Getting Britain Working Again Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateHarriet Cross
Main Page: Harriet Cross (Conservative - Gordon and Buchan)Department Debates - View all Harriet Cross's debates with the Department for Work and Pensions
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberLet me read this out for the hon. Gentleman. The Leader of the Opposition said that the Government were
“too scared to make foreign interventions”.
She also said:
“I say to Labour MPs that we are in this war whether they like it or not. What is the Prime Minister waiting for?”—[Official Report, 4 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 803.]
That is what she said.
As for the leader of Reform, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), he said:
“We should do all we can to support the operation. I make that perfectly, perfectly clear.”
Instead of trying to douse the flames, they sought to pour as much petrol on them as possible. They would have jumped in with both feet, displaying not only a failure of judgment but a total disregard for the price that will be paid by British consumers in higher prices and higher interest rates. That is how much they cared about keeping Britain working when it came to the biggest judgment that this country has had to make for a long time.
The Conservatives’ record when in office was: the lowest business investment in the G7; wages flatlining for their entire period in office; the worst Parliament on record for living standards; and the public finances trashed as debt soared. The reason I point that out is that month after month, and nowhere more than in the arena of welfare, the Conservative party finds things that it is outraged about in the system that it built, it designed and it created.
Before I come to the system itself, let me state something that is obvious but too often left out of these debates: the welfare system is often the end of a process in people’s lives, not the beginning. I will tell the House what contributes to higher welfare bills and to people not working: hollowing out the NHS and leaving one person in seven on waiting lists, with a higher likelihood that they are unfit for work; increasing child poverty by 700,000, making it less likely that children will be ready for work when they leave school; explicitly rejecting the post-covid education recovery plan, and doing nothing about rocketing absenteeism from schools; neglecting our town centres and high streets, leaving too many places without hope or confidence in the future; and presiding over a 40% decline in youth apprenticeship starts, kicking away the first step in the career ladder for those who lose out. You cannot do all that and then stand at the Dispatch Box and credibly express outrage about the rise in benefit bills. It did not come from nowhere, and if we are going to tackle this area, we have to understand that.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
In that case, can the Secretary of State credibly stand at the Dispatch Box and talk about the impact of the rise in national insurance contributions and of the Employment Rights Act 2025 on employment? The Government are now paying companies to employ young people because of the mess they made.
If it was down to those policies, we would not have seen a rise of a quarter of a million in the NEET—not in education, employment or training—numbers in the last three years of the hon. Lady’s party’s time in office. My point is that this did not come from nowhere, and we have to understand that. If we are to have a serious response, education, health treatment, youth apprenticeships and changes to the welfare system itself all have a part to play.
On the health front, I have good news to report: waiting lists today are down by 110,000—the biggest monthly drop since 2008. Elective waiting time targets have been hit, and four-hour waiting time targets have been hit. This is how we get Britain working, whereas simply picking a number for benefit cuts, with nothing behind it, is not an answer; it is a press release. The Conservative party has shown no understanding of how people end up on benefits in the first place.
It is a pleasure to follow the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). I will try to address some of the points she made, but I am bound to mention the recent elections. Engaging in the democratic process is important, but not all areas had elections. The turnout across the wards in Walsall and Bloxwich was an average of 38%. I want to put on record my thanks to all the councillors who served their community in Walsall and Bloxwich.
The leader of Reform, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), thought that Walsall council was Labour-controlled, but it was not; it was controlled by the Conservatives—I know it might be slightly difficult to see constituencies from a helicopter. Some of his candidates said that they had to pay to personalise their leaflets. The £5 million gift is quite interesting as he says it is for his personal safety. I know that Mr Speaker and all the Deputy Speakers take the safety of each and every one of us in this Chamber very seriously.
The Representation of the People Bill is a carry-over Bill, so there is still time to ensure that we have compulsory voting and that we prevent cryptocurrency and bitcoin being used for donations to political parties—say, from Thailand—particularly from donors who go under two different names.
I welcome the announcement in the Gracious Speech on improving our cyber-security defences. I do not know whether Members saw this, but there was an investigation by a consortium of journalists from The Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, The Insider, Delfi and VSquare about a Russian school called “Department 4” that provides special training on hacking and password attacks. A hacker unit known by western Governments as Sandworm is accused of unleashing destructive cyber-attacks targeting, for example, Ukraine’s power grid, the French presidential election in 2017 and the investigation of the Salisbury poisonings. That article was published on 7 May, and it is worth reading. We need to protect our democracy from the constant drip, drip of misinformation and disinformation on online fora.
I welcome the energy independence Bill in the Gracious Speech. We have seen how we have been at the mercy of other countries, but now we are investing in renewables, which will protect our planet, roll out energy efficiency and bring down bills.
Harriet Cross
The energy independence—or dependence, as I think we can probably call it—Bill will make us more reliant on overseas imports of oil and gas. We will use oil and gas for many years because our system needs it. The Bill bans new licences in the North sea, making us more reliant on imports. Does the right hon. Lady really welcome that?
I welcome the energy independence Bill. Let us see what is in the clauses when it is published, but the Secretary of State wants to make this country independent of outside forces. This is the first time a Government have invested so heavily in renewables. All this will get Britain working.
It is outrageous that oil companies have made massive profits and traders have bet on the outcome of war in Iran as petrol prices go up. Someone somewhere is making money, and it is not my constituents. They may not even know who is making the money, yet they blame us.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
On behalf of the people of Erewash, I give thanks to His Majesty the King for his Gracious Speech to the entire nation yesterday. This King’s Speech recognises the simple fact that Britain cannot afford to leave its future at the mercy of global markets, hostile states or instability abroad.
For too long, Governments assumed that the hand of the free market would always act in Britain’s interests. For too long, we outsourced vital industries without considering the long-term consequences and underrated the ability of our businesses to export physical goods to the world. We have been globally pigeonholed strictly as a post-industrial service economy. When dictators spark conflict abroad, British families feel the impact through rising bills and a falling standard of living. Working people in Erewash know that all too well. Britain has been left exposed because we failed to build our own energy resilience.
Ilkeston in Erewash is proud of its iron manufacturing heritage, yet we have watched industries like iron and steel decline as production has moved overseas in search of cheaper labour and lower standards. Steel is not just another commodity; its manufacture is strategic infrastructure, in and of itself—infrastructure that underpins our national defence capabilities. That is why it is unacceptable that British Steel has been let down by overseas owners who do not act in Britain’s best interests. We cannot outsource our national security any longer.
Harriet Cross
I completely agree that we must protect British industries such as steel and oil and gas refining—they are all vital. The carbon tax is a reason why these industries are declining and moving overseas. From what the hon. Member is saying, it feels like he agrees that we should get rid of the carbon tax. Is that correct?
Adam Thompson
I am not sure the hon. Member and I are necessarily on the same page. I was focusing purely on the renationalisation of the steel industry, which is an important part of the King’s Speech. Indeed, in this King’s Speech, the Government have recognised that markets alone cannot protect the national interest. Sometimes the state must step in to safeguard jobs and to keep Britain safe. Nationalising British Steel means protecting almost 100,000 jobs from unfair foreign competition. I am proud that this Government are going to bring British Steel fully back into public ownership.
I have spoken to many businesses and business owners in Erewash, and they report that they have struggled since we left the European single market. They have faced mountains of paperwork and massive delays at our borders. These hurdles do not just frustrate exporters; they directly impact their ability to turn a profit. I am glad that in the European partnership Bill we seek to solve that problem, by streamlining trade and making it quicker, cheaper and simpler to do business with Europe.