comes back to the point I made at the beginning: we cannot achieve much on our own. We achieve much more when we are together, and political parties rise or fall on unity. It is for every MP to decide where their conscience lies. If they genuinely believe that their party is going against the principles and the will of their constituents, they have the opportunity to make that decision, but, ultimately, they must pay the price by losing the Whip. That is party discipline and collective responsibility. The hon. Gentleman raises a really important challenge, which we all think about often.

In the scenario that I described, in which we shifted to a system in which, once elected, an MP is accountable to their party’s leaders in Westminster, MPs who disagree with their party’s leadership, or feel that their political party is moving in a direction that they are uncomfortable with, may lose an important way to express their dissatisfaction. In the last Parliament, former MPs defected from the Conservative party because many felt that they were unable to deliver on the promises they made to their country. I understand the appeal of an automatic by-election to petitioners and to some Members of this House, but that would not make our parliamentary democracy stronger.

We must also consider the more practical impact of the petition’s proposal on our constituents. We all know the importance of our constituents having their own voices represented in Parliament. A by-election is a significant event. Members across the House know that it is costly to the public purse but, more importantly, it disrupts a constituency’s representation in this place. During a by-election campaign the seat is effectively vacant; casework stalls, the community loses its voice in Parliament for weeks or months, and the focus shifts to campaigning and the result’s implications for the Government of the day, rather than the issues that matter most to local residents.

Under our current system, when an MP changes affiliation, that work continues uninterrupted. The MP remains in post, serving their constituents and helping to support them with local issues. Naturally, that does not mean that MPs should be unaccountable for defecting to another party, but, as I have said, the remedy for that already exists in a general election. Of course, if an MP feels it is necessary to seek a fresh mandate, they are free to resign from both their party and their seat and fight a by-election immediately. I personally think that that would demonstrate an integrity that the public would welcome. In either case, the crucial thing is that MPs remain accountable to their constituents.

We do, of course, have a mechanism—

[John Lamont]

I apologise for disrupting the Minister’s flow, but I would like to ask her to clarify what she just said. She seems to be arguing that she is opposed to a by-election happening at the point of defection, but I think she hinted at a personal view that was contrary to the view that she had previously been articulating.

[Anna Turley]

Forgive me; my view, and that of the Government, is very clear. It is for each hon. Member to decide; it is not for the Government or Parliament to have a mechanism that forces people. People should examine their conscience: if they feel that a by-election would enable them to rebuild trust with their constituents, it is important that they consider that. However, it is not for Parliament to mandate that for those who defect. It is about integrity. If they believe that they have broken a promise that they made to people, then that is up to them.

We already have a mechanism to remove MPs during the course of a Parliament. Under the Recall of MPs Act 2015, by-elections are triggered by custodial sentences, suspension from the House or false expenses claims. Some have argued that we should add defection to that list, but I strongly urge against that. The core philosophy of recall is that it is triggered by conduct, not a change in values or even, dare I say it, political ambition. Of course, I agree that it is right that MPs who fall below ethical standards or break the law are held to account for their behaviour, but to conflate political disagreement or even naked opportunism with ethical misconduct would set a dangerous precedent. Finding oneself at odds with the direction of one’s party or wanting to jump on the latest populist bandwagon is not a lapse of behavioural standards; it is part of political life, and I believe the public can be trusted to see that and make a judgment for themselves.

The Government believe—and I believe too, just to clarify for the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont)—that our current constitutional arrangements strike the right balance. They preserve much-needed stability in democracy and enable MPs who do change political parties to continue their vital constituency work, while reserving the public’s right to judge the work and principles of that MP at the ballot box. As chair of the Labour party and a proud member of this Labour Government, I strongly believe in political parties providing competing visions of the kind of world and the kind of country we would like to see and seeking a mandate from the public to enact them.

It is in the nature of our democracy, to support effective government in this country, that a party is able to command a majority in this House. Party values allow us to build our vision, turn our manifestos into reality, provide collective leadership and service, and enact the change that the country voted for at a general election. I understand why the petitioners and some Members across the House feel that an automatic by-election would add another layer of accountability in this place, but for the reasons I have set out, I do not believe that those changes would in any way enhance our parliamentary democracy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anna Turley Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)]

T4. The Government deal with a huge number of arm’s length public bodies of variable value and success. What progress are Ministers making on tackling the number and effectiveness of arm’s length public bodies?

[The Minister without Portfolio (Anna Turley)]

I thank my hon. Friend for that really important question. We have undertaken an arm’s length body review, and it is making serious progress. We have already seen NHS England removed, to make sure that we bring our important services under democratic control. We are also looking to make a huge amount of savings in this area. I look forward to updating my hon. Friend and the House on progress shortly.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

T2.   Thousands of former public sector workers are facing delays to their pension payments. Both MyCSP and Capita have catastrophically failed as the administrators of these pension funds, but the real failure is the Cabinet Office’s inability to negotiate contracts that include financial sanctions, in order to drive up performance. What will the Minister do to sort this out?

Public Right to a Vote of No Confidence

Anna Turley Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Minister without Portfolio (Anna Turley)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for introducing the debate, and thank the hon. Members for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson) and for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for their contributions. I particularly thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), for his thoughtful analysis of some of the questions and challenges that this debate has provoked.

The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk introduced this debate on behalf of thousands of signatories of the e-petition asking for the public to be granted the right to a vote of no confidence in the Government. As hon. Members in this Chamber will know only too well, at the heart of our parliamentary democracy is the willingness of all our political parties to engage in debates, sometimes robustly, on the critical issues that affect our constituents’ lives. It is therefore important that we are holding this debate. Although the Government do not agree with the central premise of the petition being debated, we will always respect the public’s right to voice their opinions, particularly in this place, through their elected Members of Parliament. Petitions debates are an important means by which to do that. As ever, I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this debate on behalf of the Government.

In our parliamentary democracy, the Government of the day hold office by virtue of their ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons. The composition of the Commons is decided at the general election. A general election is brought about by the Prime Minister requesting, from the sovereign, the dissolution of Parliament within five years.

In recent years, thanks to the instability caused by the reckless decisions of the Conservative party, the public had the opportunity to decide not just in 2015 but in 2017 and again in 2019, before the last general election was held in 2024. It is, of course, quite unusual to have so many general elections in such a short space of time, and that reflects the previous Government’s chaos.

[John Lamont]

For the record, it is also important to note that in each of those elections—with the exception of the last—the Conservative vote actually rose.

[Anna Turley]

That is absolutely on the record. But the reason that we had those general elections was because of the chaos and instability that the hon. Member’s Government brought about, including the resignation of a wide number of Ministers, which I will come on to talk about. As a result of that instability, some people—particularly politicians and even, dare I say it, our dear friends in the media and the political commentariat—have become addicted to drama and instability in politics. I am sorry to disappoint them today, but we were elected to end that chaos and return the UK to stable and secure Government, and I am proud that we are doing just that.

[John Cooper]

I am very much looking forward to the ending of this chaos; it seems that we are completely mired in it. As a former member of the fourth estate—I was a journalist for a long time—I am always concerned when politicians blame the media. I do not think the media are creating the chaos; they are simply reporting on it.

[Anna Turley]

I recognise the hon. Member’s distinction, and I think he is absolutely right. I very much enjoy the role of our fourth estate, but there are many who constantly seek upheaval and drama in politics, which, for those of us focused on delivering for the British people, can sometimes become a bit of a distraction.

As hon. Members here know well, holding the Government to account does not simply stop between general elections; that has never been the case. Parliament remains sovereign and there are opportunities for Ministers across the Government, including the Prime Minister, to account for their actions and explain what they are doing to deliver on the promise of change that the public voted for in 2024. At the last general election, the Labour party promised to take action following years of Tory chop and change. I am sure we all remember the collapse of Boris Johnson’s Government, with 43 members of that Administration resigning in one day.

Our long-standing constitutional arrangements facilitate stability, while balancing the need to test the confidence in the Government of the day in the elected House of Commons. Altering those arrangements could risk creating a constant revolving door and an inability to achieve anything, and would incur significant costs to the public purse, given the expenses associated with administering general elections. Overall, such changes would serve only to undermine public trust in politics, create more instability and cause paralysis in Government.

I remind hon. Members that our constituents already have a clear route to influence the decisions made at the highest levels of Government. All of us here know that our constituents are able to—and do—make representations to us as their local constituency MPs, and we in turn champion their views in this place and make representations to Ministers in Government. In the event that voters signal a desire for an election, the public’s voice will be channelled effectively through their local MPs across the House.

In 2024, the public voted for change; the public voted for more than 400 brilliant Labour MPs in this House. After 14 years of chaos and uncertainty, of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, they voted for stability. Introducing a right for the public to have a vote of no confidence could undermine our parliamentary democracy—the duty, responsibility and indeed primacy of this place—and could weaken the Government of the day’s ability to deliver on their mandate.

As hon. Members have referred to, those who signed this petition have said they feel that the promises we made to them at the last general election have not yet been delivered. We all recognise that change takes time but, with every month and every pay packet that passes, I know that people will feel that change more and more.

I am extremely proud of the positive changes that the Labour Government have brought about since the last general election. Given the reference that has been made to manifesto pledges, I will give Opposition Members some good news to share with their constituents about the many manifesto pledges that we have already delivered.

For example, there is our landmark Employment Rights Act 2025, which brings better maternity and paternity rights, an end to fire and rehire, and an end to exploitative zero-hours contracts—a manifesto promise delivered; an increase in the national minimum wage, rising to £12.71 next month, a sign that wages are up more under this Government so far than under 10 years of the party opposite—a manifesto pledge delivered; the Border Security Command to crack down on criminal gangs—a manifesto promise delivered; the ending of the exemption of private school fees from VAT to enable the investments that we are seeing every day in breakfast clubs, so that every child can start school ready to learn—a manifesto pledge delivered; and the strategic defence review and our plans to spend 2.5% of gross national income on defence to keep our country safe—a manifesto pledge delivered.

[Mike Wood]

To be clear, can the Minister confirm that the Government will not be spending 2.5% on defence this year?

[Anna Turley]

Sorry—that is a manifesto pledge that we are implementing. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the clarity.

There is also the National Wealth Fund, to support investment in our national infrastructure across the country—delivered; Great British Energy, to support the delivery of clean power by 2030 and the creation of well-paid jobs in the industries of the future—delivered; and Great British Railways, bringing our railways back into public ownership, rebuilding trust in this vital public service—delivered. And we have delivered more than 5 million additional NHS appointments, to bring down the record-high waiting lists we inherited from the previous Government.

That is a whole raft of our manifesto pledges that we are delivering. Alongside those pledges, we are seeing 500,000 children lifted out of poverty, breakfast clubs across the country, wider access to free school meals for families on universal credit, uniform costs capped, prescriptions frozen, rail fares frozen and energy bills coming down. Those are signs that we are delivering on our manifesto. There is so much more we can do, and so much more that we will deliver, before the general election.

In summary, we fear that the introduction of a vote of no confidence by the public would undermine the stability and effectiveness of the Government of the day in delivering manifesto commitments, such as those I have just set out. It would also undermine the primacy of this place, the cradle of democracy, by confusing the clear lines of accountability that general elections provide. The public’s right to remove and replace the Government of the day is already a key part of our democratic system, and is undertaken freely and fairly after a Parliament is dissolved for a general election—that is the historic and sovereign democratic system of the British people. For this reason and the other reasons I have set out, the Government cannot support the petition.

This Labour Government are focused on delivering the change the country voted for at the last general election. We will continue to listen to the public’s views and deliver, as I demonstrated, on the promises we made to them in our manifesto, to end the 14 years of chaos and decline and build a better Britain.

Civil Service Pension Scheme: Administration

Anna Turley Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Minister without Portfolio (Anna Turley)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I have a civil service pension, having started my career in the Home Office in 2001.

It is tradition to thank the Member who secured the debate, but I want to place on record my personal thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) on behalf of my constituents affected by this issue and on behalf of all the constituents we have heard about today. This is a perfect example of bringing to Parliament voices that have not been heard. They have been sat in queues on phone lines, but everyone has brought their stories powerfully to Parliament and the heart of Government today. I thank my hon. Friend for that public service, which is much appreciated.

I thank all hon. Members who have raised issues on behalf of their constituents. It has been troubling to hear those stories, but it is also a testament to the system that an MP can bring the experience and voice of constituents to Government. I also want to thank and pay tribute to all the fantastic public servants who give so much in service to our country and communities.

When a civil servant retires after decades of public service, they deserve a seamless transition into the next chapter of their lives, and recognition of the contribution they have made over their career. They deserve a system that is accurate, responsive and, above all, timely. I state clearly for the record that the service experienced by members of the civil service pension scheme is absolutely unacceptable.

As the 10-year contract was signed by the previous Government in 2023, I could talk about another disastrous inheritance, but I will not. I will take responsibility and apologise because that is what today should be about: the people affected by this service. I have read the accounts of members, many of whom wrote to their MPs. I have seen that correspondence, heard the concerns and listened carefully to the individual cases raised today.

I am deeply sorry for the worry and distress this has caused so many people, particularly those dealing with bereavement, ill health and financial hardship. This is a failure: there are no two ways about it. Resolving it is a matter of utmost urgency for the Government. We are taking direct action to intervene and put things right, doing so as quickly as possible while ensuring accuracy. In response to questions raised by colleagues, I will set out our steps to undertake that.

To understand how to fix this, I want to say something quickly about how we arrived here. As I mentioned, the decision to transfer to Capita with a 10-year contract was made in 2023. The Cabinet Office will undertake a full review of the award and the management of previous pension contracts, as colleagues have asked, once we have resolved the immediate issue of service delivery. I am sure that hon. Members will share our view that the priority is to get people their money and resolve the immediate problem.

On 1 December 2025, the administration of the scheme transferred from MyCSP to Capita. Although the core payroll for 730,000 existing pensioners continues to be paid correctly and on time, the transition for new retirees has been a mess, with a large number of members significantly impacted. The main driver of the delays is the high volume of work that Capita inherited from MyCSP, approximately 86,000 work in progress cases, which was more than twice the volume planned for and anticipated during the due diligence and planning period.

In addition to the work in progress cases, the handover included 15,000 unread email messages. There were delays in loading and correctly mapping the vast amounts of data transferred from MyCSP to Capita. Technical issues were identified in setting up and receiving data interfaces between employers and the new administrator. As of the week commencing 19 January, Capita reporting showed approximately 8,500 recently retired members are waiting for their first monthly pension payment.

Although some of those individuals have now received their one-off tax-free lump sum, the delay in implementing regular pension benefit payments is causing genuine hardship, especially for those relying on their pension payment to pay for basics such as rent, food, mortgages and heating, as we have heard. Shockingly, the report also showed 6,300 open cases relating to deaths, where members have passed and bereaved families are trying to understand and settle financial affairs. I do not underestimate the trauma for many families of having to deal with that. That includes 300 sensitive death in service cases, adding huge financial worries for grieving families, which is simply unacceptable.

Member data is held by employers and fed through monthly to Capita via a secure interface. That enables pension records to be updated for any changes to personal data, employment terms and contracts. A transition of that scale requires the handover of huge amounts of complex personal data. More positively, Capita has now received the data required from the previous administrator. However, the switch of provider means that members are now required to register on a new portal. As colleagues have highlighted, there have been huge problems with the portal.

In addressing all those live issues, we must also understand the complexity of the civil service pension scheme. It is made up of five different pension schemes, and it has approximately 1.7 million members and 320 employers. It is the third largest public sector scheme, and it deals with an average of more than 3,000 retirements and more than 2,700 bereavement cases every month. That is the scale of the challenge.

Let me outline exactly what we are doing to address the problems as quickly and as efficiently as possible. Although it is a corporate failure, the Government are stepping in, and I thank the many civil servants who are working hard 24/7 to resolve this issue. My officials, along with expert colleagues from across the civil service, are working closely with senior leaders at Capita and have agreed a way forward with a full recovery plan. I am grateful to them for their hard work. We have appointed Angela MacDonald, second permanent secretary and deputy chief executive of HMRC, to lead a recovery taskforce. The team is working alongside Capita and departmental leaders to execute a plan organised into intensive three-week sprints.

On resources, we are deploying a 150-person civil service surge team specifically to clear the correspondence logjam. Capita therefore now has more than 650 staff dedicated to this contact, an increase of more than 50% in resourcing compared with the previous provider. Since 26 January, the recovery team has received data on all outstanding cases.

On the transitional help loans, we have authorised Government Departments to provide interest-free bridging loans of £5,000 and, in exceptional cases, of up to £10,000 for those in immediate need. The Department is working to get the money to those impacted within days, not weeks. We are prioritising the most urgent cases. We are working with Capita to ensure that the systems and resources are in place to deal with ill health, bereavement and financial hardship cases, alongside arrangements to clear the backlog. Those cases are our absolute priority.

On the member portal, there was already a plan to roll out greater functionality. That includes “track my case”, which allows members to see the end-to-end progress of their queries; digital requirements processes, which includes the facility for members to track the progress of their retirement application; and a lifestyle modeller, an interactive calculator to help members under the age of 55 to plan for the income they need in retirement. We will provide regular updates on the portal so that scheme members and MPs can see the progress being made to improve the service. I endeavour to ensure updates are made regularly to the House.

We expect to restore service levels for death in service cases and ill health retirement cases by the end of February. I make that pledge to Members. More widely, our current plan is that we are working to bring most aspects of the service back with expected service levels by June, but we will keep that under constant review and continue to look for opportunities to accelerate progress.

[Jim Shannon]

I spoke to the Minister before the debate started, and she indicated that hon. Members might have an access number and an email address. Will she provide those?

[Anna Turley]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s flagging that point, and I was coming to that. I have taken the quite unusual step of bringing a print-out for colleagues, which will be available at the end of the debate and will be shared with colleagues more widely. It has an email address on it. I am keen that hon. Members bring their cases directly to us. Of course, we are addressing the wider issues, but it is a cause of great concern to me that, where cases are raised with Members of Parliament, they should be brought straight to our attention.

The McCloud pension sector remedy work was raised. We know how important it is for the many members awaiting an update. We have agreed a separately resourced project to deliver the remedy with Capita. Many of these cases are very complex, and we hope the majority will be issued by April ’27. We are working with the Pensions Regulator, and we will provide progress updates to the members affected and to MPs.

The new contract with Capita includes a number of key performance indicators, which colleagues have rightly raised, with financial penalties to be applied where they are not achieved. We reserve all commercial rights at present. We have already withheld millions of pounds of payments for failure to meet transitional milestones. We continue to contractually monitor service level key performance indicators linked to payments, and we have refused to waive service levels, ensuring that Capita remains contractually liable for performance.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) asked whether there was a cause for termination. There is an option to terminate in any contract of this kind. These are complex and commercial requirements, and terminating the contract and moving to another provider would mean another massive upheaval of data and everything else. I am sure colleagues share my view that the priority right now is to resolve people’s immediate concerns and issues, make sure people get their money and undertake a review of exactly what happened. However, everything is on the table. As I said, we will do a full review of these contracts, but our priority is to get people the support that they deserve. It has now been two months since Capita took on the new contract, and we are very clear that members of the pension scheme deserve so much better. Our focus is on taking fast action to resolve the most critical issues for impacted individuals while simultaneously ensuring a detailed recovery plan that brings the commercial contract back within service level agreements as quickly as possible.

I want to reassure every member of the pension scheme that their pension is safe and their data is secure. We are working, and will continue to work, tirelessly with Capita to support the recovery programme until such time as we are wholly satisfied that the service is fully recovered. We are committed to ensuring that every member is treated fairly and with respect, and that no one suffers a permanent financial loss due to these administrative failures. We are holding Capita to account and are going to kick backside, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said. We are making sure that members are at the heart of the recovery plan, and we will use every commercial lever at our disposal to ensure that Capita delivers effectively.

I thank all hon. Members who brought the voices of their constituents to the Chamber today. I have brought a handout for colleagues, and I urge anyone with constituency cases to raise them with us. We will do our best to accelerate them, but I am conscious that we have to resolve this matter not just for those who are brought to our attention but for absolutely everyone. We will hold further drop-ins to assist hon. Members and their teams, and we are doing our absolute best to make sure people get their money as quickly as possible. The House has my word, and that of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office that we will not rest until the service is stabilised and our civil servants receive the support that they have earned after so many years of dedicated service—for which, once again, we thank them.

[Anna Dixon]

On a point of order, Ms Lewell. I would like to apologise. I need to declare an interest: I also hold a civil service pension and would like to put that on the record.

Call for General Election

Anna Turley Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Minister without Portfolio (Anna Turley)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for moving the motion on behalf of the signatories of the e-petition across the country asking for a general election. I was very struck by how many Opposition Members prayed in aid the number of people who signed this petition. Of course, it was enough to bring us this debate, which we must take note of, but as was flagged by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), that number is down by two thirds on this time last year. I want hon. Members to think about that. If numbers are the driving force for how people feel and the strength of feeling about a general election, perhaps Conservative Members can reflect on that two-thirds decline and what it represents.

I thank all hon. Members who participated. So many of them have shown themselves to be true advocates of their communities and their constituents. We have seen some fantastic examples of passion and commitment to the issues that people care about in their communities and how hard some many Members of Parliament are working in the face of so much cynicism about politics today. I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to respond to this debate on behalf of the Labour Government—a Government that I am extremely proud to be a part of, following 14 years of Conservative and Lib Dem chaos and decline. I have listened to the contributions of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk and others, and it is clear now, as it was at the last general election, that the Tories are not serious, cannot be trusted and have not learned from the failures they made in office. I did not hear any apologies or any humility about the chaos and ruin they left. The noise and the bluster of impotent opposition that we have heard in this debate is leaving us to get on with the job of fixing the mess that they left.

I am not often surprised these days, but I have to admit that I am today, because it is a surprise to see the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) in this debate. The problem with Reform is that it cannot deliver the change this country needs, because it is not fit to govern, and despite being paid to represent their constituents, too often their MPs withdraw questions in this House, miss votes, and sit as bystanders in the gallery, but they always turn up when there is a chance to get on telly or get a clip for social media. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, a former Tory himself, is happy to welcome the 23rd former Conservative MP to Reform. If that does not send a message that Reform are the same old failed Tories in a slightly different shade of blue, then I do not know what does. It is just another party that does not believe in the NHS or rights for working people and has nothing to offer people on issues such as the cost of living that we know matter to them.

This Labour Government were elected with the largest majority that any party has secured since the last Labour Government’s landslide victory in 1997. This Labour Government are committed to delivering the people’s priorities, and since coming into office, we have been busy delivering on our promise of change. As Labour Members have articulated so clearly, we know that we were elected with a clear mandate to deliver the change that people asked for. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) said that people voted to reject the previous Government’s record of 14 years of austerity, and he is absolutely right, because let us be honest about where we started when we won the election in 2024.

Decades of decline do not disappear in months; we know that. The financial crisis, Brexit, a pandemic and war in Europe all helped to drive the challenges that we have faced financially in this country. But on top of that, years of weak and irresponsible Government left living standards falling, public services stretched to breaking point, too many communities feeling forgotten and left behind, and, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) said, a steaming pile of rubbish. I could not agree more with her analysis.

That was our inheritance, but we know that life is still harder than it should be for so many people in this country, and I understanding that that is why so many people have signed this petition. People are absolutely right to be impatient. We know that the cost of living continues to bear down on people, but we are taking rapid action to ease that burden. I am proud that living standards are forecast to grow by 2.9% over this Parliament. Under the last failed Tory Government, disposable income fell for the first time since records began in the 1950s—hardly a record that Members here can begin to defend.

We are taking action to tackle the deficit and crisis that the previous Government created—the crashing of an economy, where they allowed Liz Truss to experiment with the country’s finances and sent mortgages, rents and bills soaring. Since coming into office, we are reversing that decline. Families are already £800 better off. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Lillian Jones) said, 200,000 workers in Scotland are getting a pay rise, mortgages are down £14,000 compared with where they were when we won the election, and wages are up more in 10 months than they were in 10 years with the Tories. That is a record to be proud of.

[Robbie Moore]

That is just not what people in Keighley and Ilkley and across the Worth valley are feeling. Why are the Labour Government increasing the amount of tax that a basic rate taxpayer is paying by another £220 this year? Why is it that Labour-run Bradford council has tried to increase council tax by 14.99% this year? On top of that, the Government are making decisions that were not in their manifesto, such as rolling out digital ID at a cost of £1.8 billon or the £47 billion Chagos deal. Those are things that the Government are doing beyond their manifesto promises, but which they are taxing hard-working people across Keighley for.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Order. That is a bit on the long side for an intervention.

[Anna Turley]

I appreciate the hon. Member’s attempt to reiterate the speech that he made, but I would have thought that he would be grateful that there are 3,250 children in Keighley who will benefit from the lifting of the two-child limit. Those are children who we are investing in and who are going to contribute to the future. We are breaking cycles of dependency. I would have thought that the hon. Member would welcome that. I am sure that people in his constituency whose mortgages have come down would also be very grateful for that.

In November, the Chancellor of the Exchequer delivered a Budget that is bearing down on the cost of living and lifting millions of children out of poverty. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, children will benefit from the abolition of the two-child benefit cap thanks to action taken by this Labour Government.

[John Lamont]

The Minister is in danger of falling into the same trap that the Government did in their formal response to the petition, in that she is telling people that they should be grateful—“We’re doing all these things. You should be grateful.” People in my constituency do not feel grateful; they feel betrayed by a catalogue of broken promises.

[Anna Turley]

The hon. Member got up and talked about the glass being half-empty. If we are restoring trust in politics, it is important that we remind people about all the things that are happening. Of course, we know that it takes time for people to feel that in their pockets. We are confident that with every pay cheque this year, they will feel that more and more. However, the reality is that we should stand up and remind people about the changes that Governments make and that these changes have not happened by chance, but because of the choices made by this Labour Government, and I am proud to defend them.

In talking about the reasons for calling this debate, Opposition Members have talked about manifesto promises and so on. I want to run through some of the manifesto promises and commitments that this Government have made, to knock down their argument. This year we will take £150 off energy bills, the living wage is up £900 per year, we have extended the £3 bus fare, interest rates have been cut six times, we have frozen prescription fees to keep costs under £10 and we have taken 500,000 children out of poverty—that is an extra 3,000 in my constituency of Redcar. We are also protecting the triple lock for pensioners, which is worth over £1,900 over the course of this Parliament.

As the hon. Member has said, people in his constituency are still feeling the squeeze from the cost of living, but that is exactly why we have provided 30 hours of free childcare to help mums who are struggling to get into work and to get the support they need with childcare. That is £8,000 per year for parents. We have set up 750 primary school breakfast clubs to help those kids to get a healthy start in life. I have been to see them, and children not only get a healthy meal to start the day but dance classes and exercise to get their blood pumping and to get them ready for the day and ready to learn. They are breaking the cycle of poverty, which we have seen hold back too many children in our constituencies.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Does the Minister agree that we do not end dependency and bring children out of poverty by driving their parents out of work? Hundreds of thousands more people are unemployed because of the policies that the Minister’s party has pursued. Does she acknowledge that that is the case?

[Anna Turley]

The hon. Gentleman was in Parliament when 2,300 jobs in the steel industry were lost overnight in my constituency. We had to deal with the consequences of that. His party know all about putting people out of work. This is about breaking the cycle. Three quarters of the children growing up in poverty are in working households. The economy that we saw develop under the Conservative Government was one where work just did not pay. People were working all the hours and shifts they could, and they still were not able to feed their families. That is why we are supporting parents in getting back to work and getting their children happy, healthy and fed in school.

I also want to support the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) about the veterans strategy. There are 9,000 veterans in Portsmouth who have benefited from the hard-working campaigning she has done in her constituency. We have seen a big uplift in defence spending, and that is something I am deeply proud of in this country. We face a deeply insecure world at the moment. We have a Prime Minister who is rebuilding Britain’s standing on the global stage and is putting defence spending at the heart of economic regeneration in constituencies like ours.

I could go on about manifesto pledges that have been met, such as banning trail hunting, ending hereditary peers, and the Football Governance Act 2025 giving fans a real voice in their football clubs. We promised 2 million more NHS appointments; we have delivered 5 million more already. We have halved the number of asylum hotels. There have been 1 million potholes fixed. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) has campaigned very hard about roads and potholes in his constituency.

We are supporting renters by abolishing no-fault evictions. We have established Great British Energy to drive our energy renewal in this country. We have delivered pension justice for mineworkers. In my constituency, thanks to Cleveland police, from May we are going to see a named police officer in every ward. That is 3,000 more police already. That is a lot done, but as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) described it, these are downpayments on progress. This is just the beginning. With every month, more and more people will start to feel the benefit of the Labour Government in their pockets, and I am proud to have delivered that.

The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) talked about the importance of stability for small business. He is absolutely right, and calling for another general election completely flies in the face of that. Conservative Members may have enjoyed the chaos and upheaval of the last Government, where we had four elections and a referendum in four years. I was here; I witnessed it all. That had a disastrous effect. The public voted to end the chaos, and they want us to get on with governing the country and fixing the mess that the last Government left behind. That takes time and patience, but this Labour Government are committed to delivering on the change that the country voted for in the last general election.

As I have set out, there are manifesto pledges that have been met, and there are manifesto pledges that are being delivered. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friends for highlighting so many of the positive impacts that this Government are having on the lives of their constituents. We will continue to take difficult and strong decisions in the national interest, after 14 years of failed Conservative Government. We saw a merry-go-round of failed Prime Ministers who slashed our public services, crashed our economy and frayed the social fabric of our country. Their Governments cut the NHS year after year and betrayed the promises they made to their country. As the Prime Minister said in his new year message, this is the year the country will “turn a corner” along the path of national renewal.

We will not shy away from making the big calls that are right for our country’s future. We are proud of the progress so far. We know that people will feel the change this year in their pay packets and on the streets. We are proud to stand on our record at the next general election and we look forward to it. In the meantime, we will get on with delivering the change that the public voted for—the change they expect from a Labour Government—and building a fairer, more hopeful and better Britain.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anna Turley Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

19. What assessment the child poverty unit has made of the potential merits of auto-enrolling eligible children for free school meals.

[The Minister without Portfolio (Anna Turley)]

This Labour Government are proud to be taking historic steps to end child poverty. We are extending eligibility for free school meals to all children and households receiving universal credit next September in an unprecedented boost for children. That is going to benefit over half a million more children and put around £500 back into parents’ pockets every year. We believe that every child can better fulfil their potential if they are well fed, nourished and ready to learn in their school day.

[Charlie Maynard]

As many as 11% of pupils are missing out on the free school meals to which they are entitled. In many cases, they are not registered for reasons such as a fear of stigma or language barriers. In my Witney constituency, that means that around 230 children from the most disadvantaged homes may be missing out on a hot, healthy meal to get them through the school day. Council pilots of auto-enrolment have been shown to be effective. If implemented nationwide, auto-enrolment would make a huge difference to struggling families and it has overwhelming support from parents, so my question to the Minister is: what is the hold-up?

[Anna Turley]

We want to ensure that all families can claim the support they are entitled to, and we recognise that there is some great best practice happening around the country, so we will continue to keep the matter under review. By broadening the criteria to everyone on universal credit, it will be a lot easier for people to know that they can access free school meals. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is as excited as Government Members are for the child poverty strategy that will be published later this week. We look forward to many more exciting opportunities in that strategy to lift our children out of poverty and give them the future they deserve.

[Kenneth Stevenson (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister without Portfolio (Anna Turley)]

Our great civil service serves citizens from across the UK, so it should look like them, sound like them, and come from the same towns, cities, regions and nations as the communities it serves. Through our places for growth programme, we are moving more roles from London to locations across the UK, including York, where 2,600 civil servants are already working across numerous Departments, including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

T6. The Information Commissioner’s Office revealed that Lord Alli’s pass to No. 10 was requested by a staff member of the Labour party. Was it the Prime Minister’s then chief of staff who made the request?