Saqib Bhatti MP: speeches

Speeches

• 17 Jun 2026 · Rural Pubs: Fiscal Support · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the matter of fiscal support for rural pubs. It is a pleasure to lead this debate on fiscal support for our country’s great rural pubs. Although this debate is about fiscal support, it is really about our heritage. To demonstrate that, I would like to take hon. Members on a pub crawl around my constituency. Meriden and Solihull East has the historical, grade II-listed Malt Shovel in Barston, which dates back to the late 15th or early 16th century and is widely regarded as one of the oldest pubs in the borough of Solihull. There is also the Queen’s Head in Meriden, a 17th-century coaching inn. We would then move on to Hampton in Arden, where there is the White Lion, another 17th-century pub with traditional architecture. I should say at this stage that I do not drink, so I am happy to drive Members if they come. From Hampton in Arden, we would travel to Catherine-de-Barnes, where the excellent Boat has a tremendous beer garden for sunny afternoons. In Dorridge, the Railway Inn, right next to the station, often serves hard-working commuters after a long day’s work. Dorridge also has the Forest, a 19th-century coach house just by the train station, serving tremendous food and drink, with great rooms for weary guests. There is also the Drum and Monkey, my local, which is a famous country pub with a history dating back to the 1860s. After all that, we would end up in the historical village of Knowle, where I want everyone with me. In the village, there are a number of pubs that we could choose from, but I have selected a couple. The Wilson Arms, now a Toby Carvery, is a 16th-century pub with timber frames and excellent Sunday lunches. The Red Lion, right on the high street, has great food and drinks. I pick Knowle to end, because this weekend we are celebrating the 750th anniversary of the village. I pay tribute to all those who make the village the special place that it is: Visit Knowle, the Knowle Society, the various publicans and, of course, our residents. To them, I say thank you. Community, character and identity, that is what our rural pubs represent. That is why they are worth fighting for, and why I am here today, concerned about the impact of the Government’s policies on our rural pubs. I will start by talking about the economic importance of pubs and their contribution to the economy, especially in rural areas. There is no doubt that the UK’s pub and brewing sector plays an enormous role in rural constituencies across the UK. Rural pubs provide jobs and huge economic value. According to the British Beer and Pub Association, the pub and brewing sector supports more than 300,000 jobs in rural constituencies in the UK. Combined, rural pubs and breweries contribute almost £11 billion to the economy and generate £7 billion in tax. In addition, as I have outlined, rural pubs are steeped in history and heritage. They attract tourism from across the country and the world. Tourism is estimated to be responsible for about a third of employment in rural pubs. People come from all over the world to spend time in the great British countryside and enjoy the excellent food and drink that we put out in our great pubs. In all our constituencies, but particularly for Members from rural seats, the influence of pubs in our constituencies is enormous. I am immensely proud of the pubs in Meriden and Solihull East. We have almost 40 local pubs, which support 1,740 jobs. Of that cohort, there are 500 16 to 24-year-olds working in the sector, which makes an overall contribution of £61 million to the local economy. In the wider west midlands, there are more than 4,000 rural pubs, which employ 88,000 people and contribute £2.9 billion to the economy. Aside from the huge economic impact of these pubs, they are also a vital part of the fabric of our rural communities. They provide food, drink and places to stay, and some historical pubs date back centuries, truly making them part of our great and unique British history.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great honour to follow my hon. Friend, although I have to say that was one of his shortest speeches. We come here for a serious matter of the utmost gravity. I have heard a number of good speeches from all parts of the House, including Members on the Government Benches. I commend all those Members who have stood up and said that they are not happy with the Government’s position. That is not an easy thing to do. I am pleased that there is now a manuscript amendment that will force the Government’s hand and ensure that the ISC has a pivotal and critical role. A number of observations have been made today, some of which I agreed with and some of which I did not. I did agree with a great many of them, but a couple of Members said that the Government had demonstrated leadership in getting to this point. They did not demonstrate leadership. They got here because they were dragged here; they got here because there had been a dump of documents by the Department of Justice, the Leader of the Opposition tabled a motion that forced their hand, and they finally had to confront the fact that Peter Mandelson had a relationship with Epstein for much longer than many of us knew—although certainly the Prime Minister knew, as we found out earlier today. The idea that the Government have demonstrated leadership is for the birds. I have heard Members on both sides of the House talk about the victims of Epstein, but I say to Labour Members that those are just words if they are not followed up with action. Although the ISC amendment is important, it is not the end of the journey. For months the Conservatives have been pushing for clarity so that we can discover the truth about what was going on with Lord Mandelson’s appointment. This goes to the heart of our politics. What did we find out today when the Leader of the Opposition challenged the Prime Minister? He had run out of road and finally had to come clean about the fact that he knew about this relationship. As for the idea that we need to know the depth of the relationship, let me ask Labour Members this: how deep does a relationship with a paedophile need to be before it becomes eligible for declaration?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  Well, it is not bizarre, because we have been here many times before. The Government have been dragged along time after time, scandal after scandal. I say to Government Back Benchers: this is a Prime Minister who is flailing. He has admitted, after months and months of pushing, that he knew—he knew about the relationship that Mandelson had with Epstein, and yet he thought it was a risk worth taking anyway. I made this point earlier, but that “risk” was not just in denigrating the experience of the victims; it was in marching all those Labour Members up the hill and risking their careers. We are Members of Parliament; it is okay that we care about our careers, wherever they may end up, but the truth is that the Prime Minister did not care about them. That journey is not over yet, because he is going to use those people over and over again; he will throw other people under the bus before he throws his chief of staff under the bus—but that will happen too, I can almost guarantee it.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

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

• 29 Oct 2025 · International Baccalaureate: Funding in State Schools · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and to take part in this important debate on funding for the international baccalaureate in state schools. I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) for securing this debate and for his eloquent opening remarks. In fact, we have had a number of eloquent speakers, all the way from Truro to Dartford, as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), who made the case for his constituents who attend the Anglo European school. I have to put it on record, if there were any doubt, that His Majesty’s Opposition are beyond disappointed that funding for the international baccalaureate has been scrapped. It is nothing more than another example of this Government’s educational vandalism. IB teaches nearly 2 million pupils in 6,000 schools in nearly 160 countries. It is, by its very nature, global and provides a knowledge-rich curriculum that is deep while at the same time broad. Yet rather than seeking to produce confident and well-rounded citizens who benefit from a schooling system where pupils, parents and educators have plenty of choice, the Government seek to impose a disastrously linear, one-size-fits-all approach on our education system. Without warning, the Government wrote to state schools and colleges on 1 October to notify them that the large programme uplift funding for the international baccalaureate programme will be axed from the 2026-27 academic year. According to Public First, that will make it unviable for state schools to deliver IB, effectively creating a two-tier education system for independent and state sector students, contrary to what the Minister said at the Dispatch Box last week. For a long time, pupils, parents, educators and employers have valued the highly respected IB qualification. It provides a broad and balanced curriculum, allowing students to study maths, science, humanities, art and, of course, a language. It offers more breadth than the A-level route and equips young people with the skills they need for life, through extended projects, theory of knowledge and community service. Additionally, as the co-founder of the World of Languages, Languages of the World programme told me, it helps to make language learning much more effective—a point made by a number of hon. Members from across the House today. The IB provides opportunity through social mobility and has opened students’ minds via a well-balanced and globally respected curriculum. It is academically rigorous and broadens opportunity and aspiration. Like many, I share the disappointment in this policy decision and feel that it will impact the most disadvantaged students disproportionately. Will the Minister clarify whether there was any consultation in the light of the cut to the large programme uplift, and whether the Department has made any assessment of the number of state school pupils who will be forced to seek different routes post GCSE? In other words, which stakeholders did the DFE speak to? Funding for the IB comes at a cost of a mere £2.5 million: a drop in the ocean of the Department’s huge £100 billion annual budget. Given the IB’s first class reputation, surely the Minister recognises the value it provides. The decision is reckless and already having consequences. Tunbridge grammar school, which has been mentioned, is a high-performing state provider that previously delivered the IB to all sixth-formers. It has now announced that it will, regretfully, move to A-levels from next year, because of the funding cuts. That is a huge change, and it will not be the last school no longer to offer the IB. I know the Minister, and I believe him to be a good man. He must know the effect, and he should acknowledge the impact of the decision. As many Members have been at pains to point out, the IB is a globally recognised qualification that allows UK students to compete with their peers in other countries. In cutting funding for IB in state schools, the Government have tried to claim that they are prioritising subjects that lead to good jobs and drive economic growth, but no one at the Department for Education seems to have done their homework, given that students with an IB diploma are more likely to be admitted to a top 20 UK university than A-level students, in matched samples, and have gone on to become world leaders in their chosen fields. Will the Minister confirm the rationale behind the funding cut and explain why the Government have taken this decision? Do they have any assessment of the number of state schools that will be forced to stop offering the IB? As I said, I have a lot of time for the Minister, but he has to know that no one buys this being a money-saving exercise; it must be an ideological one. Perhaps the Minister does not believe in the IB? If so, he should say so. In which case, will he confirm what subjects are classed as priorities for economic growth? Moreover, given the IB requires students to study a variety of subjects including mathematics, the sciences and humanities, does he not consider those subjects to be priorities for economic growth? I ask the Government to listen to the concerns of distinguished educational experts, such as Richard Markham, the chief executive officer of the IB Schools and Colleges Association, who started a petition that has already garnered more than 4,000 signatures, calling for this decision to be reversed. Furthermore, the Government would do well to listen to the schools that will suffer as a result of the decision. State schools such as Europa in Oxfordshire, which has been mentioned, have called the decision a “kick in the teeth” that will lead to inevitable cutbacks in the curriculum that they can offer to aspiring students. We have to be clear what the decision will mean in practice for those pupils studying IB in state schools. It is not simply a decision to reduce the amount of funding available for state schools to offer the course; in effect, it abolishes the IB in state schools altogether. Dartford grammar school, as has been mentioned, is the largest provider of the IB in the country. It has already warned that it cannot afford to offer IB to its pupils without the funding, and countless other schools have issued similar warnings. I thank Members for mentioning their individual cases. No advance warning was given of this announcement and no debate had before the decision was made. The sad truth is that the decision, like many of the others the Government have made, will hurt the very pupils the Government claim they want to protect. White working-class boys in state schools will in effect be barred from studying the IB because of the Government’s reckless decision. Why should those boys not have access to the highly respected and globally competitive curriculum that their more affluent peers will still be able to access? Can the Minister provide specific evidence to show that the IB was failing white working-class students, or prove that other routes lead to categorically better outcomes? Does the Minister accept—this is purely a point of logic—that by taking this decision, those who can afford to will continue to do the IB, and for those who cannot, namely in our state sector, the cut has made the IB unviable? That is fact. Does the Minister acknowledge the result of the decision? The truth is that this policy decision, which reverses nearly half a century of academic excellence, is the latest in a series of failures by the Education Secretary and her Ministers. In cutting funding for level 7 apprenticeships, the Government deprived public sector employers, such as the NHS, of the means to train their workforce properly, and yet the Education Secretary has made it clear that she makes no apology for denying people the chance to reskill later in their careers. In taxing education, the Government punished parents who have worked hard and saved up to invest in their children. In one breath, the Government promise to spend the money on more teachers, but in another use the VAT on private schools to justify spending elsewhere. Furthermore, in announcing a lower level qualification aimed at white working class pupils, the Government have embraced the bigotry of low expectations. They have told some of our most deprived children that they have no chance at succeeding in school on the same terms as their peers. With every announcement this Government make, it becomes increasingly clear that their policy on education is simply to cut back, dumb down and deny opportunities to the most disadvantaged children in our country. Instead of expanding parental choice and making opportunities such as the IB available to more families, they are narrowing the options available to parents and making parental choice a premium that only those who can afford it have access to. It is the same as what happened with the Latin excellence programme, which was discontinued by this Government in another one of their terrible decisions. Ministers seem completely unable to understand why a family might choose to look at different options for their children’s education, rather than the bland uniformity they seek to impose—a fact that became obvious within the first few months of this Government entering office, when they said they would scrap the freedoms that academies have used to turn around failing schools and give children from some of the most deprived areas of the country the best chance of succeeding in life. We have heard plenty from the Government about their missions, milestones and road maps, yet they only have one mission that we can see, and that is to vandalise our education system and rob schools and parents of the ability to make the choices they think are best for their pupils and children, led by an Education Secretary who prioritises finishing second in the deputy leadership contest for the Labour party, rather than championing children. I know the Minister cannot make an announcement today from the Dispatch Box, but I ask him to at least reconsider this.

• 16 Jul 2025 · RAF E-7 Wedgetail Programme · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for securing the debate. He spoke incredibly eloquently not just about the programme, but about why it is so important. I will pull him up slightly, because he talked about Birmingham. The facility is in my constituency of Meriden and Solihull East, and Solihull is very different from Birmingham, as any Silhillian will tell us, but I welcome the case that he made. I am very proud that these planes are being built in my constituency. I have had the privilege of going to see them at various phases of construction and, as they are Boeing 737s that are being restructured and refitted, seeing them in the different states of fitting, not least during various liftings of lockdowns, when I was able to do so. I went there with a lot of pride because, as has been alluded to and I know all the Members in the Chamber will agree, our paramount and first duty as Members of Parliament is defence of the realm. Across the world, whether it is in Ukraine or in the brief conflict between Pakistan and India recently, we see a real need for credible technology that is capable of dealing with modern warfare in the 21st century. For me, the E-7 Wedgetail is essential to that because, as my hon. Friend said, it provides a 360° capability with advance warning and strategic capacity to deal with movements in the battlefield way beyond our enemies’ visibility. It would, should and ought to secure air superiority, so it is very important. I thank STS Aviation Services, which is fitting out the plane alongside Boeing. I think we can all agree that we want this done. I would like to see the Wedgetail project, or at least the two planes, completed. I am happy to work cross-party to make sure that we work with Boeing and STS to deliver that, not least because of the importance of the defence of our realm and the need to be ready. In this age of autocrats, when we see technological advancement from the Russians, the North Koreans, the Chinese and even the Iranians, we need to be ready for what might come our way. The hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) chided the last Government for a number of their decisions, but what an excellent decision it was to have a fixed-price contract. That means that, despite the delays, there should not be an additional cost to the taxpayer. Once the project is completed, I hope it will be seen as value for money. As has already been said, but I will put it on the record not least because some of my constituents will see this, Wedgetail will be, when completed, one of the most advanced strategic analytical planes to be built and to hopefully serve in our armed forces. It will be able to co-ordinate with joint forces and of course, most essentially in the 21st century, provide high-quality data. As I have already said, it will operate beyond visual range and secure strategic superiority and dominance. It should be stressed that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway said, overcoming the capability and credibility gap is absolutely essential if we are to be an air force capable of holding its own in the 21st century, with the challenges that will come our way. As was mentioned earlier, the Wedgetail programme is also essential given advancements in space and space defence technology, about which there is clearly concern. I would like Wedgetail to be part of the multifaceted platform needed to make sure that those who would do us harm by taking advantage of space technology cannot do so. Wedgetail will be really important in that. What is important for me is that Wedgetail creates really high value, highly skilled jobs. It caters for about 150 jobs at the moment, and that figure is predicted to double. Sadly, as a layperson, I was not able to convince the people responsible to give the maintenance contract to Birmingham airport, but I believe that Wedgetail is a product of great capability, including export capability. That means further jobs for my constituents in Meriden and Solihull East. I should say that in my part of the world, we have Jaguar Land Rover and the old factories that helped to build Spitfire. We have a great tradition and great heritage. My constituents are incredibly patriotic and will be proud that Wedgetail is being built there. I have some questions for the Minister. Will he share his assessment of the export capability of this product? Where does he see the opportunities and value? He has already been challenged, so will he enlighten us on how he is working to ensure its faster delivery? Who is he working with and what conversations is he having in that regard? The offer to meet interested stakeholders has been put out there, and I would like to be part of that. The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry would be an important person to have around that table in that conversation. More broadly, what work are the Government doing to ensure that our defence products are exported across the world? Technological advancement in warfare has often separated the victor from the defeated. That is a really important part of the conversation, and I hope it will go beyond the strategic defence review.