Oral Answers to Questions

Yuan Yang Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Dame Diana Johnson)]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. The transformation of our jobs and career service will provide wraparound support to individuals who are looking for work or career development. We want to change the feel of jobcentres so that they are about supporting people, rather than having people go in just to comply with benefit conditions.

[Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)]

T4.   Data from the millennium cohort study suggests that over half of cases of young people not in education, employment or training are attributable to persistent childhood poverty and adverse experiences. I recently visited Starting Point, a charity that helps young people in Reading back into work, and I heard about those people’s experiences. Does the Minister agree that there is a strong economic case behind the Government’s moral mission to cut childhood poverty?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I absolutely agree. We all know that child poverty stifles opportunity, making it harder for children to succeed and get on in life. Nearly 1 million young people aged 16 to 24 are not in education, employment or training. We need to break that cycle, and we will do so through the child poverty strategy.

Budget Resolutions

Yuan Yang Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)]

I rise to welcome the Budget, because despite the difficult economic times we are in, the Chancellor has made decisions that are strong, sound and fair. It is a strong budget that more than doubles the fiscal headroom to £22 billion. It is a sound budget that improves the economic efficiency of some of our taxes and maintains our capital investment in the country’s future. It is a fair budget that lowers the cost of living, saving us money on rail fares and energy bills, and raising half a million children out of poverty.

First, on the headroom, this Chancellor has the strength to do what previous Chancellors have shied away from doing. Headroom is important to buffer us from the volatility in the global economy. It buffers us against shocks that we cannot predict. I am glad to see that the Chancellor has also followed the International Monetary Fund’s recommendations to assess the fiscal rules annually, which will improve the predictability of policymaking.

Yesterday during the Budget debate, the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), accepted my intervention. I asked why he had left us with the lowest headroom in the history of the OBR. He said that he did not raise more headroom because he would have had to cut spending or raise taxes, and he was not prepared to do those things. I therefore take it with a pinch of salt when the shadow Chancellor says in this debate that suddenly they have dreamt up plans in the past 12 months in opposition, when they did not have such plans in 14 years of governing. The response of the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash was that he was not prepared to do the things that were necessary. That is like someone saying to their flatmate that they did not do the washing up because they would have had to tidy up and get their hands wet, and they were not prepared to do those things. He took the weak option. He shied away from making important economic decisions—he left us with his dirty plates—and is now lecturing us about making difficult choices.

I am glad of the right hon. Gentleman’s honesty, and his acceptance of my intervention, because it shows us a deeper truth: the previous Tory Government could not cut further, because they had already cut everything they could, and then some, leaving us with courts backlogged for years, prisons overflowing and child poverty at its highest this century.

Secondly, this is an economically sound Budget. Different forms of income should not be taxed differently. This is not just about fairness; it is about economic incentives. Landlords should not pay lower effective rates of tax than their tenants, and those who can afford an accountant should not be able to benefit from structuring their income as dividends, thereby paying a lower rate of tax. I welcome the raising of rates on property savings and dividends to make them closer to the rates paid on earned income, reducing the bad incentives to restructure income for tax avoidance. The tax system is not just about raising funds for public services; it is about shaping the economy and building in the right incentives to encourage productive behaviour.

I am glad that the Chancellor will reform the system of enterprise investment and venture capital trust schemes and review the tax system’s impact on entrepreneurs. I meet many of them in my constituency in Reading, which is a brilliant place for companies on all scales, from university spin-outs to world-leading giants. We have a particular concentration in life sciences, pharmaceuticals and IT services—services the OBR might be able to benefit from. Whether I am visiting Oxford Quantum Circuits in Thames Valley science park or a blockbuster film set at Shinfield Studios, I see my constituents building the British industries of the future, and when I visit schools, I encourage the schoolchildren to dream big and to take their share of that future.

But what of those children? The previous Conservative Government put 700,000 more children into poverty. Almost one in three children are growing up in relative poverty. That is the highest this figure has been this century. In Earley and Woodley, which is easily in the richest fifth of all constituencies in the UK, I get letters from parents who cannot feed their children during the half-term holidays. Because of the Chancellor’s Budget, 1,750 children in my constituency will be lifted out of poverty.

The hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) said that it was possible to find “cases” of people falling into poverty. I would urge him to look at the figures. Poverty can befall anyone. According to “Understanding Society”, the largest longitudinal household panel study we have, the poverty entry rate—those who start off above relative poverty one year and find themselves impoverished the next—is around 8%, which means that one in 12 of our constituents could, in any given year, find themselves suddenly in dire straits. That could be because of divorce, bereavement, illness, bad health or bad luck, and that is what the social security system is for.

Some 70% of children growing up in poverty are in working families. There is something wrong with an economy that produces these outcomes. That is why it is important that this Government are raising the minimum wage and giving workers more power to negotiate their terms in the workplace. At the same time as fixing the foundations, we have to put out the fire on the roof, because poverty is an urgent challenge; if we do not address it now, it threatens to burn the house down.

We speak a lot about the post-pandemic cohort of young people who are not in employment, education or training, but why are there so many? This is the austerity generation. New evidence published yesterday by the Work and Pensions Committee shows that individuals exposed to multiple instances of childhood adversity, such as poverty and poor parental health, were five times more likely to be NEET. An estimated 53% of NEET cases today are attributable to persistent poverty and family adversity. Our children are the future of our economy; we have to invest in them and in our future. That is why I am proud to support a sound, strong and fair Budget.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

To govern is to choose, and the Chancellor has chosen. She has chosen spending over saving, higher taxes over welfare reform, and benefits Britain over working Britain. She would rather raise taxes by £26 billion than shave a single penny off the welfare bill. She will make people who work and save pay more for the benefits of millions who do not.

I say that the Chancellor chose, but are these her choices or those of Labour Back Benchers? Just a few months ago, when debating the Government’s personal independence payment reform Bill, those Back Benchers were the ones who stood up and said things like, “I didn’t come here to cut benefits.” They were the ones in and out of meetings with No. 10 while the debate was going on in this Chamber, and they were the ones who forced the Disability Minister to stand up during that debate and announce that there would, in fact, be no savings. The Government’s welfare Bill then became a spending Bill, which Labour Back Benchers all voted for, of course.

The Chancellor could have used the Budget to right that wrong—or could she? The wolves have been circling ever since. This was not a Budget for Britain; it was a Budget for Labour Back Benchers. It was a “save our skin” Budget, but in saving her own skin, the Chancellor is selling the country down the river at a cost of £26 billion to taxpayers and 200,000 jobs, on top of the 150,000 that have already been lost since Labour has been in power and the thousands more that the unemployment rights Bill will destroy.

[Yuan Yang]

Three quarters of the tax raised by this Budget will go towards building fiscal headroom, doubling it—something that previous Conservative Chancellors never did. Does the hon. Lady welcome the investment in the gilt markets that international investors have now shown, demonstrating their confidence in the UK economy?

[Helen Whately]

This Budget is simple: taxes are going up on working people to pay for more benefits. That is the story of this Budget.

The Chancellor told the country that she was spending to bring down the cost of living. Really? For whom? Inflation is up, tax is up and wage growth is down. The only group of people who are going to be better off are those on benefits—the 10 million people of working age whose benefits will be uplifted by inflation, the thousands more who will go on to sickness benefits in the year ahead, and the half a million households who will get money from the lifting of the two-child cap. Those households will receive £5,000 more on average by the end of this decade, at a cost of £3 billion to the taxpayer, and some will get much more. A family with five children could get an extra £10,500, while a family with eight children will be able to get an extra £21,000, nearly as much as the annual pay before tax of a full-time worker on the minimum wage.

Labour Members have told us again and again today how Labour is fixing child poverty by giving out that extra money. We all care about children—we all want children to get the best start in life. [Interruption.] Come on. Labour Members are chuntering at me, but they cannot doubt the fact that everyone in this place wants children to get the best start in life. Handing out money might improve the poverty statistics that they like so much to crow about, but it will not solve the problem. Work is the best way out of poverty, and the Government’s handout will make parents less likely to work.

There are couples across the country—couples in work—who are wondering whether they can afford another child. Thanks to this Budget, their taxes are going up, and their incomes may well go down. Thanks to this Budget, some of them will decide to have no more children, or no children at all. That is sad, and it is unfair. Labour Members have been crowing about the Budget, but as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) said earlier, the threshold rises it contains could even drag some working families below the relative poverty line that they like to talk about so much.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Yuan Yang Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I wanted to speak in this debate to try to get behind some of the headlines and challenges that those on the Government Benches face in getting to a settled view today, by looking back over the last years the Conservatives had in government at some of the lessons that we must draw from that experience but which are relevant to consider today.

I will not be able to support the proposals, not because I do not think some of them have significant merit, or because I do not have the greatest respect for the Minister for Social Security and Disability, who has spent 31 years in this place and who I believe will do all that is asked of him, but because I do not think that the changes in the Bill are sufficiently ambitious to deal with the scale of the challenges we face.

I was in government for seven years and I was in the Treasury for most of that time. During the covid epidemic, we had to make some pretty quick changes while the economy was shut down overnight. They involved changes to benefits, standing up a furlough scheme very quickly, bounce back loans and many interventions to try to keep our public services going, and they were at the core of some of the patterns of behavioural change that we now see in our benefits system. I was looking at the numbers for my constituency, which I recognise is a wonderful place and also quite a wealthy place that does not have some of the embedded challenges in other parts of the country. The number of PIP claims in January 2019 was 2,065 and in April 2025 it was 4,211. The vast majority of my constituents and the vast majority of people in the country cannot understand how those numbers have doubled in such a short amount of time.

I fully respect the aspirations of the Secretary of State and her ministerial team in seeking to address that, because we have to come to terms with what we can afford as a country. I also respect sincerely the remarks of the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden), whose constituency is rather different from mine, because I think we are united in this place in wanting to look after the most vulnerable. I want to see those who are suffering, who are disabled and who need support from the state to receive that support in a timely way. What I do not want to see is people written off permanently.

About 12 or 14 years ago in this House, we had a debate about mental health. Several Members of Parliament stood up and bravely talked about their own mental health challenges. We then went on a journey to bring parity of esteem to mental health and physical health in our benefits system. I believe that that pathway into assessment for mental health has not worked. It writes people off too easily and it does not serve them well, by leaving them in a place where they are, on an enduring basis, reliant on the state. As a country, we cannot afford it. It is time to legislate for more resilience: resilience in our country and in those who receive benefits such that they can get out of that place of dependency, because I do not think it is a happy place for anyone to be.

When I reflect on the changes proposed today, I can see the hand of the Treasury. I can see the fiscal imperative. I can see the public finances and what is now likely to happen in the autumn, which will mean more tax rises. Now, for some on the Government Benches that will be a price worth paying, but we as a country will lack the productive capacity to grow if we tax those who create jobs to a level where they just will not create jobs any further. We have to come to terms with that profound reality; if we do not, we are in a death spiral as a country.

I give credit to the Government for some of the steps they are taking today. However, for reasons different from those stated by many on the Government Benches, I will not be able to support the Bill. I do not think it is holistic, goes far enough or deals with the profound tragedy that has happened to our benefits system as a consequence of covid and our public finances.

[Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)]

I always appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks in the Treasury Committee and in the Chamber as an extremely fair-minded colleague. I appreciated his remarks in yesterday’s statement and the admission that the previous Government’s handling of our recovery from the pandemic was not what it should have been. However, does he not recognise that the constituents with whom I meet now rely on their PIP to get to their places of work because of the stripping away of council funding for bus routes, social care and all the services that were left in tatters by the previous Government?

[John Glen]

I reciprocate the hon. Lady’s warm sentiments. She makes her political points, some of which will be true in some circumstances, and some of which will not.

My point today to everyone in this House is this: let us be real, honest and true about the trajectory of growth in welfare spending in this country, and let us be honest about what we can afford. We face a transformed landscape of threats to this country, with calls for more spending on defence. We have to address our priorities, but we must also recognise that the most vulnerable need continued support. However, the system we have brings too many into dependency on the state, and that is not right.

Welfare Reform

Yuan Yang Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

I fundamentally disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect. I actually think that universal credit sometimes locked people out of work, because they had to define themselves as incapable of working in order to afford to live. Less than 1% of people on UC move into work each month. That is not good enough for them, their incomes and their life chances, and it is not good enough for the taxpayer, either.

[Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State and her colleagues in the Department for their tireless work over the past week, and I very much welcome her commitment to co-production with disabled people in the Timms review. The atrocious handling of the pandemic by the previous Conservative Government has left the economy and disabled people paying the cost. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the Timms review funding model will have the fiscal baseline of the inherited four-point system? If that is the case, how can that mean meaningful co-production with disabled people?

[Liz Kendall]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s comments about the state of the economy. As I said in my statement, the four-point minimum will now not relate to existing claimants. It will come in for new claims in November 2026, but the Timms review and the co-production will look not only at the activities and the descriptors, but the points given to them. It is important that we do not set up a process of co-production and then overrule that. We want a benefits system that enables disabled people to have dignity and independence, and the same choices and chances to live the life that they want as anybody else has. It is a really important process, and I hope that she and many other hon. Members in the House will work with us to get this right.

Welfare Reform

Yuan Yang Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

I have worked in health, and one of my first jobs involved tackling health inequalities when I worked at the King’s Fund charity. We are looking at building not only more homes, but more decent homes. We want people not just to get jobs, but to get good jobs. We are looking at raising the income of the poorest people with our new fair repayment rate, which gives an average of £420 a year extra to the 1.2 million poorest families. There is much more that we can do but, right across Government, our purpose is to tackle poverty and inequality by getting more people into good jobs. That is the Labour way.

[Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)]

I strongly congratulate the Secretary of State on the £1 billion package of employment support. Many active labour market policies have been shown to have considerable economic impact. Historically, it has been difficult for the Office for National Statistics to score the positive impacts of active policies, as opposed to the more straightforward impacts of budget reductions. Will the Secretary of State commit to working cross-departmentally to ensure that we have long-term investment in the health of our nation, which is so fundamental to the wealth of our economy?

“Get Britain Working” White Paper

Yuan Yang Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

The hon. Lady raises a really important point. We have a clear manifesto commitment to review universal credit, tackle poverty and make work pay. That issue has been raised a lot with me and the Minister for Social Security and Disability. I am sure that he will look closely at that. We need our benefits system to match the reality of people’s working lives today.

[Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)]

I very much commend the Secretary of State for the youth guarantee. In my constituency, many businesses have invested in the hi-tech industries of the future. However, I speak to young people and their families who are concerned about those young people getting jobs on the first rung of the ladder. This year, there will be 3,000 undergraduates graduating from the University of Reading, and a further 3,000 people turning 18 in my constituency. What can the Secretary of State and her Department do for those young people to ensure that local jobs and training opportunities match the economic advantages of the area they are from?

[Liz Kendall]

I personally believe that we need to start much younger than 18, with good work experience and careers advice in schools. I have certainly seen that in my constituency; even in primary schools, teachers have brought in people with different jobs, in different professions, to open children’s eyes and minds to the possibilities of the world of work. We need to bring together everything that is happening in our schools, colleges and the world of work. That is how we open up possibilities for young people. I hope that the youth guarantee will do precisely that in local areas and provide the opportunities that my hon. Friend’s young constituents need and deserve.

International Investment Summit

Yuan Yang Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is simply not true—just read what the Bank of England said about that time. All the numbers went back to normal within a month of that fiscal event. The hon. Gentleman can choose his opinions, but he cannot choose his facts.

Let us look at some facts. Of course we welcome the £63 billion that has been announced, but as the Minister and her Government stand on a platform of honesty and transparency, let us put some honesty and transparency around the numbers. The Amazon £8 billion was announced on 20 March this year. The Blackstone investment of £10 billion in a data centre was announced on 23 April this year. Of the £63 billion announced, £36 billion was announced prior to the investment summit or initiated via things like auctions by the previous Government. Only 20% of what was announced was not already in the pipeline before the investment summit. The reality is that much of it was already baked in. There is bound to be an overlap when a new Government come in, but let us have some transparency and honesty around the numbers.

[Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)]

By spring this year, financial markets had already priced in the fact that they expected a large Labour victory, and that was what gave businesses and the markets so much confidence in the future stability of our economy. Will the shadow Secretary of State explain why?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will come on to confidence in a second, if I may.

The reality is that the UK has always been a good place for foreign investors. For the past three years, it has been No. 3 in the world for foreign direct investment; the only countries ahead of us have been the US and China.

The Minister referred to the wonderful event at the Guildhall. We have wonderful places to host international events, and we support what they do to show the best of Britain to our international investors. I was pleased, but perhaps surprised, to see Elton John entertaining the audience; I was expecting Taylor Swift. Was that ever on the agenda? There is obviously a very strong relationship there. But when I thought about it, and when I heard about the reversal of position on the DP World investment, I thought, “Well, it’s obvious why they’ve done that: they’ve asked Elton and the Transport Secretary to join in a duet of ‘Sorry Seems to Be the Hardest Word’.” Interestingly, a No.10 press release on this mentioned a rogue operator—I was not sure whether that meant the Secretary of State or the company—so I am not sure where that all landed in the end, or whether that was just a rogue comment by the Secretary of State.

None the less, we welcome the investment and we will absolutely support any successes that the Government can achieve, but, as the Opposition, it is right that we challenge where challenge is due. We have many concerns about some of the things to which the Minister refers. She is absolutely right to say that stability is the key. It breeds confidence in investors, which breeds investment. That is why we are particularly concerned about the changes to business taxation. Some were floated months ago and have been left hanging in the air. We know that this is now affecting investment, particularly around capital gains tax and around business relief—it used to be called business property relief—which is very close to my heart.

Business relief gives private businesses and businesses listed on AIM the ability to pass on their assets to the next generation without inheritance tax. There are a number of questions around whether that relief will be continued. It is hugely important that the Government do continue it, because it affects some of this country’s fantastic family businesses, which generate around £200 billion of tax receipts every single year and employ nearly 14 million people. That business relief is there for a reason. It is not a tax loophole; it is an incentive for family and intergenerational businesses to pass on their assets from one generation to the next. Similarly, that happens with agricultural property relief.

We are also concerned about the Government’s unwillingness to confirm that there will be no rise in national insurance for employers. Members on both sides of the House have described that as a jobs tax, and that is exactly what it is. All the uncertainty around business taxation will mean a suspension of investment and a reduction in the amount of hiring, particularly when it is seen in conjunction with the potential workplace changes that the Government are making, which we will debate in the House on Monday and about which we have great concerns. In particular, those relating to union powers could take this country back to the 1970s. I know that many Members in this place will not remember the 1970s, but I do and it was not a good place to be.

In the Prime Minister’s statement, he talked about cutting red tape. If, as currently drafted, the 28 new regulations—particularly those for small and medium-sized enterprises—are added to the Employment Rights Bill, it would seriously damage growth, investment and SMEs. But the Minister does not need to take my word for that. Let me read out some of the comments about the changes that the Government are thinking of making that will damage investment. The Federation of Small Businesses said that its members are viewing the measures coming down the line with “trepidation”. Tina McKenzie described them as

“clumsy, chaotic and poorly planned.”

She said:

“There are already 65,000 fewer payroll jobs since Labour took power, and the new Government is sending out troubling signals to businesses and investors.”

Those are her words, not mine.

The Institute of Directors said that confidence is fizzling out. Its index in relation to investor appetite has gone from plus 30% in June 2024 to minus 7% in October 2024. That is in just four months. The CBI said that 62% of employers say that the UK will be a less attractive place in which to invest. Ernst & Young said that

“60% of asset management (private equity) clients have asked them to start work on moving abroad.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) on her wonderful maiden speech. I know that her international background and deep expertise in international development will add much richness to our new parliamentary Labour party, and I also believe that an international background is essential to enriching the perspectives on our side of the House.

In my previous life, before coming into this place, I spent eight years interviewing the leaders of international businesses, many of whom had long-standing commitments to investment in the UK, but who repeatedly told me and my former colleagues at the Financial Times that political instability was putting them off making future investments. That is why I very much welcome the remarks of our Minister on the international investment summit and the importance of the private sector’s partnership with our Government.

The 10-year project that we have for national renewal, along with our 10-year industrial strategy, shows our commitment to long-term economic ambition and planning. I congratulate the organisers of the summit, which brought together more than 300 industry leaders and secured more than £60 billion of investment. That is 60% more than was raised last year, and it will create nearly 38,000 jobs, one of which is bringing Elton John out of retirement. Unfortunately, private investment in the UK since the global financial crisis has been much less “Rocket Man”, and more “Tiny Dancer”.

Over the last decade and a half, Britain has experienced a much larger slowdown in the growth of capital intensity than comparative countries such as the US, France and Germany, and it is that, alongside our skills growth, which accounts for our productivity puzzle. I very much welcome the appointment of John Van Reenen, the wonderful LSE economist, to our Council of Economic Advisors. He has done important work on productivity in the UK, and he suggests that our post-financial crisis fall in productivity growth is primarily due to a large fall in capital accumulation. In other words, British workers are being held back by low levels of public and private investment, and that is what our Government need to unlock to succeed in our growth mission.

We will provide stability, but stability alone is not enough. In the 21st century we must do more to provide industry and business leaders with the leadership that they require to navigate our increasingly complex geopolitical world, in which there is fragmentation of supply chains across the world, as well as the green transition. That means an industrial strategy. I welcome the publication of our Government’s industrial strategy earlier this month, and particularly the focus on life sciences as one of the key eight sectors for investment.

My constituency of Earley and Woodley in the Thames valley is a prime location for foreign direct investment, particularly in life sciences, and I am proud that the Thames valley is the fastest growing region in the UK outside London. I congratulate the Thames valley chamber of commerce, with which I have already worked in my first 100 days, on securing over the last decade more than 1,000 instances of foreign direct investment. We can measure the excitement of business and the private sector for our Labour Government by the amount of engagement I have already had from businesses in my constituency and through Thames valley chamber of commerce.

The biopharmaceutical group Lonza, which is Swiss in origin, received a grant of £30 million over the summer to expand and relocate to my constituency in the Thames valley park, which is one of three business parks in the area alongside Thames Valley science park and Green park. I recently met Bayer, originally a German company, which employs hundreds of people at its headquarters in my constituency, and contributes to crucial health and life science research in the UK.

Advancements in life sciences have fundamentally improved not just the economy and innovation of the UK, but the length and quality of life here and around the world. That is why I welcome the Health Secretary’s mission to ensure that the NHS receives the cutting-edge treatments being pioneered by companies in my constituency and beyond. Life science investment, if done correctly, can be a significant driver of growth and productivity—our central mission. I look forward very much to meeting the Minster for Industry next week to discuss how we can give full range to life sciences companies in our constituencies, and to the clinical research taking place in the Royal Berkshire hospital, which is at the forefront of much research in medical trials. That hospital will benefit greatly from private and public investment.

Businesses do not exist in isolation, and what makes some countries prosper is the strength of their institutions. Responsible and highly productive businesses wish to retain their skilled workforces, who require countries with well-functioning public service provision, infrastructure and accessible housing. Those companies want political stability and a regulatory framework that works for business, workers, and the consumer. That is why Labour’s pitch to business does not end with the international investment summit, but continues with legislation that the Government are passing, such as the Employment Rights Bill. Providing the foundations for businesses to thrive means fixing the foundations of our economy and society, and that is what I am proud to say our Labour Government will do.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Kanishka Narayan to make his maiden speech.