Saqib Bhatti MP: speeches

Speeches

• 25 Jun 2025 · Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Amber Valley on bringing forward this Bill, and on speaking so eloquently. This is not just about people being able to enjoy football matches, but also about safety and preventing serious injury and—God forbid—in the worst cases, death. I would like to declare that I am a very tortured Manchester United fan—I see some heads shaking in disapproval—but I do enjoy my football. The Bill speaks to me. It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to Baron Brennan of Canton, who introduced this Bill, albeit in a slightly different form, in the previous Parliament. The previous Government supported the Bill, and it is a pleasure to be here today to add the support of His Majesty’s official Opposition. In 2021, like everyone around the country, I was on the edge of my seat as our heroic national men’s team came so close to bringing it home. Sadly, it was not to be, as we lost to Italy on penalties in the final. Everyone here will be familiar with the scenes at the game where fans tried to force their way into Wembley stadium. Gates were stormed, fans gained entry by tailgating through turnstiles or forcing emergency exits, and there were shocking reports of some stewards being attacked or bribed. The then Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee was right to label that day as a day of “national shame”. The safety of spectators at sporting events is of the highest importance and the last Government took decisive action to help protect spectators. I hope that one day I will be able to take my children to a winning Manchester United football match—I hear the joy from the Committee as I said that—but perhaps also one day I can let them head to games on their own.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Mergers Involving Newspaper Enterprises and Foreign Powers) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger—I can confirm that there is no place I would rather be today. I thank the Minister for bringing forward this instrument and for her continued engagement on this issue. I will pose some questions, and I request that the Minister takes them in the context of not just this SI but the further SI that she will be putting forward for consultation. The freedom of the press is the cornerstone of our democracy. It is an essential necessity in our democratic process. It allows the public to remain informed of current events, it questions and challenges those in power, and it keeps national debate balanced and accountable. Put very simply, if the freedom of the press is undermined the integrity of democracy is under threat. The previous Conservative Government took decisive action to prevent majority control of a British newspaper by foreign states. These were vital measures to help protect the strength of our democracy. While His Majesty’s official Opposition support the changes, which will help to ensure the continued survival of our world-leading press industry, we would like the Minister to provide some reassurances on the foreign state influence regime. We have some serious concerns about the potential for the growing risk of state interference in British news media. We want cast-iron guarantees that the Government are taking the necessary steps to make changes to existing security provisions that must not jeopardise the UK’s freedom of the press. The draft statutory instrument rightly sets a threshold for state-owned investment in a newspaper or news magazine at 15% of shares or voting rights. However, we have alerted the Government to the fact that, should various state-owned investors each purchase a 15% share, that could expose the UK’s freedom of the press to significant risk—a risk that the Minister acknowledges. Were multiple states to purchase 15% of shares, in particular when they have shared aims or purposes, that could have a chilling effect on the UK’s freedom of the press. Will the Minister reconfirm that any measures, including in secondary legislation, will also cover arm’s length bodies such as pension funds and other bodies controlled by states that might have influence? The Minister is aware of the risk and, if I am not mistaken, has already given assurances that the Government will take action to prevent that from happening to relevant stakeholders. Can the Minister provide any further details on what form that action will take, when it will come into effect and whether the Government have considered other potential risks that might be coming down the road? I put on the record my special thanks to Baroness Stowell, who has been highlighting the risk with the Government and raising awareness of the dangers posed by allowing the loophole to come into force. The previous Government had a proud record of taking decisive action in strengthening national security, in particular with the National Security and Investment Act 2021 and the National Security Act 2023, which showed that the Government must be alive to the risk posed by foreign states and be aware that the threats are ever-changing due to technological advances. Last week, as the Minister may be aware, the shadow Secretary of State wrote to the Department seeking assurances. We have not yet received a response. I am sure it will be forthcoming, but I ask the Minister directly: are existing powers under the 2021 Act sufficient? Will they be used to help protect press freedoms against foreign interference, including cases involving minority shareholdings or instances of editorial pressure? Equally, the Government have suggested that the Secretary of State will have new powers to act when the independence of the press is under threat. Can the Minister give any further details on that, if possible at this time? If not, is she open to writing to us? We, the Conservatives, of course welcome foreign investment, but we will never compromise on the integrity of our democracy. Many private foreign investors are interested in investing in a whole swathe of our industry, subject to our national security limitations or concerns. To that end, what consideration have the Government made about interpreting investment from certain states? Certain states work together, for example, and I name two that we always have to be conscious of: China and Iran. They almost always have institutions or investors that interlink with the state. What are the Government doing to ensure that our democratic principles are not undermined by foreign investment from bodies or private individuals in those particular countries? I hope we can all agree on the importance of the freedom of the press and on the benefits that foreign investment brings to the UK economy. However, freedom of the press is one of the cornerstones of our society, and the Government must ensure that newspapers are given the opportunity to attract investment, while not threatening the principle of the freedom of the press. I hope that the Minister agrees with that principle. Any legislation must do more than gesture towards foreign state-backed shareholders and the risks that they pose to our democracy; it must be robust, have credible safeguards and protect our journalists, and it must ensure our fully independent free press and, ultimately, the integrity of our democracy.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to new clause 123 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley). I have to say, I am a little surprised that I am having to speak to this new clause today, and I implore the Minister to give it due consideration, not least because it was presented on a cross-party basis in the previous Parliament by Baroness Harman. In fact, on the day it was debated, Baroness Harman, who had done all the work on it, was away due to a personal matter, and it was spoken to by the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), who is, of course, now the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls. The Minister will be aware that this issue directly concerns a constituent of mine, whose experience I will speak to later. I really encourage the Minister to give the new clause due consideration and, if it is not taken up, perhaps she can clarify in her remarks why there is a delay. Every engagement I have had with the Department has suggested that such a provision is well on its way, so I would be curious to know about that. For the benefit of the House, the new clause seeks to remove the parental rights of convicted sex offenders. It is unconscionable to my constituents that children could be subject to living with a sex offender because the sex offender is their parent. It is reprehensible that the law allows that to happen. It allows convicted criminals who have committed the most heinous crimes to exploit the law, and it puts vulnerable children at risk.

• 13 May 2025 · Churches and Religious Buildings: Communities · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for securing the debate. I also thank the Second Church Estates Commissioner for all that she does for churches, and for her eloquent speech and argument. My right hon. Friend highlighted the important role of churches in the community, especially when it comes to leadership. I thank both Members for making the case for Holy Trinity Clapham. Last week, we celebrated VE Day. During the day’s events, I was struck by the many references to community and spirit, which often related to street parties and dancing, but also frequently to the important community role of parish churches, chapels, cathedrals and minsters, both 80 years ago and today. I attended a moving beacon- lighting service at Elmdon church in my constituency. I was privileged to meet a 96-year-old veteran and ex-para, Frank Spencer, whose charitable endeavours included jumping out of a plane at the age of 92—perhaps an idea for the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), if she wanted to graduate from abseiling down churches. With the peal of bells echoing throughout the country as part of a nationally co-ordinated effort, it was clear how important churches and religious buildings are to local people. Many people’s real-world experience of places of worship is not of the grandeur of St Peter’s or St Paul’s, but often of an ancient, parochial building or hall used as a meeting place or hired venue for birthdays, or as a soft play centre, as has been mentioned. It may be a space that offers some quiet time at Christmas or Easter for reflection and a sense of something deeper. Other communities open the doors of the local synagogue, mosque or temple, which fulfil a similar function and sit just as prominently and importantly in local life. Just a few weeks ago, I visited the Balsall common Parkinson’s café at the Balsall common methodist church, where I met a 30-strong community group committed to helping people with Parkinson’s. Crucially, the church offered the venue free of charge, providing the group with an invaluable space to support local people in navigating the complexities of life with Parkinson’s. Over this last cold winter, which saw the Government’s cut to the winter fuel payment, an army of churches and other places of worship, including 485 Church of England churches, played a vital role in providing safe and warm spaces for those in the cold. Communities also make countless donations of food and clothes every year via places of worship—a point eloquently made by the hon. Member for Battersea. I thank all our places of worship, especially our churches, for all that they do. For many churches, however, the future of their support schemes looks far bleaker than they perhaps expected. Many will be celebrating the election of the 267th supreme pontiff—I send my warmest congratulations to Pope Leo XIV—and others might be getting ready to welcome a new Archbishop of Canterbury; I am less brave than my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), so I will not be commenting on church affairs. However, hundreds of these churches will also be looking to the future. They will probably be less thankful to the Government for their cut to the much-valued listed places of worship grant scheme. The scheme has been a lifeline for many churches and other places of worship seeking essential and fundamental repairs by helping to cover the VAT incurred on repair costs, within certain limits. I will focus on churches, because Historic England’s heritage at risk register found that of the 969 places of worship at risk in 2024, 959 were churches. Indeed, between 2023 and 2024, 55 places of worship were added to the list. Nationally, the established Church of England—the mother Church of global Anglican communion—has a backlog of repairs to churches estimated at more than £1 billion, with an annual repair bill of about £150 million. Hon. Members might think that, confronted with those worrying statistics, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport would be working tirelessly to ease the burden on places of worship, but unfortunately they would be wrong. The Government’s response to the repairs crisis has been one of delay, confusion and cuts. After leaving those community assets in the dark by continuously delaying the announcement on the scheme’s future, the Government finally came to this place to confirm the fears of many: there will be cuts to the scheme and to the lifeline of many of our historic churches and places of worship. As I have previously said in this Chamber, many of my Meriden and Solihull East constituents have told me about their concerns about their beloved places of worship. One told me that the cut “would be a disaster for listed places of worship”, and that the ability to reclaim VAT “makes an enormous difference, particularly at a time when the cost of building work has increased substantially.” Many Members have made that argument in this debate. Sir Philip Rutnam, chairman of the National Churches Trust, said, after the funding was slashed, that the scheme “simply does not provide enough certainty or support for” churches, “who need more time to plan and deliver repairs…We strongly believe that the scheme should be made permanent—it’s vital to help these buildings stay open, serving local people, and it’s the poorest and most isolated who will suffer most if these buildings are forced to close.” He highlighted that local people—indeed, communities—will suffer if places of worship are forced to shut their doors for good due to the miserly actions of a Government way out of their economic depth. Furthermore, this all comes despite the fact that the scheme offers tremendous value for money. As the National Churches Trust has shown, every £1 invested in a church generates £16 of social good. I call on the Government to end the dithering and ensure that this is the final time they leave our community assets in the dark. The Minister must confirm whether the Government plan to continue the scheme beyond the one-year extension, which does next to nothing for the confidence of those responsible for the affected buildings and communities. They must protect our national heritage with pride, not leave it crumbling in the dark shadow of bureaucratic delays. I gently say to the Minister: the Opposition often ask the Government to stand for something, so why not stand for our churches?

• 6 May 2025 · Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  On this point, the hon. Gentleman and I are friends; I thank Pam and her family for their sacrifice and for all that happens on VJ Day. VE Day and VJ Day must forever be remembered and etched into our memories. I am sure this whole House will agree that it is important that we remember these historic days for years to come. This year, 2025, is especially important, as it may well be one of the last years troops who served in the second world war are still alive. I want to ask the Minister, on behalf of the shadow Secretary of State, if she will comment directly on his campaign to bring home a statue of Vera Lynn. The late Sir David Amess launched an appeal to create a lasting memorial to Dame Vera Lynn, whose songs kept our troops’ morale high, often in times of huge uncertainty and great peril. During the battle of Britain, when it looked like the Nazis might invade Britain at any moment, she really did keep the bluebirds singing over the “White Cliffs of Dover”. The committee need to raise £350,000 to complete the bronzing process and bring the memorial home from the Czech Republic. Could the Minister confirm that this fitting tribute will indeed be brought home? Every man and woman who served and serves in our armed forces stood and stands up for Britain and the precious values and rights for which we have fought for generations: democracy, liberty and the rule of law. We are forever in debt to the brave souls who fought to defend this country—as the saying goes, freedom is not free. To all those serving, those who have served and those who have sacrificed, we say thank you. Yesterday, thousands of people descended upon the Mall to watch all three services march in the excellent VE Day parade. I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to everyone who took part, but especially to the veterans who made the occasion so special. Today, Her Majesty the Queen will visit the Tower of London to see the 30,000 poppies on display to mark and reflect the sacrifices made by so many in the second world war. Here in Parliament, there will be a celebratory concert in Westminster Hall, where the fantastic parliamentary choir will perform alongside some special guests. On VE Day itself, nearly 2,000 people, including Their Majesties the King and the Queen and a host of veterans, will mark the 80th anniversary with a special service at Westminster Abbey.

• 6 May 2025 · Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is absolutely right: it is the community events that really do define the day for me. She makes an excellent point, as I lead on to in my speech. Over the coming days, alongside the national events, thousands of people up and down the country will also commemorate this historic occasion with street parties, church services and concerts. In my own constituency, we proudly remember our heroes. Every year in Meriden, in the very heart of England, hundreds of cyclists come to honour the cyclists who lost their lives in the first and second world wars. On Thursday, I will join the mayor of Solihull, who will be lighting a beacon at Elmdon church, and later in the week I will join Visit Knowle’s street party. I pay special tribute to the Solihull Observer , which printed a special edition to commemorate VE Day, with stories of the heroes who come from my part of the world. These events, and many others across the country, truly show Britain at its very best. In remembering the second world war, we must remember that our victory was forged on our relationships with not just our allies, but our friends in the Commonwealth. Troops came from many different nations and different faiths from across the world—Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Sikh and others—to fight side by side, irrespective of their race or religion, and to stand up for the values that we all hold dear. Their common goal was to stand against tyranny and evil and to stand for freedom. The conclusion of the second world war marked the end of the last major conflict in Europe until Putin’s barbaric invasion of Ukraine. While we rightly celebrate the end of the second world war today, we must not forget the horrific and brutal conflict taking place in Europe. I am sure we were all moved by the Ukrainian troops taking part in yesterday’s parade. It reflected our country’s deep and profound commitment to their noble cause, and once more shows that this country will not stand by while brutal autocrats seek to impose themselves on Europe. While I am deeply proud of the St George’s flag and the Union Jack, I am also proud of the Ukrainian flag, which has flown over council buildings across the UK as a reminder that this country will always stand up to bullies and come to the aid of those who stand for democracy and freedom.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am more than happy to extend that invitation. Madam Deputy Speaker may get annoyed with me if I take 24 interventions, although I do not see anyone jumping to their feet, so we will take that for what it is. There is also anxiety about the clauses on access to the workplace. The Government have now gone further and talked about digital access. This is a huge burden to put on small businesses, and it is shameful of the Government wilfully and blindly to ignore their concerns. Labour Members will have to answer many questions from businesses in their communities. Those same businesses contribute to the Treasury coffers and pay for the public services that Labour Members champion. This will be really important, and the burden will of course increase. Before—and after—the election, and during the passage of this legislation, Labour has said time and again that it was listening to businesses. Clearly that is not the case. Businesses continue to feel that they have been led up the garden path by this damaging Labour Government.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Use of Stop and Search · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to hear from the hon. Gentleman, and I wish him all the best in all his previous and future service. However, I do not agree that there were mixed messages. We were very clear in 2019 that we would increase the police force, and we hit that manifesto target. I think the confusion comes now with the new targets put forward by the Labour Government, and the lack of clarity on whether there will actually be 13,000 new officers. I was speaking about the violence reduction units, which reached over 271,000 people in their fourth year alone and, in combination with additional visible policing patrols, prevented an estimated 3,200 hospital admissions for violent injury. Stop and search is a vital tool, but by cutting the sale and distribution of knives, we can further keep knife crime down. That is why I was proud that between 2019 and 2024, more than 138,000 weapons had been removed from Britain’s streets, with almost half seized in stop and search. On Monday, on Second Reading of the Crime and Policing Bill, I listened to powerful speeches from Members across the House. I agreed when the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), argued that it was vital to have stop-and-search powers—as I had also previously said. However, stop and search numbers are currently down due to, in my view, misplaced concerns about community tensions. As the Bill progresses through Parliament, I deem it essential that the Government get police forces to use stop and search more. That means that legislation should be amended to make stop and search easier. In particular, what steps is the Minister taking to amend the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—specifically, code A—to make it easier for police officers to use stop and search? As outlined by police chiefs and academics, stop and search is an important tool in the fight against violent crime. But I fear that police are not using this power to its fullest extent because of fears of being sued, disciplined or called racist. I am afraid that, given the horrific impact of knife crime, we cannot be sensitive about this. That is why I join the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South, in calls to amend PACE guidelines to make it easier for the police to use these vital powers. In addition, just before the election, in May 2024, the Conservatives gave the Home Office a £4 million boost to fight knife crime, with £3.5 million put into research and development for new technologies, which can detect knives carried from a distance. I think the following point was addressed on Second Reading, but could the Minister reaffirm? It has been indicated that this technology is nearly ready to be used and rolled out in its entirety. It has the potential to greatly improve the police’s detection powers, which will help to keep knives off our streets and protect vulnerable people. To that end, what steps has the Minister been taking to harness new technologies in the fight against knife crime? This is not party political; it is an issue that affects us all. I am happy to work with and support the Minister on a cross-party basis, because I want knives off the street. As I outlined at the start, the West Midlands is experiencing a higher rate of knife crime per 100,000 of the population than London. I hope this debate will put pressure on our PCC in the West Midlands, Simon Foster, who is presiding over a catastrophic escalation in knife crime in the region. My offer of support also goes to him, because the issue is too important. The knife crime epidemic in London and the West Midlands is a deep cause for concern, but in some areas knife crime is coming down and there may be lessons to learn. I pay tribute to the PCC for Leicestershire, Rupert Matthews, who has helped drive down knife crime by 8%; the PCC for Staffordshire, Ben Adams, who has seen knife crime fall by 10%; the PCC for Kent, Matthew Scott, who has seen it fall by 16%; and the PCC for Warwickshire, Philip Seccombe, who has seen it fall by 18%. Everyone in this House has a duty to keep our constituents safe. Since being elected in 2019 I have seen plenty of tragic reminders that, despite all the good work of our police, killings by knife crime are still happening on the streets of Britain. That is why I believe that stop and search must be used responsibly to help fight crime and prevent tragic deaths on our streets.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Market Towns: Cultural Heritage · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for calling me to speak, Sir Jeremy. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and long may it continue. It is a privilege to take part in this debate on the cultural heritage of market towns. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) on securing the debate and thank him for his remarks, which were well placed; he made lots of good points. We have had some excellent speeches. Unfortunately, I will not be able to canter through them all, but I particularly want to recognise some of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), which I will address, and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for his comments. He has just inherited a new market town—he seems to be collecting them. Although I will not be able to recognise all the Members for their contributions, I particularly want to call out the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean), who reminded everyone how, during the plague, Parliament decanted to Hertford Castle. While decanting is not something I advocate in the current debate, it is always nice to know that we have options. I thank Members who have raised venues that relate to food. As I fast through Ramadan in the month ahead, I will certainly be thinking of them. Throughout history, market towns have been a defining feature of economic and social life. Informal markets have existed since before Roman times, and trade was a hallmark of the interaction between Celtic, Roman and Saxon peoples. It was trade that spurred on the development of urban centres and the exchange of knowledge and ideas, as well as goods and services. Our network of medieval market towns is the most enduring example of that history. A royal charter to hold a market was a jealously fought for privilege. The earliest date to over 1,000 years ago and some remain in force today, as we have heard. The fortunes of many of our great historic towns were won and lost by their right to host a market and to reap the rewards that commerce brought. Market towns brought ordinary working people together to engage in civic and economic life. Evidence of that can still be seen today in the architecture of our market towns, with market crosses standing proudly in the centre of grand open squares and market stalls nestled among guildhalls and churches. It is striking just how much continuity there has been in the history of market towns, with even 20th century new towns designed around the principles from medieval times. Preserving that wonderful heritage is no mean feat, and it is vital that we recognise the work of Historic England and other organisations in doing so. Its role in providing a voice for historic places, managing England’s national heritage list and educating us on the benefits of our cultural heritage is invaluable in supporting market towns and in raising awareness of their contributions to our society. It has been deeply encouraging to see the success of Historic England’s heritage action zones, from the Dewsbury living market town to the north Lowestoft heritage quarter. The scheme has seen local partnerships work tirelessly to improve the quality of life in market towns across England. To date, 20 historic places and market towns have been revitalised through the scheme, and 157 historic buildings have been brought back into use through restoration. Equally encouraging has been the success of the high streets heritage action zones: 67 historic high streets across England have received new investment, more community engagement and hosted more cultural events through the scheme, with more than 460 shopfronts and 224 historic homes restored. The fact that over 2.7 million people took part in those cultural events, hosted by historic high streets, is a testament to how the scheme has renewed people’s pride in local market towns, as well as providing a much-needed boost to high street businesses and local communities. It is vital to create the conditions to allow market towns to thrive, embracing their rich heritage as well as new opportunities for growth. An area with particular success in combining history with innovation is the revitalising of historic market squares and the hosting of outdoor markets through permitted development rights introduced by the previous Government. Permitted development rights have allowed historic market towns to host markets in their public spaces and sell food and drink in marquees at listed buildings, without the need for planning permission, providing a regular business outlet for local craftspeople, farmers and traders, who might otherwise lack large indoor spaces. Those development rights have given local businesses and market towns the flexibility to make the most of their cultural heritage. It is vital that we do not allow the new planning proposals put forward by the Labour Government to create huge headaches for local communities in and around market towns. With many rural communities near market towns concerned about the impact of housing targets, it is essential that the Government listen to the concerns of local people and ensure that there is sufficient infrastructure to deal with a rising population, a point made by numerous hon. Members today. Many people are already stuck on long waiting lists for GP appointments, are struggling to get their kids into the best schools and are seeing road networks take even more strain. Will the Minister confirm that our market towns will continue to be supported properly when their populations are likely to increase? Will the voices of local communities be taken into account, as we are concerned that they are being written out of that legislation? Does she recognise that the Government’s proposal to rapidly expand housing could risk market towns losing their identity and sense of community, a point that was made earlier? How will Labour’s planning laws protect the heritage of our beautiful historical market towns? My right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold made an eloquent point about family farms and our concerns about the impact of changes to business property relief and agricultural property relief. Those farms play a huge part in the future of our historic market towns. I previously raised the issue of the impact of changes to business property relief and APR on the future of stately homes, which are essential to many market towns. The Conservative party has committed to reversing those changes to APR and BPR. It is welcome to see that Historic England recognises the benefits that permitted development rights have brought market towns. Historic England notes how outdoor markets support “the cultural heritage offer and the economic future for historic high streets” and that revitalising market squares “benefits those historic centres whose unique character is a product of a long market tradition.” I urge the Government to continue the work begun under the previous Government, to ensure that permitted development rights become permanent, providing certainty for the future of traditional markets. Inhabitants of market towns are not the only ones to recognise the cultural heritage on offer; millions of tourists visit them each year. VisitBritain’s research into international tourism highlights the importance of market towns and other historical places that attract visitors from overseas: 78% of tourists said they value a destination having history and heritage to explore. That shows the value of our historic market towns and what they do to bring tourism and promote our culture. Although I welcome the Government’s commitment to growing tourism outside London and the south-east, I question whether the business rates relief reduction to 40% for retail, hospitality and leisure will help our market towns to prosper. Perhaps the Minister could answer that point. There is also concern about the increase in the cost of electronic travel authorisations for those visiting the UK. I hope the Government can provide more clarity on the impact that that will have on the tourism that many market towns rely on. At the most recent oral questions, I asked for an impact assessment—not from this Minister, I should add. I know that she is stepping in today, but perhaps she can discuss the impact assessment, if indeed there is one. Our historic market towns face many of the same pressures affecting high streets and town centres across the UK. While traditional markets have an enduring appeal, there is no denying that many have also been affected by online shopping, developments in out-of-town centres and recent policy decisions. Thriving market towns need a strong local economy and a strong local community to maintain them. Small businesses are the bedrock of local communities. That has to be more than just a slogan, and it is equally true of our market towns. It is our historic pubs, our crafts and shops that give historic market towns so much of their character. Yet so many are now unsure whether they can continue under the burden that is being placed on them by the current Government. In particular, the increase in employer national insurance contributions, the reduction in retail, hospitality and leisure relief on business rates, as I have mentioned, and the increase in the national living wage are all going to weigh heavily on those small businesses. I urge the Government to reconsider those policies in the context of our historic market towns, which we are at risk of losing to closure and decline. Ensuring that market towns continue to perform their traditional civic functions is as important as preserving their heritage. Making more public services such as libraries and social mixed-use spaces available could go a long way in shaping the appeal of market towns. The House of Lords Built Environment Committee has led important research in reversing high street decline. It is important that its findings are reflected in the decisions taken by the Government in the context of market towns. Historic market towns are an irreplaceable part of our cultural heritage. It is vital that the Government understand their contribution to our country’s heritage and do not push policies that actively harm their future. I urge the Government to consider the costs of their decisions that will be imposed on market towns, and to ensure that our cultural heritage is not lost in the decline of our local businesses and town centres.

• 27 Jan 2025 · Speech and Language Therapy · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson). He gave an excellent speech, and I cannot think of a single thing that I disagreed with—although I might wait to read the Hansard to double-check that. He spoke passionately about his own mum and the situation with Parkinson’s. As for many Members across this House, issues of special educational needs, and speech and language therapy are not new to me or to my inbox, so I think this is a timely and important debate. It is particularly important because of the hard work of one of my constituents, Mikey Akers, who is in the Public Gallery today, along with his mother and friends, whom I will also mention. He was the instigator of the petition, which is very much the reason why we are here. Mikey first came to see me on 13 January 2022. Little did I know at that point that this young man would be such a giant when it came to standing up for children and adults everywhere who have been affected by speech and language conditions. In many ways, this young man has given voice to so many up and down the country who, through no fault of their own, do not have their voice. Mikey’s ask of me was really simple. He looked at me and said, “Will you help me to raise awareness of verbal dyspraxia?” I am not afraid to admit that I had no idea what verbal dyspraxia was at that moment, but of course I said yes, because for us as Members, one of the easiest things that we can commit to is using our platform to raise awareness of issues that particularly affect not only our constituents, but others across the country. I went away to investigate verbal dyspraxia and see how widespread it was. I found out that there is a huge lack of awareness of verbal dyspraxia, and yet there were friends of mine, parliamentarians in the previous Parliament, who suffered from various forms of dyspraxia, as I found out when I raised Mikey’s issue at Prime Minister’s questions. Parliamentarians came to speak to me about them having some form of it, or said that they knew someone who did. Simply, for those who do not know, verbal dyspraxia is when a child has difficulties in being able to make and co-ordinate the movements needed to produce speech that is clear and easy to understand. Like the hon. Member for Lichfield, I then set about meeting the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, the Dyspraxia Foundation, and many other expert organisations and practitioners. I draw attention to Gillian Rudd, who is in the Public Gallery and is a senior lecturer at Birmingham City University. She is training future speech and language therapists—I will also touch on the workforce. She contributed to the “Bercow: Ten Years On” report, and her petition—back in 2018, garnering 11,000 signatures at the time—led to a Westminster Hall debate on the topic. Gillian came to see me in 2020, and I am so pleased that I have been able to at least highlight her work and to support her in all the work she has been doing. Since my first meeting with Mikey, I have been able to raise the issue of speech and language therapy and verbal dyspraxia in the House on a number of occasions, including at PMQs. I am pleased that in conjunction with Mikey, the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, and Chris Kamara—who, as you may be aware, Mr Vickers, is a well-known footballer and commentator—we were able to hold an event in the previous Parliament calling on the Government to do more to support speech and language therapists. I have talked about verbal dyspraxia, so I will say that Chris—I hope he will not mind me saying this, as he has spoken about it in public—suffered during lockdown from apraxia. In his role, voice and speech matter so much, with the intonations and being able to get thoughts out. I will not try to copy his most famous lines, but those things matter so much. He was so brave in the way he spoke about it. Kammy and Mikey were kind enough to invite me on to their documentary, “Lost for Words”, which is on the ITV player. The documentary is illuminating for anyone who wants to get an understanding of some of the challenges families face across the country and of the trials and tribulations that parents and children go through to get the support that they need. Georgia Leckie, who was on it, is also in the Gallery. This issue has affected so many of us in this Parliament and in previous Parliaments. Under the previous Government, the Department for Education committed £8 billion to special educational needs in the 2021-22 financial year. In the financial year ’22-23, that was increased by £1 billion to more than £9.1 billion, and at the 2021 spending review, the Government announced £2.6 billion, over the spending review period to 2025, to create more than 30,000 new high-quality school places for children with special educational needs and disabilities —more than tripling the previous capital funding levels to over £900 million to ’24-25. That was a transformational investment, which I was proud of, and it supported local authorities to deliver new places in mainstream and special schools, as well as other specialist settings. It would also have been used to improve the suitability and accessibility of existing buildings. Of course, none of that is to say that there was not more that needed to be done, or that needs to be done. A £2.6 billion capital investment in high-needs provision was announced in October 2021. That was to deliver up to 60 new special and alternative provision free schools, and was in addition to the 48 special free schools already in the pipeline and the more than 90 that were already open. In fact, a number have opened in the borough of Solihull, which I represent, and one opened recently in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst). In March 2022, the Government announced high-needs provision capital allocations amounting to over £1.4 billion-worth of new investment, which was focused on the academic years ’23-24 and ’24-25. Of course, there has been a change of Government and a change of priorities, so will the Minister set out whether that funding will be increasing and what his intentions are in that regard? In March, the previous Government published their SEND and AP improvement plan. The plan set out what the Government would do to establish a single national system to deliver for every child and young person with special needs and disabilities from birth to age 25, so that they could enjoy their childhood, achieve good outcomes and be well prepared for their next step, whether that was employment, higher education or adult services. Has that plan continued, or has it informed current Government strategy and how the Government intend to take the previous Government’s ambitions forward? It is no secret that councils are under great strain, so I hope that the Minister can highlight how, in the coming years, the Government intend to support local councils to alleviate that strain, especially when it comes to SLT and integrated care boards. The hon. Member for Lichfield mentioned the demand on the workforce, which has been a perennial issue—the RCSLT briefing for this debate also highlighted it. How do the Government intend to alleviate pressures in this area? Do they intend to fund more places, especially at the university level? These are complex issues, and highly skilled people are needed. I also want to ask a few questions that Mikey had. One of the key things that he has raised with me from the first day I met him is the lack of awareness in the teaching profession and among GPs when it comes to identifying cases of verbal dyspraxia. The Minister might not be able to answer on the education side, but he might be able to say how the Government intend to ensure that health professionals are prepared to identify some of these serious issues. Of course, I have to ask whether the Minister will agree to meet me, Mikey, RCSLT and—given the cross-party nature of this debate—the hon. Member for Lichfield. Can the Minister also describe the timeframe for any increases in spending? The hon. Member for Lichfield mentioned the retention of the workforce, so what are the Minister’s thoughts on ensuring that we keep more of the people who enter this profession? The metrics that we use to assess policies are key, so can the Minister describe the metrics for a successful policy around speech and language therapy? That would ensure that Members can assess the policy going forward. I hope that the answer to this question is yes, but do the Government recognise the economic benefits of getting people, young people and those who are young at heart to have better speech and language therapy and to contribute to the economy? I will finish where I started: by encouraging people such as Mikey, as well as those he inspires, to continue to campaign on this issue. There is always more to be done. I have met Mikey a number of times, and he really is a legend. I thank him for allowing me to support him on his journey. I will end with some of his words: “I raise awareness of verbal Dyspraxia/Apraxia so those who share my diagnosis, now and in the future, never feel the loneliness I felt growing up.”

• 7 Jan 2025 · Employer National Insurance Contributions: Charities · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) on securing this important debate. He made an impassioned speech, and may I be the first to say on record that I think he will have a long and fruitful career in this House? I hope I have not just given him the kiss of death. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) said, the strength of feeling on this issue is demonstrated by the turnout for this debate. I thank every Member who has contributed. Charities play a huge part in our lives, providing critical support to individuals who face poverty, illness and injustice. One of my many privileges as the Member of Parliament for Meriden and Solihull East is to have many fantastic charities in the local area. It is always inspiring to meet the volunteers who do so much to support people, year in, year out, wherever those volunteers come from. In my constituency, I have the Colebridge Trust, which strives to get more people into work, improve health and tackle the effects of loneliness. I have the Lily Mae Foundation, which was set up to help support parents who suffer the unimaginable trauma of baby loss—I had the privilege of jumping out of a plane for it not so long ago. I also have the fantastic Lily’s Tea Parlour in Chelmsley Wood, which helps struggling people by offering warm food, drink and a safe space. Alongside the great local charities in my constituency, like many Members, I also have Age UK and Marie Curie. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East made the case for the challenges that they face and will be facing as a result of this Budget. Supported by an army of volunteers, these organisations are enormously important features of our high streets, towns and our society. On a national level, the UK is one of the most generous nations for charitable giving. Our charities are a huge source of pride for people in this country, and Members across the House must always continue to come to Parliament to do all they can to stand up for the UK’s charitable sector. The country’s charitable spirit can be seen by the fact that the British public donated an estimated £13.9 billion to charity in the last year. In our communities, local people gather regularly to take part in charity bake sales and sports fixtures and watch performances where ticket costs are donated to local charities. In some respects, some of the nation’s favourite cultural pastimes are deeply intertwined with supporting our charities, and there is no doubt that these charities bring all of us together. But in spite of that, our charities are under threat. I have been contacted by a number of charities about the impact of this Budget. Local mental health charity Birmingham Mind told me that “the rise, combined with current financial pressures, presents serious challenges for charities like ours”. The brain injury charity Headway contacted me estimating that the proposed changes will push up its costs by tens of thousands of pounds, forcing it to “reduce services” and potentially putting employees at “risk of redundancy or reduced days”. Birmingham-based Services for Education, run by its formidable chief executive, Sharon Bell, wrote to me to say that “the impact of national insurance changes will hit” it “hardest—unfairly so.” She paints a very concerning picture about how the charity will be forced to limit the fantastic services it offers because of this unprecedented cost. When the Chancellor delivered her Budget of broken promises, she did exactly what she promised during the election that she would not do: she significantly raised employer national insurance. What is even more concerning is the devastating effect that this has had on the charity sector. Just a day after the Budget, more than 7,000 charities came together to sign an open letter co-ordinated by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, warning that the sector’s increased national insurance costs would amount to £1.4 billion a year. They all called on the Chancellor to either exempt or reimburse charities for these additional costs. Let me tell the Minister that the impact is already being felt, and it is dire. Over Christmas, the chief executives of five domestic abuse charities made it clear that increased national insurance would force them to cut services, run down reserves and even make redundancies. This will have a catastrophic impact on the safety of vulnerable women and girls. Has the Minister had discussions with the Minister for Women and Equalities about the possible impact on women in this country? Has she spoken to the Chancellor? And where is the impact assessment? More than 110 chief executives of homelessness charities in England have warned that these changes could cost the sector between £50 million and £60 million. Can the Minister give cast-iron assurances that homeless people will not lose vital support, especially over this cold and wet winter, because of the unprecedented rise in NI contributions? The Opposition voted to exempt charities from the additional costs of NI increases. I regret that a staggering 348 Labour Members voted against that amendment, which will have a far-reaching impact on charities that provide essential services. Will the Minister give certainty that the Chancellor’s job tax will not have a negative impact on charities? And can she be certain that the Chancellor will not be coming back for more?

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I acknowledge the importance of this debate and thank the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) for bringing it forward. Although I will be voting against the Bill, I still think this is an important discussion to have, not least because many of my constituents believe that it is the right thing to do. Of course, there are also many who feel that it is not the right thing to do. We have shown the very best of what Parliament can do here today. I came to my conclusion not because of some sort of zealotry or evangelism. I completely acknowledge that there are people who go through very difficult situations where they lose their normal faculties and are in immense pain. However, we need to be clear about what we are discussing today: we are talking about wholesale change to how the state deals with death. That is really important. The Bill would place people, society and the medical profession in a number of scenarios, and put at great risk some of our most vulnerable people. That is part of the reason I will vote against it today. The slippery slope arguments are valid in terms of the risk the legislation produces. We are talking about medicalising death, placing an undue burden on our health professionals and legitimising a role for the state in the death process.

• 20 Nov 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q2. Yesterday, I met three constituents in Parliament: Duncan Hawley, his wife Nicola and his 10-year-old daughter Hattie. Duncan is a sheep farmer, and he has stewarded his family farm for most of his life. He is outraged, hurt and worried about the Government’s deeply damaging family farm tax. He is deeply worried about food security, food inflation and whether he will even be able to pass that farm on to future generations. My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is simple: why have this Labour Government declared war on British farmers?

• 5 Nov 2024 · Draft Online Safety Act 2023 (Priority Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am happy to confirm that the Opposition will support these regulations, not least because, as the Minister has said, they complement the previous Government’s work on the Online Safety Act, and I was the Minister responsible for implementing the Act from when it received Royal Assent until the general election. I take great pride in having served in the Government that introduced and passed the Online Safety Act. It places significant new responsibilities and duties on social media companies, platforms and services to increase safety online. However, most importantly, this vital piece of legislation ensures that children are better protected online. Having just attended a roundtable where we listened to victims of online abuse, I know that that is more important than ever. The Minister will share my thoughts on that. I share his sentiment—the Opposition will work with the Government to make sure that victims of online abuse receive justice and are supported and protected. It is worrying and sad that almost three quarters of teenagers between 13 and 17 have encountered one or more potential harms online, and that three in five secondary school-aged children have been contacted online in a way that potentially made them feel uncomfortable. It is for those reasons that we ensured that the strongest measures in the Online Safety Act protect children. For example, platforms are required to prevent children from accessing harmful and age-inappropriate content and to provide parents and children with clear and accessible ways to report problems online when they arise. Furthermore, the Act requires all in-scope services that allow pornography to use highly effective age assurance to prevent children from accessing it, including services that host user-generated content and services that publish pornography. Ofcom has robust enforcement powers available against companies that fail to fulfil their duties. The Online Safety Act also includes provisions to protect adult users, as it ensures that major platforms are more transparent about which kinds of potentially harmful content they allow. It gives users more control over the types of content they want to see. I note that Ofcom expects the illegal harm safety duties to become enforceable around March 2025, following Ofcom’s publication of its illegal harm statement in December 2024. Does the Minister agree that platforms do not need to wait for those milestones, as I often said, and should already be taking action to improve safety on their sites? Can he confirm that he is encouraging platforms to take proactive action in advance of any deadlines? Separately from the Online Safety Act, the last Government also launched the pornography review, which explores the effectiveness of regulation, legislation and the law enforcement response to pornography. Can the Minister provide a reassurance that the review’s final report is on schedule and will be published before the end of the year? Can he also clarify whether the review will consider the impact of violent and harmful pornography on women and girls? I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on those points and for his co-operation throughout his tenure. I am happy to add our support to these regulations, and to see that the previous Government’s pivotal piece of legislation is making the UK the safest place in the world for a child to be online.

• 4 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  The Chancellor’s Budget last week was a shocking demonstration of economic illiteracy. The Government often speak about growth, but all the Budget showed was a disdain for wealth creators, and it betrayed family businesses and farmers—reminiscent of the damage that the Labour party caused in the 1970s. Conservative Members know that we cannot tax our way to growth. My constituents in Meriden and Solihull East are particularly dismayed by the trail of broken manifesto commitments, and the highest debt burden and tax burden, with taxes being put up by £40 billion. They are particularly angry about the disdain shown for our rural communities and small businesses. The Government often talk about them being the lifeblood of our communities, but that is more than just a slogan. I will focus on farming in the limited time I have. As the proud representative of a number of family farms, I speak on behalf of many constituents who are appalled by the Budget. Our farmers work seven days a week, 365 days a year, to keep food on our tables, and they nurture our green and pleasant land. They work no matter the weather, and are vulnerable to it like no other workers in any other industry in the country. The Chancellor argues that the tax on family farms is necessary to support our public services, but she clearly fails to recognise that those farms also provide a public service. They put food on our tables, ensure our food security and protect our rural heritage. The Chancellor’s betrayal of our rural communities through the family farm tax will have damaging consequences for farmers and everyone in the country. I welcome the interventions from Jeremy Clarkson and the NFU president Tim Bradshaw, who today made arguments about the deepening mental health crisis in our rural communities. The Chancellor must recognise that farming is not a hobby or pastime for the landed classes; it is an engine that drives our food security and sustains our rural communities. Farmers do not have huge bank accounts to pay death tax bills. The Budget will lead to an exodus of farmers, undermining our food security and making everyone more vulnerable to global instability. We should not be surprised by the measures. The Labour party included only 87 words on the farming industry in its manifesto, which I thought was particularly disrespectful. I would talk about the billions that our small businesses contribute to our high streets, but I will talk instead about fuel duty. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) was very kind to mention me earlier, but there were 73 Conservative Members of Parliament who wrote to the Chancellor, and 131,000 people signed the petition. Just two weeks ago, Government briefings revealed that they were going to raise fuel duty by 7p. We were able to force a U-turn and protect the freeze on fuel duty. What does this Labour party stand for? It does not stand for small businesses on the high street, it does not stand for our farms or rural communities, it does not stand for hard-working families, and it certainly does not stand for working people.

• 30 Oct 2024 · NHS Winter Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this debate on what is an important day. As the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) has, I pay tribute to NHS staff who are dealing with significant demands in urgent and emergency care, which are particularly acute in a post-pandemic world. In the time that I have available, I will press the Government on the actions they are taking to increase vaccination uptake and to make use of available private sector capacity. Vaccination was the key to protecting the population from covid-19 and to ensuring that the virus could be managed and contained like other respiratory illnesses. Delivering the successful vaccination programme was one of the many benefits of leaving the European Union, which was a cause championed by the previous Government. We must continue the push to protect the most clinically vulnerable and to reduce hospital admissions for RSV, flu and covid-19. I welcome the national RSV vaccine programme that was launched earlier this summer, and I would welcome an update from the Minister about the uptake of that vaccine among eligible groups. I am concerned by recent data that shows that the uptake of the flu and covid-19 vaccines among eligible groups is lower compared with the same time last year. Figures on the uptake of the flu vaccine in the week commencing 20 October 2024 showed that the vaccination rate was 48.2% for all those aged 65 or over, which is lower than it was in October 2023. That means the picture for those people is worse. In the clinical risk group, only 20.8% of people had been vaccinated, which again is a worse uptake rate than that for last October. Given these worrying figures, what actions will the Government and the NHS take to promote vaccinations among eligible groups, particularly those at greater clinical risk? As other hon. Members have stated, many NHS hospitals and secondary care settings are working at close to full capacity. For that reason, we must maximise the use of private sector hospitals and other facilities to reduce the pressure on the national health service. The Telegraph recently reported that private health providers have written to the Chancellor and the Health Secretary to propose a major expansion in the use of private sector facilities and staff for NHS treatment. It was stated that private sector investment could help build diagnostic capacity and, “develop new surgery units and intensive care facilities.” If I am not mistaken, the Health Secretary has spoken about the use of private sector facilities, so will the Government support the proposals, which would see an extra 2.5 million patients treated in private hospitals with the potential to cut NHS waiting lists significantly? As we are talking about waiting lists in the winter, I want to turn to the winter fuel allowance, which is being cut. What is the Government’s assessment of the impact and pressure on hospitals from the withdrawal of the allowance? I believe that the Labour party put out an analysis back in 2017 stating that 4,000 people would be at risk of death from such a withdrawal. Can the Minister clarify whether that analysis is still correct and what the thinking is in the Health Department in response to the withdrawal? During the winter months, protecting bed space for elective treatment is particular important for keeping waiting lists down. That is why we must also build on the capacity provided by community diagnostics centres and surgical hubs in recent years. The previous Government invested £2.3 billion to establish CDCs, which represented the largest cash investment in MRI and CT scanning capacity in the history of the national health service. In addition, the Independent Health Foundation has highlighted the positive impact that surgical hubs made in reducing waiting lists and increasing bed capacity. Despite their impact, Lord Darzi’s report on NHS performance made no reference to the role of CDCs and surgical hubs in helping to reduce waiting lists. On expanding the network of surgical hubs, and bearing in mind that the Budget is taking place in the main Chamber, it would be helpful to get some clarity on where the additional funding will be spent. Will the Minister commit to having more surgical hubs so that more patients across the country can access elective care quicker? Will the Minister also commit to expanding the network of CDCs, which have delivered more than 7 million tests, scans and checks since 2021. The last Government supported national health service trusts to increase elective activity after the pandemic, particularly through the elective recovery fund, which reimbursed trusts for the operations they delivered. However, earlier this month the Health Service Journal reported that Ministers were considering whether to pause or cap the fund. At the election, Government Ministers stood on a manifesto that pledged to reduce waiting times for elective care, such as on hip and knee replacements, to 18 weeks by the end of the Parliament. Pausing or capping the elective recovery fund will surely affect the Government’s pledge to cut waiting times and risk placing further pressures on national health service finances. I am sure NHS leaders would greatly appreciate the Minister providing clarity on that point, so can she rule out the elective recovery fund being capped or paused this year? To finish, as has already been said, I want to encourage anyone who is eligible to make sure they go and get vaccinated in advance of this winter.

• 21 Oct 2024 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Many small business in Meriden and Solihull East are rightly concerned about the Bill for a number of reasons. Since the election, I have spoken a number of times demanding that the Government be more ambitious for growth, for our entrepreneurs and for our small businesses. Indeed, it is the moral duty of every Government to unleash the full potential of our businesses and, where possible, to create an environment to embolden entrepreneurs and encourage economic growth. Instead, the Bill will kill off any ambition and any focus on growth. If we want to focus on inclusive growth, we must nurture our start-ups, scale-ups and small businesses, and let them be nimble in how they operate, rather than shackling them. That is how economic magic will start to happen. The businesses to which I have spoken are worried about the insufficient consultation. The Government’s impact assessment, which we received late, shows that small businesses are likely to be hit hardest. The costs, according to the Government’s own analysis, will be in the low billions—up to £5 billion. For a Government who keep talking about the alleged black hole, those low billions seem rather reckless. It proves that this is nothing more than an ideological Bill that does not ensure growth.

• 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?

• 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.