Sarah Bool MP: speeches

Speeches

• 10 Dec 2025 · Seasonal Work · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. The importance of the construction industry was mentioned earlier, along with the plan to give more construction apprenticeships and jobs to young people, but for those jobs to be offered, we need people to be investing in the first place. Companies are not doing that, because they cannot make those decisions. They do not know where the money is coming from. They do not know when the money will next be taken from them. We are not creating an environment in which they can grow. I do not see anyone on the Government Benches disagreeing with me on that, so I think my hon. Friend’s point is well made.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Seasonal Work · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. We need to encourage that next generation through to the workforce, and I cannot see that they are getting any of those opportunities at the moment. The Government are so proudly trying to promote that, but let us look at the impact and the figures. There can be no denying that they are achieving none of what they hope to achieve in future.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Seasonal Work · Hansard source

  More

  At least the hon. Member has acknowledged that we have to repay debt, unlike the Green party, which suddenly believes that repaying debt interest is not a viable or true alternative in this world. The hon. Gentleman denies talk of welfare, but it is a fundamental element. [ Interruption. ] I am glad to see that he agrees with that, but there is so much more. Why is the Labour party increasing the welfare bill? The Government have to grow the economy and that means supporting businesses, giving them opportunities, reducing tax and putting money in our pockets to do that. Unfortunately, we can see from everything that has come from the Government so far that the economy is not growing. Watch this space, but that is a problem that we will struggle with. South Northamptonshire has 95 pubs, which are crucial to our rural community and to our economy. They are a great example of a place where young people can start their first jobs. At The White Hart in Hackleton, a young girl with Down’s syndrome, who could not get a job outside the village because of transport issues, took her first job. That job will be threatened by all the measures from this Government.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Seasonal Work · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. In Prime Minister’s questions earlier, I asked about the fair choices that this Government say they have made. I think those choices are fundamentally unfair. The Government are trying to introduce a digital ID scheme, unfunded by the Government, that could cost at least £1.8 billion, yet most of the public do not want it, given that 3 million people signed the petition against it. The Government then talk about inflicting tax hits on all our businesses. It is just madness. There is absolutely no sense of direction from this Government. This is not a pro-growth Chancellor but a no-growth Chancellor. That will be the legacy. I never thought that a Christmas song could sum up a Government’s economic approach, but if we look at “We wish you a Merry Christmas”, it appears that we are in the “we won’t go until we’ve got some,” phase from this Government, whether they are demanding figgy pudding or, in this instance, tax. I am really hoping, though, that they will see the light and eventually help businesses to unlock, to reach their potential and to have a merry Christmas and a happy new year.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q14. This Government are always talking about the fair choices that they have made, but is it a fair choice to balloon the benefits bill? Is it a fair choice to introduce an unfunded and unwanted digital ID that will cost the public billions of pounds? And is it a fair choice to increase taxes on working people when the promise was not to? The answer is no. Can I ask the Prime Minister to consider one final fair choice? Thinking about food security and avoiding devastation for families across the country, will his Government reverse the family farm tax?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. “Why are they needed when we already have secure ways to identify ourselves?” “This is being pushed under the façade of security.” “The cost to the taxpayer would be prohibitive.” “This system would be incredibly vulnerable to hacking.” Those direct quotes from my constituents get to the heart of the point: unnecessary; overreach; vulnerable; and expensive. Nearly 5,000 people in South Northamptonshire signed the petition to oppose the Government’s plans for digital IDs. This Government really are the living embodiment of the famous phrase: “Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them…well, I have others.” First, they sold the measure as a means of tackling illegal migration, but that principle has barely been mentioned in recent weeks. Now digital IDs will become the requirement for right to work checks in the UK, which may require children as young as 13 to be involved. Talk about the creeping hand of the state!

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  If time permitted, I would happily take an intervention from any Government Member on where it was in the Labour manifesto that such a measure would be included, or if any member of the Government could actually tell us how much the scheme would cost. But I will save them the trouble, because it was not and they do not know. The OBR has said that there has been no specific funding identified for the scheme, and it is forecast to cost £1.8 billion over the next three years. We have a Government drowning in Budget leaks and accidentally releasing prisoners left, right and centre, so how can they be trusted to create a system of ID? Any such system requires absolute buy-in from all our constituents, and we can see that the very reason we are having this debate today is that the Government have not secured that buy-in. This is a really dangerous gimmick from the Government. The devil is in the detail, and without that detail the devil is at play and the British public will pay.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister really not give way?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Welfare Spending: Economic Impact · Hansard source

  More

  The oldest law in economics is that if we tax something more, we get less of it. The inverse is also true: if we subsidise something more, we get more of it. Why do this Government believe that subsidising unemployment through huge increases to the welfare bill will not lead to more unemployment? Will the Secretary of State accept that those changes disincentivise work, and will he tell the House how much the Budget is expected to increase unemployment?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Welfare Spending: Economic Impact · Hansard source

  More

  1. What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the potential impact of future welfare spending on the economy.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Dawn Sturgess Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  To the extent that he is able, can the Minister please explain what steps he is taking to secure UK commercial ports, given recent reports of individuals with links to the Russian military entering via those routes?

• 4 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T2. First, I want to echo the concerns of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael): the Paymaster General really must meet with the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee to discuss the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement—meeting with the Chair in private is not enough. When it comes to Europe and negotiating deals, the devil is always in the detail. Looking at the fisheries negotiation, we can see that the Government struggle with this area. Given that Switzerland will be paying €375 million a year, and it seems as though we will have to pay for the privilege of being a rule taker once more, can the Minister clarify exactly what he considers to be an appropriate financial contribution to be paid to the EU?

• 3 Dec 2025 · Grooming Gangs · Hansard source

  More

  3. What steps she is taking with the Home Secretary to help tackle grooming gangs in Wales.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Grooming Gangs · Hansard source

  More

  Welsh Labour voted against a grooming gangs inquiry in the Senedd. Now Scottish MPs are bemoaning the lack of action from the Scottish National party and the Scottish Government. Given that Welsh Labour is also dragging its heels over this inquiry, will the Secretary of State step up and ensure that it holds a Wales-wide inquiry into this horrific scandal?

• 1 Dec 2025 · Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts · Hansard source

  More

  If the Chancellor really takes the integrity of the Budget as seriously as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury says, she would not have leaked so much of it to the media beforehand. There is speculation and then there is being spoon-fed. The only principle guiding the Chancellor was keeping her Back Benchers happy and the only cuts were to confidence. Will the Chief Secretary set out exactly what steps the Chancellor will take to clear up this mess? Will she come back before this House, and will she refer herself to the Financial Conduct Authority?

• 25 Nov 2025 · Immigration Reforms: Humanitarian Visa Routes · Hansard source

  More

  I thank you for chairing the debate, Sir Edward, and the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for allowing Members the opportunity to discuss the impact of the reforms on humanitarian visa routes. I also congratulate him on his recent appointment as patron of Hong Kong Watch, an organisation that has done a great deal to scrutinise successive Governments and to help to communicate essential information to those from Hong Kong who have sought refuge. He joins an illustrious collection of individuals, including current and former elected officials from across the House. The humanitarian visa route set up under the previous Government sought to recognise the scale of the crisis we experienced at the onset of this decade, whether that be the reprehensible invasion of Ukraine or the complete mistreatment of the existing rights of Hongkongers, which breached commitments enshrined in international agreements and law. I think Members from all parties would almost unanimously agree that it was right that such schemes were set up, and that it was necessary to put forward an offer to ensure that those in great danger, and to whom we have a historic responsibility, received protection. When we reflect on the context of such schemes, it is right that the immigration reforms appreciate the context. As such, I reiterate that the Conservative proposals on the change to settlement, which were made months before the Government’s own, always stated that they would have no impact on BNO visas and those from Ukraine, given the unique nature of those routes. Many constituents have reached out to me in fear that this Government would not continue that position. As mentioned, the Government announced last week that those on BNO routes would not be impacted by the changes to settlement. That finally gives them and many others the clarity they have been asking for. It also raises the question of why the Government could not have offered sufficient clarity earlier. Despite the unnecessary delay, I welcome the Government’s decision, and I echo the sentiment expressed by those in the community who are very pleased to see it. As we consider settlement, it is worth acknowledging the work done on the BNO visa. The previous Government not only instituted a scheme that has seen thousands of people come to this country—with over 166,000 people having arrived in the UK as of June 2025—but brought forward support for those who came. That included funding for 12 welcome hubs across the UK and demand-led funding for local authorities to provide English language and destitution support in England. That work underscores the seriousness with which the Conservative party viewed the integration of this community.

• 25 Nov 2025 · Immigration Reforms: Humanitarian Visa Routes · Hansard source

  More

  I think we would like to hear from the Minister, so I will push on. Although it is unsurprising, given the continuing restrictions on freedom, the fact that the Government assume that those who arrive on the BNO route will settle after five years, and that those who switch on to the route will also settle after five years, demonstrates that the route has been broadly successful. A qualitative study of the visa route for MHCLG showed that participant responses overall suggested they felt supported by the UK Government, and people with BNO visas were grateful for the existence of the route. I appreciate that specific challenges and difficulties remain, such as the need for greater engagement with programmes to improve integration. Nevertheless, we can already see some of the immense contributions that those who came through the pathway are making both to this country and to the Hong Kong diaspora. For example, only recently Chloe Cheung won the 2025 Magnitsky award for outstanding young human rights activist. She is one of the numerous people, including young individuals, who have had bounties placed on their heads by the Chinese Government for exercising their democratic rights. The complete undermining of the safety of those individuals and of the UK’s sovereignty is wholly unacceptable, but it is welcome that those individuals are resolutely fighting for the values that underpin the necessity of the visa. However, as has been expressed in the debate, questions still remain about what the Government’s broader changes will mean for this community. What will BNO visa holders and their dependants need to demonstrate in respect of new income or economic contribution requirements? Will the current English language standard for settlement on the BNO route be maintained at B1, or will it be B2? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that those born after 1997 have protection? I appreciate that those questions do not necessarily have simple answers but, given the concerns about the lack of clarity expressed recently by the community, it would be helpful if the Minister could outline answers to those matters. Ultimately, we believe there is a great deal more to do to reduce levels of legal migration, so changes to settlement are appropriate. However, as is the case with many such changes, there will be an impact, and transparency about the precise impact will always be welcome. I hope the Minister will agree that the Government should do as much as possible to express clearly the impact of the changes on people who have come to the UK through humanitarian routes.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T8. A more dynamic and active market unblocking pathways to home ownership and boosting local businesses by up to £1.2 billion—I am sure if someone offered that to the Secretary of State, he would bite their hand off, so why, when those are the benefits of scrapping stamp duty on homes, is he not lobbying the Chancellor to do just that on Wednesday?

• 24 Nov 2025 · Ministerial Code · Hansard source

  More

  How can the Minister justify the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) receiving severance pay after she had to resign in disgrace?

• 4 Nov 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  Every one of us in this Chamber, and generations of MPs before us, want to help and improve the lives of our constituents. That is why this debate is so important, and we really have to tackle it. The issues with welfare go back generations. We talk about the welfare state as we know it now, coming in after the second world war with Clement Attlee and the establishment of the NHS, but the history of welfare goes back so much further. The National Insurance Act 1911 introduced insurance against sickness, invalidity and—unusually at that time—unemployment. We can even go back even further than that, to Henry VIII and the abolition of the monasteries; it was the monasteries that used to provide charity and care for the infirm and the needy. Since then, we have seen the development of welfare in various forms, and it is something that we have all struggled with. We saw it with the development of the Poor Law and the friendly societies. It has been an area of great change and it has been going on for generations. I appreciate that anyone coming to this topic comes with the best of intentions. I think there is consensus that welfare reform is needed, but the way in which the provision of welfare is developed at the moment is entirely damaging both to the public purse and to those who are caught in the welfare net. Today’s welfare state has become like the modern-day helicopter parent. For those who do not know, a helicopter parent is one who hovers over their child like a helicopter in every aspect of their life, managing their experiences and feeling that they always need to be involved in order to solve problems. But we know that is not healthy for the child. They can feel smothered, are unable to develop and become trapped. That is what is happening with our current welfare system; it is trapping people and not giving them opportunities.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  I am very sorry that that was the experience faced by the hon. Lady’s constituent, but it is good that she has managed to get the opportunity to work. That is the thing; that is the difference. Changes need to be made. We have come to the Chamber today to try to find a route through this issue for all of us. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) has offered help. I have a big issue with the language being used in this Chamber all the time. This is a very difficult and sometimes uncomfortable conversation, but it is absolutely essential that we take the action needed. Sentiments like “living within your means”, which I think all our constituents have to do from day to day, should not be replaced by words like “austerity” and then the idea slammed down. That is not helpful to any debate or any of our constituents. We always ask our constituents to look after their money—money in, money out—and the Government have to do the same. This depends on what our own views of the Government are. There are those who want the Government to be involved in absolutely every element of everyone’s lives—and so be it, but do expect cost rises, inefficiencies and abuse of the system. The most compassionate thing is to put people on the path to take their own opportunities, to have their own jobs and to grow. That is the place we are trying to get to. Sometimes we are too involved, and we are not creating the system of fairness that we all seek. Given the sums of money that we are talking about, it is even more imperative that we grasp this nettle. It cannot be right or fair that sickness benefit pays £2,500 more a year than the amount received by someone living on the national living wage. A responsible Government have to take proper action to tackle this issue. That is why the Conservative party has come forward with proposals that would reduce spending by £23 billion, through our plan to deliver £47 billion of savings. The pen sits with the Government. It is entirely with them to take these actions—the actions that constituents are asking for. Rather than dismissing our solutions, as Government Members have constantly done today, perhaps the Government should take some of them on, take up our offer for help and improve the welfare system.

• 3 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  EKA Ltd in my constituency is a supplier to Ministry of Defence service recovery vehicles that have to be deployed with our tanks, but an issue that it and other service personnel have highlighted is the absence of the provision of robust spare parts in the event of a breakdown or damage. The Government are spending millions on these assets but leaving them completely unprotected. Is the MOD reviewing the provision of spares as part of its procurement, and would the Minister meet me and EKA Ltd to discuss the matter further?

• 29 Oct 2025 · Farmers: Inheritance Tax · Hansard source

  More

  1. What discussions she has had with farmers in Wales on the potential impact of planned changes to inheritance tax relief on the agricultural sector.

• 29 Oct 2025 · Farmers: Inheritance Tax · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister to her place. The impact of the changes to IHT goes far beyond just farmers. Last month, a Pembrokeshire farm gathered 57 businesses from vets, machinery dealerships, and milk processors, to electricians and fencing companies, employing almost 11,000 people. Almost half of those were totally reliant on incomes from local farms. Have the Government fully considered the ripple effect of that policy on farms in Wales and across the UK, including in my constituency?

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  I will make some progress. Labour Members sneer when we talk about living within their means. That is something that every single constituent of ours has to do. They have to make those tough decisions not to spend at certain points, or to save, or to work harder, but this Government do not even follow the principles that they ask their own constituents to adhere to.