Saqib Bhatti MP: speeches

Speeches

• 26 Jan 2026 · Key Stage 1 Curriculum · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker, and to take part in this debate on play in the key stage 1 curriculum. First, I thank the 106,082 signatories of this petition, including the 200 signatories from my constituency. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for her opening remarks, and I also wish the son of the hon. Member for St Helens North (David Baines) a very happy birthday, on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I am sure that is all he ever wanted. I praise the contributions from all hon. Members. It has been a thoughtful debate, which covered a whole array of issues. We may not agree on all aspects, I found it very fruitful to consider the different points of view. In particular, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), who made an excellent contribution, highlighting the need for consistency; I echo her question for the Minister on that point. Having heard hon. Members at length today, it is quite clear that we all accept that play has an important role in children’s cognitive and social development, particularly in their early years. There is strong evidence to suggest that play is an important factor in a child’s development. It teaches young people resilience, problem solving and social skills, enhances cognitive development and so much more. Dr David Whitebread of the University of Cambridge argues: “Play in all its rich variety is one of the highest achievements of the human species, alongside language, culture and technology. Indeed, without play, none of these other achievements would be possible.” That is why the early years foundation stage statutory framework includes play in delivering learning and development. The official Opposition support that framework, which sets out this responsibility for early years education providers. As a father of two young children, I recognise the importance of play. I know that key stage 1 is a crucial time in a child’s learning and development, when children are set up for future academic success based on the foundation of knowledge and learning skills they receive when they first start school. It is thanks to the knowledge-rich curriculum, underpinned by phonics, introduced by the last Government under the excellent leadership of Lord Gove and Sir Nick Gibb, that primary school children in England are now the best readers in the western world, with 80% of six-year-olds now reaching the expected reading standard, compared with only 58% in 2012. Millions more children are in good or outstanding schools, with tougher exams, better teaching standards, a rigorous curriculum and thousands of new academies. I say that because, having heard the debate, it is important to be clear about what we are discussing. While play should certainly be part of that delivery, we believe that schools are best placed to decide how the curriculum is delivered to their pupils, and it is important that precious time in the classroom is not missed out on. I know that many hon. Members have pointed out that that is not what they are talking about, but there must be clarity about how play is delivered, because we all agree that we are preparing our children for the future. That desire for freedom is why the official Opposition strongly oppose parts of the Government’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that restrict academy freedoms and seek to impose a one-size-fits-all approach on our education system. Why does the Education Secretary think that centralising decision making in Whitehall is more effective than empowering school leaders? The transfer of power from headteachers to unelected officials at the Department will be deeply damaging for children, and will see their education suffer as a result. It is not just the Conservatives who believe this. It was Sir Tony Blair whose Government championed the initial academisation of schools. I know he is greatly concerned about this, because it is a reversal of 30 years of consensus around academic achievement and development. Although we also welcome the curriculum review, I have worries. It was a relief that the Government chose not to follow the example of their counterparts in Labour-run Wales by dropping phonics from the curriculum. However, as the Opposition have stated at the Dispatch Box, if everything is a priority, nothing is. If the Government want more play, they need to make clear which part of the curriculum has to be pushed to the side, and will stand to suffer, as a result. If the Government truly want to give children the freedom to learn and grow through play, they should confirm that they are committed to ensuring that the core skills of reading, writing and numeracy, which children need to succeed, will be part of that. If more play is needed for children, there is another way of achieving that. I would like to talk about the use of screens by children. According to Ofcom, 25% of children—

• 26 Jan 2026 · Key Stage 1 Curriculum · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely, Mrs Barker. The point that I was going to make was that if children are not using social media, that will free up more time for play. That is why that issue is really important. We all want to achieve the same things: more resilience and more capability. Hopefully the Minister will confirm whether the Government agree with us that the use of screens at such a young age can have a detrimental effect, and confirm whether they will progress with the evidence. I accept that many parents are simply trying to do their best, and they want to have the best opportunities for their children. That is why I implore the Government to take a deep, hard look at the official Opposition’s approach to the use of screens and social media, and to the use of phones in schools. We have called for the use of phones in schools to be officially banned to allow for greater standards in schools. We are worried about the fact that children now spend more time online. Just last week I read reports that some young people try to swipe, and even tap, on books because they use digital devices.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Key Stage 1 Curriculum · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, and those people who signed the petition. The Opposition recognise the importance of play, which is why we challenge the Government to give further clarity on the development of the curriculum review, and what will be part of it. If everything is a priority, nothing is, so what will be part of that debate? I also challenge the Government to give more clarity about the freedom of schools, as asked for by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Key Stage 1 Curriculum · Hansard source

  More

  I made that very clear. We support the education statutory framework as it is, but I think that the questions around social media and the use of phones are really pertinent. That is what parents are writing to us, as Members of Parliament—

• 19 Jan 2026 · Business Rates: Retail, Hospitality and Leisure · Hansard source

  More

  Those who run pubs in my constituency are really worried about the Budget and its impact on their business rates bills. Last week the Business Secretary said that there was no way the Government could have known about the impact of their decisions, but the valuation office then confirmed that it had told Ministers about the impact of their decisions, which I think the Minister has confirmed. He also confirmed that that data was easily accessible, so why did that happen? Was it wilful ignorance, was it incompetence or did they just go ahead anyway?

• 19 Jan 2026 · SEND: High-quality School Places · Hansard source

  More

  That example, and the example mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), illustrates Labour Government spin perfectly. That £3 billion is short-changing parents and children with special educational needs. The decision to cut schools was rolled out without scrutiny, slipped out before the Christmas recess. Some 46 free schools and 18 special schools have been axed, with a further 59 in doubt. Why did the Secretary of State cancel the much-needed special schools and make life harder for families and children with SEND?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Gender Questioning: Guidance in Schools · Hansard source

  More

  That was a disappointing answer. The Government have been hiding behind the Cass review, which was published more than two years ago, for months. In April last year, the Education Secretary promised to publish the guidance by the end of the year, to give schools and teachers much needed clarity on these sensitive issues. That deadline has been spectacularly missed, and schools have been left in limbo to figure this out themselves. I implore the Secretary of State and the ministerial team to put ideology aside and finally act to protect our children. Will they do that?

• 19 Jan 2026 · SEND Funding Shortfall · Hansard source

  More

  I note that the Minister, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), said that the Budget gave much clarity, but the reality is that the Office for Budget Responsibility analysis highlighted a £6 billion funding gap. I almost feel sorry for the Education team, because the Chancellor has backed them into an uncomfortable corner with her own Back Benchers with nowhere to turn, but they do need to be honest with parents and teachers who rely on these provisions. So again we ask: how do they intend to fill the £6 billion black hole hanging over the Department? Will there be cuts to services or to schools?

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  I am delighted that the hon. Member called me her hon. Friend; I accept such an accolade. I agree with trial by jury, as stated in the motion—it has validity in where it is in place—and Opposition Members think that reducing it, as the Government propose, without any assessment or guarantee of numbers, is wrong. The hon. Member and many other Labour Members set out a number of ways—albeit in a party political guise—in which we could reduce the backlog, but the reality is, the Government are not even talking about those seriously; they are talking about reducing jury trials. I was here when the Justice Secretary stood at the Dispatch Box and said that they would reduce jury trials to reduce the backlog. Those two things do not go hand in hand. That is why there is cross-party opposition as well as opposition from judges and all sorts of organisations, including the Criminal Bar Association, which says that this will not achieve what the Government want it to. A constituent of mine—a local barrister who sees this day in, day out—wrote to me about improvements in sitting days. He wants to see investment in sitting days, and the Conservatives have called for that. We have also called for prisoner transport services to be on time, as well as—I think the Minister referred to some of these points—the targeted removal of cases that can no longer be prosecuted and, of course, investment in basic court infrastructure. If all those issues had been assessed and invested in, there may even have been cross-party support, as offered by the shadow Justice Secretary. I was surprised by the Minister’s tone; she then made the glaring admission that this change would have happened anyway. This is about big statist ideology, undermining trial by jury. We continue to hear, as we did from my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), that this proposal will undermine fairness in the system. Fundamental to this, in my view, is arrogance. There is arrogance in saying, “Actually, lawyers will know better than juries.” The whole nature of trial by jury is not about expecting an individual juror to have expertise in everything; it is about collective decision making that takes away bias and discrimination. No Government Members can guarantee that an individual judge—as neutral as they must be and as professional as they are—will not demonstrate those biases. That is the point we are making: the Government’s plan undermines one of the most fundamental individual liberties that we rely on in society.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson). I listened to her speech very closely, and it was largely invalidated by the admission of the Minister that she would have made this change anyway, irrespective of any backlog. The hon. Member cannot guarantee the House—neither can the Minister—that the backlog would come down after the abolition, or partial abolition, of trial by jury, because there has been no impact assessment or modelling shown to the House. I am sure that the hon. Member will concede that. The Minister is making this change under the guise of modernisation, but we must be very clear about what is at stake: 800 years of legal precedent. This right is set out in Magna Carta—and how clever they were in 1215 to come up with a legal mechanism that made sure that individual citizens have the right to pass judgment on their peers. This mechanism goes right to the heart of our society and shapes the relationship between the individual, or group of individuals, and the state. That is so the state cannot abuse its power in making a decision about taking away someone’s liberty or livelihood, or their reputation; a panel of peers makes that judgment. That is what is at stake.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my hon. Friend. I suspect that I am running out of time. [ Interruption. ] I have one minute. Of course, the fundamental point is that this is a slippery slope, which opens the door to further erosion of individual rights. Government Members may think their proposal is a good idea because it cuts waiting times, but there may well be a moment when an individual has to rely on trial by jury—by the way, that is their right; they can request that because it gives fairness—and it is that fundamental right of being judged by our peers on which we rely. I implore Government Members to follow the example of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), who is taking a brave stance.

• 15 Dec 2025 · Jimmy Lai Conviction · Hansard source

  More

  I listened to the Foreign Secretary really closely, and I have to say that, without real action, even the strongest condemnation she may issue is not strong enough. Calling the ambassador will just be taken as words, because that has all been done before. The Chinese are not listening, as the conviction of Jimmy Lai proves. One show of strength she could make, of course, is to withdraw her support for the Chinese super-embassy in the heart of London. By doing so, I am sure that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government would listen, and the independent process. What the Chinese would hear is that the protection of British citizens is of paramount interest to us and that it will not be without consequence if they are maltreated.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Seasonal Work · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I bring to the House an issue of grave concern. At Prime Minister’s questions this afternoon, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister how many more teachers there were since the Education Secretary came into office in 2024. The Prime Minister replied that there were “More than when the Conservatives left office”. The Department for Education’s website makes it clear that the Prime Minister was wrong: there are 400 fewer teachers under Labour. This is more than an inaccuracy, and it is exactly why the public lose faith in our parliamentary democracy. Can you advise on how the Prime Minister can come to the House and correct the record?

• 10 Dec 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q2. Over the coming weeks, millions of people from across the country will be visiting their local church. Churches are custodians of our history and they do enormous good, but in January the Government announced a £19 million cut to the listed places of worship grant, and put a cap on repair costs. The cut put thousands of local churches at risk. If we lose our churches, we lose the very soul and essence of our communities. There are 10 at-risk churches in the Prime Minister’s constituency. As we go into Christmas, will he do the right thing and reconsider that policy so that we can save our churches?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way on that point?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my right hon. Friend—sorry, my hon. Friend—the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on his excellent speech. I am sure he will be right honourable in no time. Some 4,500 of my constituents signed the petition. I thank not only them, but the 3 million petitioners across the country who have made sure that their voices are heard today. Before I discuss the fundamental issue, I want to address a point made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) and other Government Members. The reality is that no system in the world is secure enough to protect data; my constituency is the home of Jaguar Land Rover, and we have to be honest with our constituents about that. When I was the Minister for Tech and the Digital Economy, I looked at this issue, and I know that our current system is one in which we voluntarily give up our data. The fundamental issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley highlighted, is that consent is being taken away.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point that we have to take into consideration. The Minister will not be able to give anyone the reassurance they deserve, which is why many of our constituents are so upset about this. Let us be very clear about the reason we are here. The fundamental issue is that a beleaguered Prime Minister has rolled out this gimmick as nothing more than a way to stop the boats. The fact of the matter is that since Labour came into government, we have had 62,000 illegal crossings. The ID that we have in place already has not stopped them, and neither will digital ID. This gimmick has not fooled voters, and it did not fool the 3 million people who signed the petition. They can see clearly through it. First and foremost, our constituents require honesty. This will not stop the boats. I also want to address a point made by the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) about shops selling illegal vapes. Mechanisms for IDs are already in place, but that is still happening, so digital ID will not stop it either. What he was arguing for, whether he knew it or not, was overarching powers of intervention for the police into the private accounts of private individuals. That is the only way in which they will be able to intervene. What they need to do is investigate, like they always do.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister for giving way; she is being ever so generous. It is not us scaremongering, or 3 million people being conspiracists; the fact is that the Prime Minister rolled out this scheme to deal with an issue that it will not solve, and everyone can see through that.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  Let me address that point. The problem that the hon. Gentleman poses will not be solved by digital ID—I fundamentally disagree with him about that—because HMRC already has the powers to investigate people selling illegal cigarettes, as do the police. That is why the Government have lauded the fact that there were raids just a few months ago, and closures of some of these shops. He is creating a straw-man argument that is not solved by digital ID. Let us be under no illusion about this proposal. It opens the door to tyranny, whether it is tyranny today or tyranny tomorrow. The Minister cannot confirm that a future Government—a future Labour Government, perhaps, if that is even possible—will not take advantage of digital ID.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to make some progress, if that is okay. I and others have made the point that digital ID would fundamentally reframe the relationship between the individual and the state. It would turn us into a “papers, please” society. Responsibility for proving that someone was guilty would be shifted away from the state, and individuals would, in essence, be required to prove that they were innocent. I visited Estonia when I was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Tech and the Digital Economy. I saw the system there, and I came away with a conclusion very different from the one that others have reached. The Estonians’ system works for them because they have the Russians on their border.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  I will not take any more interventions. If Estonia were invaded, the Estonians might have to pick up sticks and move all their records over. That is why digital ID works for them, even though they have one of the largest black economies in the world and have had quite significant data breaches. Our economy and society are much more complex than Estonia’s. Mandatory digital ID does not work for our economy and our society. Time and again, I am asked what this Government stand for. The last few weeks and months have been telling, with the cutting of jury trials, the introduction of a mandatory digital ID and the arrest of comedians for errant tweets. I ask the Minister: why are this Government so afraid of British citizens living their lives freely and in liberty?

• 2 Dec 2025 · Angiolini Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  I associate myself with the remarks of everybody who has paid tribute to Sarah Everard and her family. I remember where I was when I heard the news; I know that it shook many of my constituents, as it shook all of us. The Minister says that in the spirit of respecting Lady Elish, she is going to go away and look at the recommendations in detail. The question of funding has been raised by women’s charities. Does she think she has enough money to do this now, or is she going to need more? I am sure we will support her on that.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Criminal Court Reform · Hansard source

  More

  The idea that we have to scrap jury trials to save jury trials is simply farcical. A legal framework 800 years old is being upended, and not to reduce backlogs or save money; this is a reframing of rights and of where power lies, taking power away from the people. Does the Lord Chancellor accept that jury trials—being judged by one’s peers—protects the vulnerable and enables fairness, and that as the Mother of the House said, this decision will increase the risk of miscarriages of justice?

• 1 Dec 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Barker, and to speak in this very important debate. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for his opening remarks, and Michelle Zaher and all 166,498 signatories of this important petition, including 250 of my constituents. The petition calls on the Education Secretary to withdraw the disastrous Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, and states: “We believe the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is poorly drafted and does not stem from robust evidence. We feel the accompanying impact assessments are inadequate and may damage all children’s educational opportunities. We believe the Bill is silent on children’s voice and children’s right to education. We also feel part 2 undermines parental responsibility for education and school leaders from ensuring their educational settings can optimise children’s education and wellbeing.” I cannot fault that damning verdict, which summarises many of the huge inadequacies that are part of this woeful piece of legislation. I am clear that His Majesty’s official Opposition share no enthusiasm for the parts of this Bill relating to schools in particular. To put our views simply, this legislation will trample over two decades of cross-party consensus that has seen the quality of an English child’s schooling improve at a rate of knots. It is beyond question that the previous Government drove up school standards across the country, and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) made that point very eloquently. By the time the Conservatives left office in 2024, English schoolchildren were some of the best in the western world at English and maths. Moreover, 90% of our schools were rated good or outstanding, up from 68% when Labour were last in office. It is a record we are fiercely proud of, because those changes have benefited children across the country, have driven up social mobility and have given more young people the chance to succeed. This legacy is of enormous significance, but it is under great threat because of this woeful legislation. The overwhelming consensus over the past 20 years—started by Tony Blair and improved by Lord Gove and Sir Nick Gibb—has demonstrated the profound benefits of giving schools and local trusts greater autonomy. The political consensus that created free schools, a knowledge-rich curriculum and academisation has brought enormous benefits. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill ends that consensus. It is an act of pure educational vandalism that, tragically, is not backed up by any evidence that suggests it will improve school standards. In 2024, academies represented 80% of secondary schools and nearly 43% of primary schools. They have been at the heart of the cross-party effort over the past two decades to improve schooling. We know that headteachers are better equipped to design curricula that benefit their students and communities, and they should be empowered to do so. The fact the Government disagree with that, despite an abundance of evidence suggesting otherwise, speaks volumes. The petition challenges this educational vandalism. It makes it clear that the impact assessments are totally inadequate and fail to show how effectively removing academy status will improve school standards. Of course, the official Opposition are not alone in our objection to the Bill’s provisions to effectively end the academies project. The Confederation of School Trusts is very concerned about the provisions that seek to remove the academy freedoms that have so greatly improved our education system. Even Lord Harris of Haringey, a Labour peer, has raised his concerns. He is on the record as saying that he cannot express his disappointment at what the Government propose in the Bill, and that it will “undermine everything that so many people have fought so hard to achieve.” The Children’s Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza, who is a former headteacher and the co-founder of the Inspiration multi-academy trust, has criticised the Bill, saying that Ministers are “legislating against the things we know work in schools”. As has been alluded to, even Amanda Spielman, a former head of Ofsted, has called on the Education Secretary to abandon her plans “before the damage is done”. Does the Minister take seriously those concerns, and the concerns of the 166,498 signatories? What will she do about them? Before the Education Secretary imposes her union-backed policies on English schoolchildren, I remind Members present about Labour’s record in Wales. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire made an excellent speech in which he highlighted Labour’s track record, which reinforces the importance of the petition we are debating. Children over the border are being let down by Labour-run Wales. Welsh children have been unable to experience the same revolution in school standards that we have seen in England. The Welsh education system is far behind the rest of the UK in the international league tables. As Onward’s “Devolved to Fail” report makes clear, Wales is a huge outlier. The UK is ranked 14th among OECD countries in the PISA tables, but were Wales to be ranked as an individual country, it would come just above Vietnam, in 34th place. England moved to a rich, knowledge-based curriculum, while Wales continued to use a skills-based one. England introduced academies; Wales resisted and paid the price. Attainment in Welsh schools has stagnated so much that the average Welsh pupil performs only as well as the most disadvantaged pupils in England. I also want to address the issue of homeschooling, which was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) and for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas). As a parent, I believe in the liberty of parents to choose the best options for their children, but I also recognise that there is a balance to be struck, especially when it comes to safeguarding. The sad case of Sara Sharif has been raised; I draw the Minister’s attention to the amendment tabled by Baroness Barran in the other place, which states that if there is or has ever been a child protection plan, or if a child is in need, there must be local authority consent for them to be withdrawn from school. Will the Minister share her reflections on that amendment? I trust she is willing to work on a cross-party basis. I want to put on record my concerns about the proposed three-item cap on children’s school uniform, which is being advanced without due consideration of the harm it could cause to families, schools and businesses. As has been mentioned, it could actually inflate prices. The Government claim that the cap will make schools fairer, but the limit could also put pressure on pupils to wear the latest fashions, which often end up being much more expensive than a uniform. The practicalities are also significant, as has been raised in some of the meetings I have had on the issue, because the cap will cause nightmares for PE teachers and children playing sports. Will the Minister clarify the issues in respect of PE? In addition, the relevant part of the Bill will do significant damage to the specialist schoolwear sector, which has significant concerns. Let me present some of the constructive steps that the official Opposition have taken to improve the flawed Bill. We have tabled several amendments that are aimed at preventing harm and improving educational outcomes, including in respect of proposals to ban smartphones during the school day; to ensure automatic exclusions for the possession of a knife, for sexual assault or for the assault of a teacher; and to move pupils who are permanently excluded twice out of mainstream settings. Banning smartphones would help to address the behaviour issues we see in schools, including social media-driven knife crime and the impact on attainment. The Bill needs to be looked at again. There are some areas that the official Opposition can support, but overall, it is a wrecking ball that destroys 20 years of educational consensus and achievement. Today’s petition is therefore extremely important, and I thank all the people who signed it. I hope the Minister can do them justice and reflect on some of the arguments I have made today.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am not trying to catch the Minister out here; perhaps she could write to me afterwards for clarity. She talks about a common-sense approach, but we are making it concrete in legislation. On the requirement for three branded items, would the school be in breach? Would the parents be in breach? What happens in that situation?