Saqib Bhatti MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; he clearly has great experience of Wembley. That is a very fair challenge for the Minister. No parent, family member or friend should ever be worried about the prospect of their loved one getting hurt watching the beautiful game. That is why, in 2022, the previous Government amended and strengthened the football banning order regime. As a result, the Crown Prosecution Service can now ask courts for tougher penalties for online abuse involving race, sexuality or religion. Previously, FBOs could only be issued for in-person offences. Furthermore, in November 2022, the previous Government added the possession or supply of class A drugs at football matches to the FBO regime. Following the addition, there was an increased willingness among the police to make arrests at football matches for class A drug offences. FBOs are not just about preventing troublemakers from attending matches at home and abroad involving a team from or representing England or Wales. They demonstrate that the UK has taken action to ensure that individuals involved in football-related violence and disorder can be stopped and prevented from attending football matches. The previous Government also supported the Football Association’s commissioning of the Casey review, which highlighted the failures that took place at Wembley and recommended strengthening penalties for football-related disorder, including tailgating. I would like to pay my own tribute to Baroness Casey for her independent review of the appalling disorder that occurred during the Euro 2020 final. However, it is also important to highlight that tailgating is not the only problematic behaviour. Various other routes are used to attempt entry into football matches, such as scaling walls, climbing through windows, forcing exits and using fraudulent tickets. The fact that the Bill is drafted in a way that captures all those who are attempting to evade security measures is welcome. I hope that the Minister agrees with me that football should be welcoming to all, and spectators at games should be safe. Those who bring disorder or evade security should not be present, and I welcome the fact that the Bill seeks to ensure that these people are prohibited from attending live matches. Everyone should be able to enjoy the beautiful game. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Amber Valley has brought forward the Bill, which I entirely welcome.

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

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; he is making a very eloquent speech. Will he acknowledge Alex Insley, from my constituency, who runs a podcast for tradespeople and who brought this issue to my attention?

• 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.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Victims of Sexual Abuse · Hansard source

  More

  In recent weeks, Daniel Clarke, a vile sexual offender, was sentenced to seven years in prison for horrific acts of sexual abuse against six vulnerable children, many with special needs and many of whom are my constituents; indeed, there are 81 suspected cases. I have been contacted by the families of those innocent victims, who have expressed outrage at the shockingly lenient sentence. I wrote to the Attorney General on 20 May asking for the case and the sentence to be reviewed. I did not receive a response and had to find out through the BBC that the review was happening. Nevertheless, I am pleased that the sentence is being reviewed. Will the Minister give assurances to my constituents, the House and the British public that such vile sexual predators will have the book thrown at them and that protecting our children is the only thing that matters?

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

  More

  Thank you for calling me, Sir Jeremy; you will be pleased to know that I do not have a 26-minute winding-up speech. I thank all Members across Westminster Hall for their contributions. I thank the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), for the challenge he set, and the Policing Minister for the constructive way in which she engaged in the debate. I absolutely accept the stats that the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) set out. Although the suspect-adjusted disparity stats still show that black men are more likely to get searched, it is much more targeted, but no stats are perfect. It is really important that communities have trust in policing, and I am conscious of a narrative being built up that might undermine police officers in those communities. I suspect this debate will rage on. I will continue to work with the shadow Minister, and I offer to work with the Minister to change the guidance to make the lives of police officers easier. I want the Minister to succeed, because her success means saving lives, and it means that when we say, “Never again”, it really does mean never again. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the matter of the use of stop and search.

• 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.

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

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the matter of the use of stop and search. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I called for this debate today because I am greatly concerned about the increasing prevalence of knife crime in our society, and it is rather apt, given that the Crime and Policing Bill had its Second Reading just this week. In the year ending September 2024, knife-enabled crime increased by 12% on the previous year. As a west midlands MP, regrettably, I am no stranger to the devastating impact of knife crime in the region on families and communities. I feel that stop and search, as backed up by evidence, can play a very important role in tackling knife crime, and that is why I have called this debate today. Let me start by talking about the impact of knife crime. The West Midlands police area recorded the highest rate of knife crime offences in England and Wales in 2023. Sadly, we are experiencing worse levels of knife crime than London, which is under the stewardship of Sadiq Khan. In 2023, offences involving a blade totalled 180 per 100,000 of the population, up from 167 in 2022. The figure for the London Met police force area was 165. That gives a sense of the scale of the problem in the West Midlands. Since being elected in 2019, which seems an age away now, the realities of the knife crime epidemic in the West Midlands have regrettably been all too clear for me. In 2019, there was the tragic case of Jack Donoghue, who was punched, kicked and stabbed in the chest in a four-on-one attack near Popworld in Solihull. In October last year, 17-year-old Reuben Higgins was stabbed on Station Road in Marston Green, near Solihull. Reuben’s family said in a statement following his tragic death: “Reuben was a loving son, grandson, brother, nephew and cousin who will be dearly missed”. On a recent edition of “BBC Politics Midlands”, I discussed the horrifying death of James Brindley, who was killed in 2017 in Aldridge, not too far from where I was brought up. I was touched by his father’s sincere hope that the lives of many young people could still be changed, so that they did not feel the need to carry knives. Just last week, the friends and family of 12-year-old schoolboy Leo Ross put him to rest. Mourners gathered at Christ church in Yardley Wood to say their final farewells to Leo, who was described by Christ Church of England academy as a “lovely and bright” pupil. Given the advice I have received, I will be very careful in what I say, because it is a live investigation, but on 21 January this year, Leo was stabbed in the stomach while walking home from school. Not only was a promising young boy’s life cut far too short, but a whole community is left grieving. Leo’s family will never get over the tragic loss of their son. His friends will have an unfillable void in their lives, and I can only imagine how worried they and their parents will be every time the school bell rings and it is time to go home. The simple act of walking home from school unaccompanied is a huge part of a young person’s life as they grow up and become independent, but now, for many in the area, it may take a bit longer to have the confidence to go out on their own. Devastating and shocking events such as these underline the importance and necessity of stopping young people getting hold of, carrying and using weapons on our streets. Although I will focus much of my speech on the importance of using stop and search, I want to put on record my view that tackling violent knife crime encompasses more than just the use of stop and search. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) outlined in the debate on the Crime and Policing Bill on Monday, we also need to tackle the issue of people, especially young boys, being sucked into gangs in the first place. I urge everyone with an interest in this issue to read the Centre for Social Justice’s report “Lost Boys”, which was published last week. It is an excellent report that highlights the issues that drive young boys—who overwhelmingly make up the victims of knife crime—to end up in criminal gangs. Although I will use my time today to advocate in favour of stop and search, I do not dismiss for a second anyone who thinks we need to take preventive action, too. My case is that they must go hand in hand. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said on Monday, in many cases the knife is very much the last act. My constituents in Meriden and Solihull East are very proud of our brave police officers who work 24 hours, seven days a week to keep us safe. I want to put on the record my personal thanks to our police officers who work tirelessly to keep us all safe. I pay tribute to the chief constable, Craig Guildford, who has a great reputation in tackling some of the most violent crimes; I hope he will have that impact in the West Midlands area, too. The police work in difficult circumstances, and policing today is very different from how it was just a few decades ago. That is why I want our police forces to have everything they need, and stop and search is absolutely necessary for them to do their job effectively, without fear of being reprimanded for just doing their job. Let me be unequivocal: stop and search saves lives. There is a very strong consensus among police chiefs that it is an important tool for disrupting crime and taking weapons off our streets quickly. We can see that in London, without a doubt. It is unquestionable that there is a correlation between the Mayor’s decision to allow stop and search to drop by 44% over two years and the fact that, since he took office, knife crime offences in London have increased by 38%. Stop and search allows the police to pre-empt dangerous situations and offers an effective and credible deterrent to violent criminals who might think about carrying a dangerous weapon. Critically, stop and search not only protects the public, but might actually stop a potential perpetrator from crossing the Rubicon and taking part in illegal activity. Very simply, we need stop and search, and the law must make sure that the police are unafraid to use it. The case for stop and search is backed up by research from the Oxford journal of policing, which found that stop and search can cut the number of attempted murders by 50% or more. I do not believe we can have sensitivities around this issue. Stop and search undoubtedly has a huge role to play in cutting crime and ultimately saving lives. I proudly back the police and want them to have the appropriate powers, because every single life lost to violent crime is a tragedy. Every time a violent crime could have been prevented but was not is a shameful failure. It is a failure of national Government, of all parties of all ilks, of local government and regional government. Too often we say in the House “never again”, and yet it happens again and again. So I want to call for more stop and search powers so that we can make real and meaningful change. While there continues to be a knife crime epidemic we cannot be sensitive about the powers that we give the police to keep us safe. The work of Professor Lawrence Sherman, former chief scientific officer for the Metropolitan police, is an interesting point. Mr Sherman is very supportive of the use of stop and search, and suggests that we should focus on areas that are deemed to be high risk. He argues that the effective use of stop and search requires it to be legitimate and supported by local people. To that end, he suggests that targeted stop and search in high risk areas is necessary and has the scope to be effective. Crucially, he argues that although using data and bias might be controversial, the need to protect people should come first. In addition, Sherman, working with Alex R Piquero and the Cambridge Centre for Evidence-Based Policing, conducted 15 years of research in London, which demonstrated how effective stop and search really can be. Their paper, “Stop, Search and Knife Injuries in London”, concluded that “increased SSEs”— stop and search encounters— “can significantly reduce knife-related injuries and homicides in public places”. It is clearly backed up by the science and the data. Alongside strong academic evidence suggesting that stop and search is effective, His Majesty’s chief inspector of constabulary also strongly advocates its usage. The report is thought-provoking and points out that little academic research has been conducted on one of the most crucial benefits of stop and search: deterrence. That is a really important point. It is likely that someone considering carrying a deadly weapon or drugs might think twice if there is a credible chance that they will get stopped and searched. In August 2022, under the guidance of the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), the previous Government empowered more than 8,000 police officers to authorise enhanced stop and search powers. It came after a smaller pilot contributed to nearly 7,000 arrests for offensive weapons and 900 arrests for firearms following a stop and search. The evidence is abundantly clear that it is effective at taking weapons off our streets, which will help to bring down violent crime. Stop and search is also overwhelmingly backed by the public. In November 2022, Crest Advisory found that stop and search has a high level of support across all ethnic groups, and it found that a total of 86% of adult respondents supported the police’s right to stop and search someone if they were suspected of having a weapon on them. Of those, 77% of black adults supported the police’s having the right to stop and search to find weapons, and 71% to find class A drugs. Stop and search is a very useful and important mechanism that can be used to cut crime and keep us safe. One other statistic that I would like to share at this stage is that black people are four times more likely to be murdered as a result of knife crime. That might be some of the reason why there was so much support for stop and search among ethnic minority groups. However, these powers can only work if we have a clear police presence on our streets. Under the previous Conservative Government, I was proud that we achieved our manifesto commitment to recruit 20,000 new police officers. That allowed crime in the West Midlands to come down by 10% and led to reduced wait times after 999 calls. The new Government have a target to recruit more police officers, but I feel their numbers fall short when we properly assess their plans, because only 3,000 of them will be new officers—most of the 13,000 are either reassigned or redeployed, or are part-time volunteers or police community support officers with no powers of arrest. Perhaps the Minister may comment on that. In Meriden and Solihull East, my constituents remain concerned that their local police and crime commissioner, Simon Foster, has failed to commit to keeping Solihull police station open, and failed to have a front desk at Chelmsley Wood police station, which I have been campaigning for. The public will have greater confidence in the police force if there is a visible presence. That does not just mean police officers; there has to be infrastructure, such as police stations, that is clearly visible to warn criminals that they will be caught. It is clear that stop and search is an essential tool in law enforcement, but we cannot underestimate the centrality of prevention, as I touched on earlier. That is why the estates strategy in the West Midlands is important. Perhaps the Minister might be able to comment on that, or write to me with further details. If an individual knows that the police can stop and search them, it becomes a powerful deterrent, which may prevent some from carrying a knife. When in government, the Conservatives recognised that prevention and early interventions are as important as enforcement. That is why, between 2019 and 2024, we funded initiatives known as violence reduction units in areas across England and Wales that were most affected by serious violence.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  Three weeks ago, the Government announced five local inquiries into rape gangs, which crucially cannot compel witnesses to give evidence. We still do not know where all the inquiries will be, and we do not know how the towns will be chosen. As Charlie Peters from GB News originally reported, grooming gangs are suspected to have operated in 50 towns. Does the Minister recognise that the failure to announce a meaningful national statutory inquiry means that women and girls from across the country, who are not from the five selected towns, will be denied justice and a fair hearing? If the victims want a national statutory inquiry, why doesn’t the Minister?

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

  More

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