Saqib Bhatti MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 21 May 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister for giving way; he is making an excellent speech. Specifically on tariffs, does he agree that the approach is illogical? Reducing quotas will decrease the supply, and increasing the tariffs will increase the cost. I listened to the Secretary of State very closely. He talked about getting domestic production here, but by the time that happens, most of the businesses will have gone to the wall. Does my hon. Friend agree that the approach is illogical?

• 21 May 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It probably will not come as a surprise to Labour Members, but I fundamentally disagree with the last speaker, although I appreciated his passion. [ Interruption. ] The Secretary of State is getting a bit excited; I will come to him in a minute on the issue of tariffs. I am proud that we are the only party in this House objecting to the Bill, and for the right reasons. The Secretary of State repeatedly talks about making this country stronger, but I do not think this Bill does that by nationalising. I just do not think that Governments can run businesses. I certainly mean no disrespect to Ministers on the Front Bench, but they will create inefficiencies and push up prices, and the taxpayer will end up stomaching the cost. That does not make us stronger; it makes us weaker. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), who spoke before me, said that we are still in the 1990s, but I think this Government are taking us back to the 1970s by pushing up costs and lumbering the taxpayer. A future Conservative Government will have to unwind some of the real harm that will come to fruition. No Labour Members can tell us where the nationalisation will stop. Will it be ceramics tomorrow? What will happen? Which industries will the Government pick and choose? In the limited time that I have, let me come on to the issue of tariffs. Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) and all my hon. Friends who have raised this point, I have been visited by a constituent. His name was Peter Watson, of Davicon. I have written to the Secretary of State about this issue, although that was only last week; I respect the fact that he may not have had time to come back to me, but I hope he does. Davicon is the UK’s leading mezzanine manufacturer. The briefing that Peter put in front of me was a result of the tariffs and the quota reduction. There is a reduction of almost 97% on merchant bars and an increase in quotas of 50%. For all the Secretary of State’s best intentions and whatever he wants to achieve, the reality is that industry and markets do not work to the whims of Government. They will not move quickly enough to do that, which will push up prices. In the briefing I saw, that would mean a doubling of the quota for per-tonnage steel by 1 July. That cost will have to be borne by industry and taxpayers. If we are talking about nuclear power plant creation or HS2, we know that those taxpayer-funded projects will have to bear those costs. I was listening to the Prime Minister yesterday during Prime Minister’s questions, and it is clear the Government recognise that an issue is coming down the tracks. I argue that that should have been anticipated before the tariffs came into place, but we are where we are. I have written to the Secretary of State, and I would really welcome some serious action on this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) made a really eloquent argument about a delay in the introduction. If that is not going to happen—

• 21 May 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?

• 21 May 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State is shaking his head. If that is not going to happen, let us look at the HS codes. He needs to recognise that there will be a serious impact on the steel industry and the peripheral industries that rely on steel manufacturing in this country.

• 19 May 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  When Parliament passed the Humble Address, it was very clear that the House did not trust the Government on this issue, which is why we wanted the ISC involved. It is clear that there are redactions happening beyond the will of Parliament. If that is the case, does the Minister accept that he has to come to the House to ask for permission, and if he does not do so, then he needs to tell us why?

• 19 May 2026 · High Speed 2 Reset · Hansard source

  More

  My communities in Balsall Common and Berkswell have taken huge amounts of pain since long before I was first elected in 2019. That pain has been exacerbated by the conduct of HS2 and its subcontractors towards communities. I have met Mark Wild, who knows my concerns about that. I take heart from the level of engagement he has given, and I hope that it continues. One of the key issues affecting my communities is the land being taken by HS2 that is yet to be released, including around Arden Cross—a project worth hundreds of millions of pounds that includes a health campus and is in conjunction with the local mayor, local councils and the University of Warwick. I am told that it might take four years, but I think it could be done in two years. Will the Secretary of State take a look at this issue?

• 14 May 2026 · Getting Britain Working Again · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to recognise the wonderful work that the Doorkeepers do around this House. I do not think they get enough credit, and I would like to ask for your wisdom on how I can put that on the record.

• 14 May 2026 · Getting Britain Working Again · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to close this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I praise all Members for their contributions; while I did not agree with all of them, I recognise the passion with which they were delivered on topics that Members care about. In particular, I praise my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) and for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths). I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that Labour is taking this country in the wrong direction, which is a sentiment agreed with by the newly former Health Secretary, who said in his resignation letter that “where we need vision, we have a vacuum. Where we need direction, we have drift.” That is a damning indictment of a Government who are saying that they want to get Britain working again. The Conservatives are absolutely committed to getting Britain working again. We got a record 4 million more people in work between 2010 and 2024, which allowed millions more people to have the security of their own income, empowering them to own their own home and look after their families. [ Interruption. ] The Minister chunters from a sedentary position, but we created 800 new jobs a day in those 14 years. The situation has taken a dire turn since the change of Government. Since Labour took office, unemployment has risen to 5.2% and payroll jobs have reduced by 110,000. The Office for Budget Responsibility has even raised the unemployment rate forecast for 2026, 2027 and 2028. There is only one conclusion: Labour is letting people down and consigning more people on to welfare instead of good, honest work. I will focus particularly on young people and their prospects, where unfortunately an even bleaker picture is being painted. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire, who said that this Government are failing young people. I have heard a lot of Members talk about getting young people back into work, but the youth unemployment rate is 15.9%—up by 2.7% since the Labour party took office. It has been in power for two years, and that has been the consequence. One in six young people are now unable to find a job. This Government are pushing more young people on to benefits, which has deeper long-term consequences. There are now nearly 1 million 18 to 24-year-olds not in education, employment or training. Among graduates, the Centre for Social Justice estimates that around 700,000 people are out of work and claiming benefits, and the impacts of that cannot be overstated. Every month spent out of work means that people take more than they give to the state. I have been campaigning in local elections across Meriden and Solihull East, and I can tell hon. Members that young people want to work, because there is dignity and hope in work. Every month that a young person spends out of a job makes it harder for them to get back into employment. While their peers are developing critical skills in the workplace, those out of work fall behind. It also weakens their ability to save and put money away for the future, making it harder—for example—to save for their first home, for their family or for their retirement. The number of young people out of work is a calamity, and the Government must do much more to address it, but nothing they have set out has reassured me that they understand that. The Employment Rights Act, passed in the previous parliamentary Session, has already started to have a catastrophic impact on the jobs market. That disastrous piece of legislation has increased costs for businesses and discouraged hiring, especially of young people. Having listened to the previous speech, I say to Labour Members that business owners are not just there to be squeezed until their pips squeak—they are the ones who take the risk, invest and create the jobs. I will, of course, also challenge the Government in the educational space, because I believe they have been completely ineffective. Just this week, the Prime Minister has made new pledges on apprenticeships and skills in an effort to turn his failing premiership around. Perhaps he recognises what I do, because from the data on apprenticeships, the picture is mixed at best. The Department responsible for work should be a shining example of the Government’s commitment to more apprenticeships, but regrettably, it is far from it—the number of apprenticeship starts at the DWP has actually fallen. The Government’s broken promises on apprenticeships are best shown in relation to level 7 qualifications, which are high-quality pathways— [Interruption.] I am talking about level 7 qualifications; the Secretary of State may want to pay attention. Those high-quality pathways allow people to get into professions such as accountancy, engineering and architecture without accumulating the same debt as graduates. However, the Government continue to restrict level 7 funding for those over 22, meaning that they are missing out on those opportunities and also putting level 6 apprenticeships at risk. [ Interruption. ] The Secretary of State is very audible. In opposition, when she was shadow Education Secretary, she promised graduates that they would pay less under Labour. That has turned out to be nothing but another broken promise, because not only is it now harder for graduates to get into work, tuition fees have gone up twice. Those who are paying those fees are now doing so with no promise of valued work at the end of it all. I also want to address the SEND Bill—the education for all Bill—proposed in the King’s Speech. Given the time I have today, I do not have the luxury of asking all the questions that parents have wanted me to pose to the Government, but there are a couple of questions that I do want to ask. [ Interruption. ] I am happy to take an intervention from the Secretary of State.

• 14 May 2026 · Getting Britain Working Again · Hansard source

  More

  We created more than 5 million apprentices. If we want young people to be hired, we need an economy that works for the businesses that hire them. I am sure that the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, Paul Bristow, will be doing an excellent job in making sure that there is more investment in education and in young people. Alongside rebalancing the system, we are also looking to abolish real interest on plan 2 student loans, ending the unfair cycle whereby higher interest rates mean graduate debt rises faster than graduates can pay it off. Our proposals are much more comprehensive than those laid out by the Government. Labour’s plans to cap student loan repayments at 6% will leave graduates ripped off, paying interest above inflation. It shows that the Government do not have a plan for young people and will continue to tinker around the edges rather than make genuine, bold change. I will finish where I started, because the constant speculation about the Prime Minister’s future means that his Ministers will not be spending time looking at how to make a better deal for young people, whether that is boosting home ownership, reducing youth unemployment or getting the economy growing. In fact, just yesterday, I read reports of the Minister for Children and Families, the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), asking the Prime Minister to set out a timetable for his departure. Now that the Health Secretary has resigned, I ask this Minister: does she support the Prime Minister?

• 14 May 2026 · Getting Britain Working Again · Hansard source

  More

  I do not think the hon. Member was paying attention. What I said was that I worry that the consultation is being stacked, but parents want to see the legislation, because there is not enough clarity in the consultation and they do not have the answers to the questions they are asking. I certainly hope that the parents the hon. Member meets make that clear to him. With little indication that the Government will set out comprehensive plans to support young people, the Opposition have been busy drawing up their own proposals for an alternative King’s Speech. We have laid out comprehensive plans to help recruit thousands of new apprentices. Our apprenticeship guarantee will remove the funding cap for apprenticeships for 18 to 21-year-olds. This will ensure that employers have fully funded access to training, helping 100,000 extra young people into work every year. In addition, we would encourage more employers to take on 18 to 21-year-olds by introducing a business rebate for investment in training and skills, or BRITS scheme. It would provide a new incentive of up to £5,000 for businesses to take on 18 to 21-year-old apprentices. In the higher education space, the Conservatives have clear plans to rebalance the system. We have a proud record of expanding higher education, but we also recognise that more needs to be done to address the growth of low-value courses. Some degrees have ended up becoming a poor deal for both taxpayers and graduates. They do not help young people into work and the bill ends up being footed by taxpayers, some of whom have not benefited from a university education. That is why our alternative King’s Speech lays out plans to get more people into apprenticeships using money saved from cutting low value, low outcome degrees.

• 14 May 2026 · Getting Britain Working Again · Hansard source

  More

  The Government have claimed that the Bill will make generational reforms to the SEND system. The outlines of those proposals have been included in the White Paper, but parents are none the wiser. I have met a lot of parents, and despite the Government’s rhetoric, I see parents with more anxiety, not less. Just this Monday, I met a number of SEND parents from my constituency. All they want is for their children to have a chance at life, so I will ask the Minister a question that has been put to me by parents—perhaps she will address it when she responds. The consultation does not sufficiently address what will be done to help those 16 to 19-year-olds who can work to get into work. With all that is going on outside of the Chamber and in No. 10, if the Government are consumed by leadership contests and machinations, when will the legislation come before the House? This chaos will only further exacerbate the anxiety and anguish of parents and their children. I was told yesterday that the Government have actually been distributing briefing documents to their MPs to get supportive responses to their consultation. If the Government’s proposals for reform are so good, why are they trying to stack their own consultation?

• 23 Apr 2026 · Young Adult Carers: Education and Training · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for securing this important debate. He is proving to be a formidable parliamentarian and—I can say this as a friend—a decent human being, all in all. I also pay tribute to the young carers across our country. There are an estimated 1 million young carers aged up to 18 in the UK, with many carers aged under 10. I agree with my good friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and I suspect we are of one mind; I remember the carers who come to see me in my surgeries. I remember their strength and resilience, but also how often they go about their responsibilities so quietly and unassumingly. From this debate, I want them to know that we in this House see them and that they matter. During this debate it is critical that we do not lose sight of the sacrifices that young carers make every single day. The responsibilities of caring mean that young people miss out on social plans, extracurricular activities and their schooling to help support those they care for. Young carers give time after school, at weekends, and live with the constant worry about the wellbeing of those under their care. Those are enormous burdens, especially for children. I want to reflect on some of the work done by the previous Government to support young carers. It was the view of the previous Government that young people should be protected from inappropriate and excessive caring responsibilities. We recognised that the important roles they played often went unnoticed, putting their education and childhood aside to care for others. We committed to amending the school census so that it included young carers. That raised the visibility of young carers in the school system and gave us a wealth of demographic evidence on the young carer population. That allowed schools to better understand the impact of caring in education, particularly on issues including attendance and absenteeism. In addition, the previous Government introduced the pupil premium in 2011. That gave schools additional funding to improve outcomes for children facing disadvantages, and helped young carers gain critical extra support. The previous Government also introduced bursaries to help with the cost of education, including travel, books, childcare and residential costs where needed. In the academic year 2023-24, more than £160 million of bursary funding was allocated to institutions to help disadvantaged 16 to 19-year-olds. Furthermore, the previous Government introduced the Young Carers in Schools programme, which addressed the need to ensure that schools do more to identify young carers and increase their engagement in school. The programme set out 10 key steps to help schools to identify and support young carers, and each step provides a key practical tool that can be adapted to support the individual school. Lastly, in 2018, the Conservatives published the carers action plan, which contains proposals to support young carers. It aimed to improve the identification of young carers, which built a rich and informative evidence base to better identify how support can be provided. As we have heard, despite that, young carers are still under extreme pressure. In all our constituencies, there are hundreds—perhaps thousands—of young carers. In the borough of Solihull, of which is my constituency is part, the average age of a young carer is 11 and it is estimated that one in five young people is a carer. Although there are fantastic organisations that do excellent work in raising awareness about young carers and what they go through, including Solihull Young Carers, debates such as this are critical in raising awareness among parliamentarians. Young carers often put their lives on hold for others. They are responsible for cooking, cleaning, supporting with schoolwork and many more tasks, as has already been laid out in this debate. That makes their lives a constant battle, balancing an array of different possibilities. In the education and training context, balancing schoolwork can be particularly hard. It is all too easy to put off that bit of homework because you have had to be up early to care and just want to catch up on a bit of sleep or get some well-deserved rest. The Carers Trust’s most recent report from January highlights the concerning fact that three quarters of young adult carers say that their caring roles make it difficult to take part in training or educational opportunities. That research shows that young carers are missing on average 23 days of school every year—one month in total. Come secondary school, over half of young carers are persistently absent. Some of the information we have on this topic is down to the previous Government and our steps to better identify young carers in school settings. I am more than happy to work on a cross-party basis to help our young carers. What work is the Minister doing to help add to the data? What conversations is he having with school leaders to ensure that we build on this important evidence base? The evidence shows that young people who care are missing out on available learning opportunities. In reality, that means they will be struggling to keep up with their peers and will fall behind for the rest of their lives. When it comes to taking exams, the time spent out of the classroom will no doubt mean that their grades are lower than their peers’. What steps are the Government taking to help support young carers in school settings? What plans does the Minister have in that regard? We have heard today that the Carers Trust has proposed that every school has a young carer lead—a point made by the hon. Member for Harlow. Has the Minister considered that? Will it be part of the Government’s plans going forward? While in Opposition, the now Education Secretary said: “a Labour Government would ensure that young carers’ voices, needs and rights and the support that should be made available to them are taken seriously.” —[ Official Report , 23 January 2024; Vol. 744, c. 206.] I noted that in the post-16 education and skills White Paper—this has been mentioned to me by a number of carers—there were no references to young carers. Would the Minister be able to explain his thinking? Perhaps it is to do with the Milburn report, which he might want to elaborate on. In response to a written question about additional support for young carers in schools, the Minister for School Standards stated: “The Government is preparing a cross-Government action plan for unpaid carers which we plan to publish later this year.” On behalf of the Opposition, I ask the Minister whether he will be able to expand on the timeframe for that and what the key principles in those plans will be. In November 2025, the Government commissioned Alan Milburn to author a report into the number of people not in education, employment or training, and part of that will include a call for evidence from parents and carers for young people. Given the pressures that young carers are facing, it is essential that that inquiry finds ways to better support young carers in education and training. I am sure the Minister will agree that young carers cannot be left behind at school, because the knock-on effects are substantial, and it will lead to more young carers struggling to get into work. Does he recognise the correlation between NEET numbers and the number of young carers? Will he highlight the engagement he has had with the DWP in that regard? We have heard some excellent speeches. Once again, I praise the hon. Member for Harlow, who set out the case for young carers so eloquently. I finish by paying tribute to young carers, who give up so much to care for those in need. Every single one of them makes an amazing sacrifice. I hope that many of them are watching, and that they recognise that we think they should be very proud of themselves. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about what steps the Government are taking.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Apprenticeships · Hansard source

  More

  Apprenticeships should be the building blocks of a stronger economy. That is why the Conservatives are pledging to double the number. If the Minister has done his homework, he will know that any increase in apprenticeship numbers is due to the last-minute rush to do level 7, which this Government cancelled. In fact, if level 7 apprenticeships are stripped out of the figures, apprenticeship vacancies are at their lowest since 2020. With youth unemployment at an all-time high and apprenticeship vacancies at their lowest, it is time for the Minister to come clean: this Government are failing young people, are they not?

• 20 Apr 2026 · Cost of Living: Students · Hansard source

  More

  As the Minister said, on 23 March the Department told universities that weekend courses do not qualify for funding. The Student Loans Company’s own guidance changed only this year, and the issue affected 20,000 students, including those in key professions, such as nurses. The Secretary of State has been taken to court by nine universities, the National Union of Students is demanding that she halt her clawback, and Martin Lewis has said that this is an almighty mess. I heard what the Minister had to say, but I know that this Government always find someone else to blame, so will he confirm that any aggressive debt collection will absolutely be stopped and that payments will not be demanded from innocent students?

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I will take your lead, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is very little detail in the White Paper around deliverability. That concern has been raised to me by a number of council leaders, headteachers and parents. Even the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Government’s own independent watchdog, explicitly says that the impact of reform on underlying costs remains “uncertain”. It is for the Minister to provide that certainty, but the OBR is not convinced that the reforms will close the funding gap. When the Labour party was in opposition, it had 14 years to think about what it wanted to do, so I hope that the Minister can provide some of those answers today. The issue of timelines was raised during the debate. We all agree that the reforms are urgently needed, but full implementation is not expected until 2028-29 at the earliest. Changes to EHCPs will not begin until around September 2030, so a child who is now six will be 10 or 11 before they and their family feel any difference from any reforms. For a family with a teenager, reform will never arrive in time. That point was made by the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law). Will the Minister tell the House, according to her analysis, how many children will have left school entirely before a single EHCP reform takes effect?

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes the same point that has been made to me by many parents about the one-size-fits-all approach of these reforms. I want to give the Minister the opportunity to try to reassure some of those parents, because parents want answers and the children and families who are affected deserve them. I have spoken to many parents and representative groups. There is a huge amount of anxiety about these reforms—a view that is shared by many parent-carer forums—which has not been helped by the delay to the White Paper or the drip-drip briefings suggesting that EHCPs would simply be scrapped. The Conservative position is clear: any reforms that come forward must enshrine parental rights in law and the Government must not water down those rights.

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I could not have said it better myself. That issue was in my borough, but the truth is that there are special schools across the country where the funding has been taken away. This is going to be essential, because we cannot have a one-size-fits-all approach. Will the Minister explain to those teachers how mainstream schools will be supported in terms of capacity, funding and training as these reforms are rolled out? The founder of the North Solihull Additional Needs Support Group has asked if there will be a legal backing for ISPs, and a number of Members have also made points on enforceability. I want to get straight to the funding point, which is where I will end my remarks. At the Budget, the OBR identified a £6 billion SEND funding black hole. When the Minister was asked about that previously, she used the word “scaremongering”, but these are not our figures; they are figures from the OBR, based on information provided by the Government. Will the Minister confirm how large the shortfall is? Having looked at the numbers, I think it has shortened, but maybe she will be able to give a bit more clarity. If the gap was funded entirely from in the DFE’s £69 billion budget, it would imply a 4.9% real fall in mainstream schools’ spending per pupil—this is according to the OBR, by the way. There is no spending review until 2028-29, so maybe the Minister can give me some clarity on which Departments might be giving up their money for the sake of these SEND reforms. I hope she can provide some answers; I will write to her with the questions that I have not been able to ask.

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I will.

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I thank Members from across the House for contributing to a wide-ranging and passionate debate about an issue that affects each and every one of us, and many of our constituents. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing this important debate. He has been a passionate and determined champion for parents of children with special educational needs, and I thank him for all his hard work in this area. He was pragmatic and constructive, and he reflected what I have also heard from many parents, teachers and council leaders. I thank all the people who have contributed to the debate, specifically the parents who have reached out to have their voices heard today. This issue affects each and every one of us. While I will focus on the much-delayed White Paper, let me be clear to the Minister that His Majesty’s Opposition will work constructively with the Government where we see that meaningful progress can be made. I acknowledge that the system is creaking under its own weight. Since I was elected in 2019, almost weekly I have met parents who are tired of fighting a system that was designed to help them and that enshrines their rights in law, but has become a barrier to supporting their children. I have campaigned for those parents, so I want these reforms to work, but I say to the Minister that Opposition Members will not shy away from asking questions that are difficult for the Government to answer. We will not allow the Government to spin their way out of this, because too much is at stake. I hope that she can work constructively with me in that spirit.

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I will come to councils and their funding shortly, but my right hon. Friend makes a really valid point. I hope the Minister heard him and will be able to provide an answer. A number of parents have written to me, asking if I can put their questions directly to the Minister. Natasha and Lindy want to know why a dilution of parental rights has been proposed. Why are the Government removing the legal right to appeal, especially when 98% of cases are currently won by parents and carers? My right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) made this point very eloquently. If the logic is to reduce the cost of provision by removing some of those rights, the Minister should say so plainly. Parents need that clarity and that level of honesty. We do welcome some points, including the principle of support in schools, evidence-led packages, and the idea of more speech and language therapists. There is broad consensus that earlier intervention is essential, and a statement of intent on that is most welcome. I want to focus briefly on speech and language therapists, because I campaigned on this issue as a Back-Bench MP with my constituent Mikey Akers and the famous footballer Chris Kamara. We met the relevant Health Minister more than a year ago; as Mikey said, in March 2024, he met the Minister for Care, the hon. Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock), who promised an action plan for speech and language therapy, but more than one year on we still have not seen anything. A point has been raised about liaising with the Department of Health and Social Care. Has the Minister spoken to the Health Minister? Has there been any progress? The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists has been very clear that delivering the Experts at Hand service will require an SLT workforce to be incorporated into the 10-year workforce plan, with ringfenced funding. In a written question in March, I asked the Minister how many speech and language therapists will be required to deliver the Experts at Hand service. She gave a great answer, but she avoided giving me the answer that I needed on numbers, so I hope she can answer how many specialists will be needed and where they will come from. The British Dyslexia Association has also posed a question to me. One in three children in our classrooms need support for dyslexia. Will the Minister confirm whether the Experts at Hand service will include support for children with dyslexia, and whether specialist dyslexia teachers will form part of that workforce? Let me turn to inclusion in the mainstream. At a recent meeting with Solihull school leaders last month, I heard serious concerns about the capacity pressures that the Government’s approach could place on mainstream schools. There was consensus around the principles, but there was also consensus that far more detail is needed on what inclusion actually means in policy terms and how gaps in staff training and funding will be filled.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  I find it disgusting. What Epstein did was absolutely disgusting in its own right: he trafficked, he was a child sex offender, and in many ways he was a coward in how he left this world. I wish he had faced the full force of the law. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) talked about enablers and the role that powerful men played. I say to Labour Members that they are at a crossroads. If they really care about Epstein’s victims, they need to ask how this was allowed to happen. By the way, it is not just about Mandelson and Epstein. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) made a point about Bill Gates. I watched the video of Melinda Gates yesterday, and I was talking to my wife about how horrible it must have been to see the emails and what he was up to. My hon. Friend also mentioned Richard Branson. The reality is that there is clearly a culture of men who thought they were above the law, and the DOJ is grappling with that issue over in America. We have talked about some very important things in today’s debate, for which I commend hon. Members, but we have to be honest about the fact that this matter came on to our shores. It is possible that there are victims whom we still do not know about, and that criminal investigations still need to happen. I need an assurance from Ministers that if that comes to the fore, the Government will act quickly to make sure that criminal investigations are started. The public require that to help us on the journey towards rebuilding trust, and we should not underestimate the need for that.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member can shake her head all she wants; we know that Mandelson had a close relationship with Morgan McSweeney, the Prime Minister’s chief of staff. The Labour party has not even started to address that point about the chief of staff. I hope the hon. Lady is right, by the way, but if she is not and documents do come to the fore, I am sure we will come back to this House to scrutinise which Members he had a hand in appointing.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  I am glad to say that I did not mention any single Member of the House, so I am happy that the hon. Lady has put that on that record, but I do not trust Mandelson— [Interruption.] I am responding to the hon. Lady’s intervention. I do not trust Mandelson following what he has done, and I do not know how far his reach was in this Government or in that party. I do not trust him because we know he had a very close relationship—

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend talks about it being worth the risk, but this is not just about denigrating those victims; it is also about those Labour Back Benchers that the Prime Minister is marching up the hill. It is worth the risk for him to march them up the hill, then do a U-turn later and finally admit after many months that he knew all along?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister has brought his judgment into question. The Opposition have been saying that for a couple of years—Oppositions do that—but on this issue, he has marched everyone up the hill and Ministers have gone out to defend him on this issue time and again. His position really is now untenable. I guarantee Labour Members that when they go home and talk to their constituents, they will have to answer questions about why the Prime Minister allowed this to happen.