Saqib Bhatti MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

• 16 Oct 2024 · Research and Development · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State, in one of his first acts in his new role, cut £1.3 billion-worth of funding that would have been transformative for enabling cutting-edge research and development in Britain. I note that he has also ditched our ambition to turn Britain into a science and technology superpower. We set a target of £20 billion for R&D, which we met, but he has set no such target. Will he be setting a target, and can he today promise that there will be no cuts to R&D expenditure?

• 15 Oct 2024 · Business Confidence · Hansard source

  More

  It is a real privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) on securing this important debate in a very timely manner. It is so timely because the more I speak to businesses or business organisations, the more the phrase “holding pattern” comes up. That is down to of the uncertainty that has been created in the first 100 days of this Labour Government. Frankly, a lot of business organisations and businesses thought that the promise of change meant change for the better. Clearly, that was not the case, because, as we have just heard, the business confidence monitor of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales—I am a chartered accountant by profession—has dipped. That is consistent with what we are seeing across the patch. Politicians often refer to businesses and small businesses, which I used to cater for—when I was president of the Greater Birmingham chambers of commerce, the majority of our members were small businesses—as the lifeblood of our communities. That is a very easy phrase to put out there, but it has to be more than a slogan. They are the businesses that define what our communities stand for. They are the ones that create jobs, take risks and create the real wealth. Like my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield, I welcome the investment, but I think the figures of the new and old money will be disputed— I am sure we will do that in the main Chamber and in here. As I have said before, the Government’s successes will be the country’s successes, so we welcome that level of investment, but investment only comes when businesses have confidence to invest. It is about not just domestic investment but international investors. The Labour Government often talk about what they have inherited. As I was the Minister responsible for tech and the digital economy up until the election, I know that we had the third most valuable tech economy in the world. We had some of the highest levels of investment and were the fastest-growing in the G7. That was all defined by the fact that people felt confident enough to invest. Weeks before the general election was called, we had about £2.5 billion come in in one week. I want to stress the importance of business confidence and economic confidence. Damage is done when the Prime Minister talks about there being worse to come. On the back of the political choices the Government are making, there may well be worse to come, but they will not be able to deliver on the economic growth and public sector investment they want if the private sector does not believe that they can do it. There has been a lot of chatter about moving the goalposts on fiscal rules. There is no magic money tree, as has been said. There is no definite way of putting money out there without the chickens coming home to roost. There is always a price to be paid, and the burden will be borne by the businesses of the United Kingdom. They will be the ones that will be taxed. It is incredibly worrying that we have not had clarity on the capital gains issue. I think there was a report yesterday, but I will wait for the Chancellor to come to the Dispatch Box to confirm that capital gains will not rise, because that will affect investor sentiment. National insurance is very much in the media today, and that question is really hampering because if employers have to pay more national insurance, the cost will be borne by consumers. That will affect demand and recruitment and labour decisions—I say labour with a small l, but there might possibly be a big L involved at the next election if there is such an impact. My community is very entrepreneurial and there are businesses there, as well as businesses in my business forum, which all hon. Members are welcome to join. Britain is a great place to do business, and it is a great place to invest and grow, but that is despite this Labour Government.

• 15 Oct 2024 · NHS Dental Contracting Framework · Hansard source

  More

  Last month, the Secretary of State for Wales told the Labour party conference that this Labour Government will “take inspiration” from Labour-run Wales on dentistry. That is the same health system in which less than 60% of dentistry courses are being completed in comparison with pre-pandemic figures—a rate that is far lower than in England. Does the Minister agree that the Secretary of State for Wales is right and that Wales is a blueprint for what a Labour Government will do in England, or will they drop the bluster, get serious and commit to the dental reforms set out in the dental recovery plan, including a tie-in to NHS dentistry for graduate dentists?

• 8 Oct 2024 · VAT: Independent Schools · Hansard source

  More

  I want to say from the outset that this is clearly an attack on aspiration, an attack on opportunity. I say to the constituents of the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) that he voted for winter fuel payments to be slashed and now he is voting for an attack on hard-working families who will be struggling to make ends meet. I went to a state school and an independent school and I was grateful for both those journeys and the education that I received in both. Plenty of hard-working families will be struggling to make ends meet. The first point I want to make is about tone. I will come back to the Education Secretary’s tweet, which was deeply offensive. Surely Labour Members must acknowledge—it is a simple case of maths—that people who are rich enough to afford VAT increases, whether it is 4%, 16%, which is the average, or the whole 20%, will continue to send their kids to independent schools and pay the fees. It is the people who are struggling to make ends meet, or the really hard-up families, or—God forbid—parents of children who are on scholarships and bursaries who will no longer be able to send their kids to those schools, because those schools will have to withdraw those scholarships and bursaries as they will be less affordable. So the tone of this debate is really important. I would caution the Government to be more reticent on this. They refer to tax breaks; these are not tax breaks. Education should not be, and is not, taxed, and they are about to open that Pandora’s box. There have been a lot of comments from Government Members about state schools. I agree: standards in state schools should be improved. They talk about the last 14 years. We delivered a real-terms increase per pupil. We have delivered record funding—about £60 billion. They may challenge that, but it is pure fact. I am happy to share those facts. We did that, and the result of that, especially with our focus on things like phonics, which Labour challenged when in opposition, is that we now have some of the highest reading standards in the world—independently and internationally rated. We also have some of the highest ratings in mathematics. So the Government may try to frame this debate as anything other than ideological, but those arguments are severely undermined by the Education Secretary’s tweet, which put it out there that this is really a class war.

• 8 Oct 2024 · VAT: Independent Schools · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend made an excellent speech about the practicalities of introducing this change in January, and she makes an excellent point now about the slippery slope involved. The Government say that the money will be focused on educational improvements, but there is no guarantee of that, as it will go into the general pot. They promised 6,500 new teachers, which is fewer than we delivered; it is a drop in the ocean, which will barely make a difference to the hundreds of thousands of schools that, of course, need extra teachers. I concede that point; we should have better educational standards. SEND will affect every Member of Parliament. It affects me. I was with a north Solihull parents group just a few weeks ago. Those parents will no longer be able to afford to give their children a private education for SEND purposes, and they will now have to rely on the state. Surely Government Members can see that that will further increase the burden on state provision, particularly if they are right that there is a lack of teachers. The Minister might address this point: how does this policy improve state school provision? How does it improve the standard and quality of delivery for SEND parents? It was all right for the Prime Minister to make special provision for his kids, and for the Education Secretary to have a benefactor, but what are these parents going to do?

• 10 Sept 2024 · Social Security · Hansard source

  More

  I will not, because I am sure the hon. Lady can participate later. The Government might be fooling themselves, but they are not fooling the British public or my pensioners. If they want to do the right thing, they should follow the example of the hon. Member for York Central. If there are issues, I am sure that even the Opposition will look into them in depth and we will do the right thing, but the Government are using our pensioners as some sort of political tool to make an ideological point. The Chancellor stood up and found this alleged black hole to try to justify that. It is a horrible situation—

• 10 Sept 2024 · Social Security · Hansard source

  More

  I stand to speak on behalf of my 18,500 pensioners who will be affected by this measure. Before I do so, I commend the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) on a really impassioned speech. I know it is not easy to stand against one’s own party, but today’s decision is a choice between right and wrong. Members are defending the choice by the Government and the Chancellor to make this decision on the backs of pensioners, who have the sheer brass neck to go out and defend it, alleging a black hole when they have paid billions to unions without any savings in return. There is GB Energy—a shell company for £8 billion—and climate promises of more than £11 billion, and then they say that there is no money and they are going to get £1.1 billion on the back of pensioners.

• 10 Sept 2024 · Social Security · Hansard source

  More

  I have already said that I will not give way. There could have been adequate scrutiny so that the House could analyse it and see the impact. Some 4,000 people are at risk of death—that is not my number; that is what the Labour party said in 2017. That is what Labour Members are voting for if they allow this measure to pass. They must do the right thing, and not use our pensioners as a political weapon for their own ideology. This is a horrible situation to put them in. The anxiety that Members are causing is outrageous. The Government really must step up their game if they are to convince the British public that this is the right thing to do.

• 10 Sept 2024 · Social Security · Hansard source

  More

  I will not give way, as I will make some progress in the limited time I have. Many Opposition Members are absolutely enraged that this is happening. The Labour party talked about transparency, yet there has been no full impact assessment of the measure. Where is it? If the Government have nothing to be afraid of, where is the impact assessment? Why did they not wait until the Budget—the big fiscal moment?

• 2 Sept 2024 · Technology in Public Services · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to start by paying tribute to all the Members who made their maiden speeches. I congratulate each and every one of them on that nerve-racking experience. We may not always agree on many things or we may agree on a lot, but clearly they will all be formidable contributors to this House. I would also like to welcome the ministerial team to their place—and the new Secretary of State. As the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) said in his opening remarks, the Front Bench have my utmost respect for serving in public office. Being a Minister is a great privilege and we know that it also places burdens on those closest around us, so I genuinely wish them well. The civil servants I worked with in the Department, including those in my private office, were hard-working, dynamic and top notch. I am sure Ministers will have the same experience. As His Majesty’s Opposition, we will of course hold the Government to account. We will challenge them where challenge is required, but let me be clear: our sole intention is only to ensure that the United Kingdom remains at the forefront of global innovation and technological advancement. Ministers may not believe me when I say it, but I do want them to be successful because their successes are the nation’s successes. It is in that spirit that I welcome some of the announcements on enhancing technological use in the public sector, because, as has been said, productivity in the public sector lags behind that of the private sector. The private sector has largely recovered from the pandemic, but the public sector remains less efficient than it was before. That is important for two reasons. First, the public sector—our services that we are so privileged to have, whether the national health service or our police, to name just two—represents 20% of the national output. Improving technology in our services means improving the very services that the British public rely on. Secondly, public services are funded by taxpayers’ money. It is not our money or the Labour party’s money. Hard-working British people pay their taxes for these services, so it is morally right that we all do all we can to make our public services fit for purpose and as efficient as possible. That is why the previous Conservative Government launched the comprehensive public service productivity review to address low levels of public sector productivity. In our national health service, we utilised AI to cut administration to keep more staff on the frontline and increase the speed of diagnosis, including better diagnoses of stroke, and lung and breast cancers. Our police officers were kept on the streets, rather than pushing pens, with the use of technology to speed up simple administrative tasks, which meant that crime fell in every part of the UK—except, of course, in Labour-run London. We see and welcome the value of better technological uses in the public sector. I have some questions for the Minister and for the Secretary of State, which I hope the Minister will be able to answer on his behalf. First, over the summer we were all appalled by the riots that gripped the nation and the role that social media played. Digital accessibility for our most vulnerable people matters, and part of that must be that the public have trust in using social media and online platforms. Antisemitism and anti-Muslim incidents have seen a huge rise online. Ministers will have met social media companies, including X. Will the Minister please clarify what actions will now be taken, as we move forward, to ensure that social media is not used to perpetuate and amplify antisemitic and anti-Muslim hatred? Secondly, one of my last acts as Minister for Tech and the Digital Economy was to instruct officials in the Department to start reviewing and refreshing the Government’s digital inclusion strategy, and to present options. The timing of the general election prevented that work from making progress, but there is no reason why it cannot continue now. Will the Minister confirm that she will continue that work? Will she commit to ensuring that the necessary funds are put aside, so our public services are more digitally inclusive? Conservatives recognise the importance of making our public services truly accessible. As the last review occurred 10 years ago, will she commit to ensuring that the review is carried out in a timely manner? If our public services are to be truly inclusive, they must be digitally inclusive, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. I am also keen to know what happened to the AI Bill, the legislation that the Secretary of State promised so often when he was in opposition, and what he intends to do about AI regulation. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what assessment she has made of the number of AI companies that will be created as a result of his plans, how much investment will be generated, and how many new jobs there will be. Why was the AI Bill not ready for the King’s Speech? Let me now turn to the Secretary of State. He has had a very busy summer, but whether it was productive is another question. Countries across the world are brimming with ambition, investing in some of the most exciting and transformative technologies, such as artificial intelligence, and ensuring that they are at the forefront of global technological innovation. Let there be no doubt that this is a global race, and I fear that in its first few months in office the Labour party may already have done enough to ensure that this great nation of ours never comes close to winning that race. The previous Conservative Government set out an ambition to be a science and tech superpower by 2030. I note that the Secretary of State has not shared that ambition, so imagine my surprise when I saw that in one of the Government’s first big moments, one of their first big acts was to cut £1.3 billion of investment in supercomputer capability and related research funding. The Secretary of State talks about being a partner to the tech industry. Well, on hearing the news of the cutting of exascale funding, one tech entrepreneur said to me, “With friends like these, who needs enemies?” Perhaps the Secretary of State—or the Minister, on his behalf—could clarify whether he fought against that decision or endorsed it. Was he able to stand up to the Chancellor, or was he so intimidated by her that he lost his voice? We know that the Prime Minister was unsettled by that portrait of Margaret Thatcher, so perhaps the Secretary of State was similarly unsettled by the Chancellor. Did he even bother to fight for Britain’s AI and tech entrepreneurs, or were the trappings of ministerial office so enticing that he forgot to defend the single most important investment that would have ensured that we maintained our top position in the global AI race for decades to come? But let me offer the hand of friendship. [Laughter.] I assure the Secretary of State that the hand of friendship exists. If he is worried about standing up to the Chancellor, we on this side of the House will of course support him. He does not need to be afraid. We believe in economic growth, so we will help him to stand up to the Chancellor. After all, his successes will be the nation’s successes, and that is our priority. Let me move on from exascale. Over the summer, it became clear that the Labour Government had capitulated to the junior doctors and given them inflation-busting pay rises without asking for any modernisation or efficiency improvements in return. Before that decision, did the Secretary of State meet the Health Secretary and insist on efficiency improvements or better use of technology, or was giving in to Labour’s trade union paymasters more important? He did say that they were joined at the hip, so perhaps he will be able to show what he did to fight for the tech entrepreneurs of this country. I note that my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) asked him a question that he did not answer. I also note that the Government have been silent on the NHS productivity review, which was backed by more than £3.4 billion. Again, he did not answer a question, asked on this occasion by my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans). Can the Minister now confirm that that funding is safe, or is it part of the Chancellor’s “black hole” calculations? Our plan and our review were backed by the NHS and would have saved 13 million clinician hours. What, actually, are the Labour party’s plans? When the Transport Secretary capitulated to the transport unions, did this Secretary of State meet her? Did he insist on better use of technology to improve our transport system, so that he could benefit consumers and protect taxpayers, or did he just watch from the sidelines and drink the Kool-Aid? This may have passed him by, but so far, in its first two months in office, the Labour party has already handed out £14 billion to its trade union paymasters in no-strings-attached public sector pay deals. So it is all well and good for the Secretary of State to grandstand at the Dispatch Box, but the facts are painting a different picture. I just hope that he can find his voice and stand up for the tech sector before it is too late. Let me explain why this is so important. We have already heard the Secretary of State repeat the farcical claims about the Chancellor’s “black hole”, having inherited a tech economy that was the third most valuable in the world; a tech economy that was being recognised across the world for its ability to nurture more tech unicorns—that is, more companies valued at £1 billion—than France, Germany and Sweden combined; a tech economy that was growing and creating millions of jobs annually, and attracting billions of pounds-worth of investment. If the Secretary of State did make the decision to cut the £1.3 billion of exascale funding and now talks down that same tech economy, and in doing so undermines those very tech entrepreneurs who will help to fund our public services for decades to come and makes it less attractive for investors to invest, he cannot sincerely stand at the Dispatch Box and argue that he believes in economic growth—not if his first major economic act was one of economic mutilation. I implore him to go back to the Chancellor and challenge this decision. He should not let the Chancellor’s political games undermine him or the tech industry, which has so much potential. It is in his power to ensure that we nurture tech innovation so that the tech start-ups of today can become the tech giants of tomorrow. I say to the Secretary of State that he should not squander this opportunity. Otherwise, his legacy will be defined by what he did not do, rather than what he did do.

• 29 Jul 2024 · Public Spending: Inheritance · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Chancellor spoke about the need to lay the estimates. That is really important, and the legal duty is not just to lay them but for them to be accurate. The Chancellor is right that we have been here for nearly two hours, but we have not got an answer to the question of what she knew and when she knew it. Did she know any of the information that she has set out today before the estimates were laid? Please answer the question.

• 23 Jul 2024 · NHS Dental Contracting Framework · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the right hon. Member and his new team to their places in the Department. The shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), prioritised access to care, including NHS dentistry, when she was Secretary of State. The dental recovery plan that she launched announced new dental vans to provide access to care to our most rural communities and coastal communities in England. We had agreed with NHS England that the first vans would be on the road by this autumn, and I know that that timescale was welcomed by colleagues across the House. Will he confirm that dental vans will be on the road by this autumn?

• 22 Jul 2024 · Economy, Welfare and Public Services · Hansard source

  More

  I start by wishing His Majesty the very best of health on behalf of myself and my constituents. As we welcome many new Members to the House, His Majesty sets a clear standard for public service that we can all hope to emulate. I have had the privilege of listening to a number of maiden speeches from across the House—all fantastic, all unique. I am sure all new Members will have received countless pieces of advice, so I will just say this: none of us, new or returning Members, should ever forget what a privilege it is to serve in this House and in this Parliament, the mother of all Parliaments. We on the Conservative Benches have much to be proud of in the legacy of the last 14 years. Just last week we have seen inflation remain at the Bank of England target rate of 2%. We created more than 800 jobs a day for the last 14 years. It was under the Conservative Government that, in 2023, the UK became the third most valuable tech economy in the world, worth $1 trillion. We also boast more billion-pound companies than France, Germany and Sweden combined. As has been repeatedly mentioned, we have the fastest-growing economy in the G7. I want to address the notion that the Government are trying to push, where they talk down the economy, paving the way for tax rises. It clearly does not stack up. If the Chancellor insists on pushing this alternative narrative, as we have heard today, some questions need answering, because surely all those promises made during the election cannot have been made by the Chancellor, or the shadow Chancellor as she was then, flying blind, especially when the OBR provides the transparency that she now denies she had. Throughout the campaign, we heard about how the Government’s policies were fully funded. If the Chancellor did not use the OBR forecasts, what was she using to make those promises in the first place? I do not think anyone is fooled by this narrative or these tactics. Most importantly, if they are going to raise taxes, which will they raise? They need to come clean about that, because the British people deserve the truth, not whatever the Government are trying to peddle to justify their tax and spend policies. The Government can be assured that the Opposition will do our duty and hold this Government to account. I want to address a number of things in the King’s Speech. I have to say I was astonished by the lack of respect in the King’s Speech to rural communities. A lot of my communities in my rural area felt incredibly disrespected, and it was incredibly disappointing. I am also disappointed and deeply concerned by the Government’s focus on building on the green belt. We have some of the most precious green belt land in Meriden and Solihull East, not least the Meriden gap, which is a hugely important throughway for migrating wildlife. It is not clear how the Government will protect the Meriden gap. In fact, the only thing that has been clear in the early days of this Government is that they are willing to set aside local community opinions, and anyone who challenges that will be accused of being a nimby. My villages in Balsall Common, Hampton in Arden, Marston Green, Knowle, Dorridge, Chadwick End and Hockley Heath have already made huge sacrifices when it comes to green-belt land, not least because of HS2. These top-down targets and vague references to grey-belt land are already causing huge anxiety. This matters because when it comes to setting aside community opinion and disenfranchising whole communities, the tactics that the Government are already employing are the best way to do it. I am deeply concerned by that. We on the Opposition Benches will ensure that we hold this Government to account. The title of this debate includes public services, and one of my key campaign pledges was to restore A&E services to the borough of Solihull. My argument on that is simple: we have about 220,000 people in the borough, and if there is an emergency, my constituents have to go all the way to Heartlands hospital or Warwick hospital, which are way too far away. It is clear to me that the case is strong. One thing I will be campaigning for in this Parliament, whether it takes five or 10 or 15 years, if I am lucky enough to be returned repeatedly—I make no assumptions on that, of course—will be to get that A&E service. I will be working with the integrated care board to achieve that. I will finish on this: my constituents and the British people have been clear. As we discharge our duties as His Majesty’s official Opposition, their expectations are that we do so with integrity and humility, but always with courage and boldness in what we stand for and who we are. I assure my constituents that for the sake of our country we shall not falter.