Toby Perkins MP: speeches

Speeches

• 8 May 2025 · Environmental Audit Committee · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that and for the excellent contribution he is making to the Select Committee. Professor Dasgupta is hugely respected, and his warnings should be taken very seriously indeed. I think that all Labour Members recognise the need for growth, but we demand that it comes hand in hand with nature recovery. We are one of the most nature-depleted nations on Earth and, as my hon. Friend rightly said, nature is the foundation stone on which all economic growth should be built. A nation that prioritises economic growth over our environment is one heading down a dangerous and foolish path. We have heard some really positive commitments from the Government, but we need to see them actualised. I completely agree with what he said.

• 8 May 2025 · Environmental Audit Committee · Hansard source

  More

  To return a compliment, my hon. Friend is the only person who was there at the start of the evidence and at the end, and we are very grateful for the continuity he provides. He is right that, as the Committee’s report lays out, we need to see a natural capital approach embedded right through Government. The forthcoming spending review is a great opportunity to see that, and I really hope that we do. He makes an important point about the national wealth fund; it provides a huge opportunity and we look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on that both at this juncture and in his response to the report, which we will get from the Government in due course.

• 8 May 2025 · Environmental Audit Committee · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to present the Environmental Audit Committee’s report on the role of natural capital in the green economy. This report was initiated by my predecessor as Chair, the right honourable Philip Dunne, the former Member of Parliament for Ludlow. I wish to pay great tribute to him for his excellent contribution as Chair. Mr Dunne enjoyed what I suspect is an unusual distinction of having both asked questions and answered them in the witness sessions that led to this report. Having originally initiated the report in January 2024 and then seen Parliament dissolve before the report could be published, he was kind enough to return as a witness in December 2024 to brief the successor Committee on the evidence that his Committee had heard and to provide his own insights. I wish to take this opportunity to place on record my gratitude and, I know, the gratitude of members of the Committee past and present to our former Clerk, Martyn Atkins, who recently left the service of the Committee for a period of absence after many years of service to the House. Martyn has played a huge role in the work of this Select Committee and many others and will be very much missed, as will Chloe Jago, who recently stood down as press officer on the Committee after five years of excellent service to take up a role closer to home. I thank all those who have contributed to this report, the many people and organisations who submitted written and oral evidence, the Committee staff—particularly Alex Farnsworth, who has worked tirelessly to complete the report—and the members of the current and predecessor Environmental Audit Committee. Let me turn to the report itself. We were delighted to see that recommendation No. 1—that the Government should produce an impact assessment of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill—was satisfied within a day of our report being published. At this pace, we really could get somewhere. However, we still need to learn more about how the nature restoration fund will interact with biodiversity net gain. I am glad to see that the Minister is here to expand on that in his response. The Dasgupta review made clear the value of nature. Nature and the services that it provides underpin both our economy and our way of life. In 2022, the Office for National Statistics found that the UK ecosystem’s services were equivalent to 3.5% of GDP, or £1.8 trillion. The UK has experienced significant biodiversity loss in recent decades, with the “State of Nature” report 2023 showing an average of 19% species abundance decline across more than 750 species between 1970 and 2021. The Committee agrees with the Government that economic and financial decision making should support the delivery of a nature-positive future and we would like to hear a repetition of that commitment and, indeed, to see it actualised in the forthcoming spending review. The Committee agrees with the assertion of this Government and the previous Government that, in a time of spending restraint, taxpayer money alone is no longer sufficient to deliver the necessary level of environmental restoration, so private finance must play its part. We were pleased to hear from the Minister for Nature that work is ongoing to better quantify the current size of the annual investment in natural capital. The Committee therefore recommends that, within 12 months, the Government provide a report to Parliament on current and projected levels of private investment into nature recovery in England, so that we can see both the progress that has been made and the size of the funding gap. For the Government to deliver on protecting 30% of land by 2030, they must provide landowners with the confidence to invest in nature restoration. The long-promised land use framework will help, and will give assurance that there is a strategic approach to balance the competing needs for our land in regard to food production, nature restoration, renewable energy, residential and commercial development, and other areas. It will, however, require a natural capital approach to be embedded throughout Government. The Committee heard concerns that the changes to the agricultural property relief regime had added to uncertainty, although the Government’s decision to give nature investments equal treatment under inheritance tax at least answers the charge that the Government were prioritising nature recovery ahead of food production. Voluntary drivers of market demand alone will not deliver the demand that the Government need. Compliance mechanisms and the expectation of future compliance requirements will drive market demand, so the Government should look at bringing in increased compliance requirements, such as by expanding biodiversity net gain requirements or mandating corporate disclosure of nature-damaging activities. The Committee seeks assurances that the proposed new nature restoration fund is an addition to, rather than a replacement for, Government investment in nature recovery. Without clear support for biodiversity net gain, Ministers risk causing uncertainty in nature markets, which could undermine investment in restoring nature. It will be good to hear a full-throated defence of BNG from the Minister in his response to the report—a defence that we heard from him, and indeed from myself, when in opposition. Although the Committee supports an approach that allows nature recovery initiatives to be pooled, the Government must ensure that we do not end up with nature recovery miles away while there is a further eradication of nature within urban settings. One of the strengths of BNG is that the communities that suffered the nature blight also benefited from the recovery of nature locally. It will be good to get a commitment from the Minister about that principle remaining in place under the nature restoration fund proposals. Nature can grow hand in hand with our economy, and money from growth should go back into helping nature thrive. The report provides the Government with a road map to restoring nature by capitalising on our huge national strength as a global financial leader. It cautions the Government not to undermine the progress already made and offers our support for the measures that help nature’s recovery come hand in hand with the economic growth that the Government rightly demand.

• 22 Apr 2025 · “For Women Scotland” Supreme Court Ruling · Hansard source

  More

  I have had very constructive discussions with constituents on both sides of this debate. Does the Minister agree that those who seek to promote trans rights with sexually aggressive placards or through aggressively threatening women who disagree with them in the most disgusting ways, as we have all seen, do tremendous harm to the trans cause and should realise how counterproductive their slogans are to the cause they are attempting to promote?

• 7 Apr 2025 · Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate · Hansard source

  More

  I hope the rest of the shadow Secretary of State’s birthday is rather better than the last half hour; I do not think his contribution today will age very well at all. The measures the Government are proposing are a sensible compromise. The industry did need certainty. There were real concerns about that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) and other Derbyshire MPs heard on a recent visit to Toyota, so the measures absolutely strike the right balance. What can the Secretary of State say to my constituents who live in either council flats or terraced properties, which makes home charging more difficult, about what more we can do to ensure they are not faced with a huge price disparity in comparison to those who are able to have charging infrastructure at home?

• 31 Mar 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

• 31 Mar 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. On new clause 1, there is merit in the points that the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) raised. There is a legitimate question about the basis on which Skills England operates. Many people want to see it being taken seriously, but whether it will be taken more seriously as an independent body or as part of the Government is a big question on which there are different opinions. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) said that the Government need to get serious, but adopting new clause 1 or not adopting it will not in any serious sense make the difference to whether the Bill is a transformational one. The new clause would make a very small amendment to a Bill that is fairly limited in scope, so we should be realistic about how much of a difference we are debating. There is some merit in the Government’s argument that the drafting of the amendment would cause additional delay and would prevent Skills England, which already exists, from getting on with taking the necessary powers. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) made some interesting points. It is always important to take seriously what he says; he is a former Education Secretary and a serious man. Having listened carefully, I have to say that many of the complaints that he rightly made about our fragmented and complicated skills system and the extent to which many employers have felt distanced from it are entirely legitimate criticisms, but are largely a commentary on the system bequeathed to us by 14 years of the previous Government. The right hon. Gentleman considers it a criticism of this Government that they have a policy that they think will be popular with business, but I see it as a virtue. As co-chair alongside my excellent hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) of the all-party group on apprenticeships, I have heard from businesses how much they welcome the greater flexibility that the Government propose. It will be important to understand how Skills England will seek to ensure that greater flexibility. There is real merit in degree apprenticeships, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) raised, but I also hope that Skills England will ensure far greater provision at the bottom end of the scale—not just at levels 2 and 3, where take-up has fallen dramatically since the introduction of the apprenticeship levy, but at level 1. I would like to see the apprenticeship levy being used to support people who have come out of our school system with very few qualifications, possibly having had an education, health and care plan. They are able to access work, but will need longer to get up to speed in jobs. There are tremendous opportunities for level 1 apprenticeships to support people with special needs from traineeships into the world of work, so I hope that the Government will consider them. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire described the merit of the German skills system, which is admired across the world, but it is important to say that it involves a far greater cultural understanding. One of the ways in which the Germans understand themselves is about their skills system and the value that they put into a craft or trade. Achieving that is not just about the structure of our skills system; it would require a complete reversal of our understanding in this country over the past 30 or 40 years. There is huge merit in much of the German system, but we cannot simply adopt it and imagine that we will somehow achieve a cultural change. It needs to be wrapped up in the industrial strategy that the Government must continue to develop. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the Government envisage Skills England having a far wider scope than IfATE. I welcome that, because one of the great failures of the system under the previous Government was that there was an array of unconnected bodies and initiatives floating around. He referred to the skills system, but right now I do not believe that this country has a skills system. What we have is an array of initiatives without any coherence. I very much hope that in Skills England we have a body that will start the task of bringing our very complicated and fragmented system together. I have no idea whether Skills England will be a success, but I am confident that it could be. The direction in which the Government are attempting to go, if they have the courage to follow it all the way, has the potential to bring about the change that we desperately need. We have a basic understanding of level 2 and 3 apprenticeships in this country, but we need much more coherent pathways through levels 4 and 5. The previous Government did a tremendous amount to promote level 6 apprenticeships, which are popular in some trades, but they mean getting a degree six or seven years down the line, which is a hell of a long time. Many things could go wrong in someone’s employment in that time—they might lose their job, or the company might cease to exist—and in any case they might not want to commit to six or seven years. Having stop-off points at levels 4 and 5, so businesses understand that there is something beyond level 3 that does not necessarily look like a degree, would be tremendously valuable. I hope that the Government will look to do that. Of course it is fundamental that we listen to employers, whether they be businesses or public sector employers, and that all of them feel that they have a stake in the skills system. I do not for a minute believe that the Government or Skills England will not want to listen to employers, who are entirely the arbiters of whether we have a successful skills system, but I do not think that a body has to be independent to listen to employers. There is a potential argument that a body within government would be better placed to take a much more strategic approach than the independent IfATE ever could. It will be useful to hear how the Minister anticipates Skills England reaching out and listening to employers and businesses, particularly about which courses will be appropriate for the growth and skills levy. They might not look like apprenticeships, but they will be crucial qualifications that people will be able to work towards. I welcome the Government’s decision to take forward many of the construction skills bootcamps. The Government quite understandably have question about the value of bootcamps; a huge amount of the previous Government’s adult education budget went in that direction. Within the construction sector, there was real value to them, and I am pleased to hear from training providers in my constituency that they have been told that the construction bootcamps will carry on. We often speak about the skills environment as though it were purely outside of here, but we Members of Parliament are all employers, and we are all involved in skilling up our staff. I am very pleased to say that my apprentice Ellie Chapman recently successfully completed her level 3 apprenticeship. She is not an apprentice MP but an apprentice office support worker, and she has done a tremendous amount in my office over the last 16 months. She was also top in her class at Chesterfield college. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Thank you very much—and well done, Ellie. It is important that we walk the walk as well as talk the talk. I encourage other Members of Parliament to consider whether they have a role for an apprentice in their office. On that happy note, I encourage the Government to keep going, and to listen to employers. It is really important that we get this right, because there is nothing more important for the success of our economy than having a more coherent skills system that enables us to make the very best of all our people.

• 31 Mar 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman says. He is, of course, right that the measures would represent considerable centralisation, if it was not for the creation of Skills England. He has mentioned a number of Government Departments. Does he think that IfATE, a non-governmental body, has been successful in bringing all their work together, and that a Government body will not be, or is he arguing for something different?

• 31 Mar 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you very much—that is a niche view. The right hon. Gentleman is talking about how the apprenticeship levy creates a straitjacket whereby there is a real value to what is being offered, but it perhaps should not fit into an apprenticeship. Is that not precisely the aim of the Government’s approach? Is he not advocating for precisely what the Government are suggesting, which is, “Let’s make it more flexible. Let’s say it doesn’t have to be a year There is value to investment of a different kind to an apprenticeship.”? Is he not arguing in favour of what the Government are proposing?

• 20 Mar 2025 · Flood Defences: Hartlepool · Hansard source

  More

  The people of Chesterfield have great empathy with the people of Hartlepool, as we face exactly the same issues. A new report by Public First shows that each year of flood events causes decade-long downward pressure on the economy worth up to £6 billion. I am grateful that the Minister will shortly visit us in Chesterfield to see flood projects and vulnerabilities, but does she agree that there is acute need for projects like the one we require on the River Hipper, and the one required in Hartlepool? It endangers the Government’s growth mission if we are not able to get these projects going.

• 6 Mar 2025 · English Football: Financial Sustainability and Governance · Hansard source

  More

  Chesterfield football club wanted me to put on the record its support for the work of football governance. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is extraordinary that, on the one hand, we have a monstrous success story in the level of money in football, but on the other, we have almost the entire English football league running effectively bankrupt and relying on the owners for bail-outs year after year? That simply cannot make sense as a model, can it?

• 6 Mar 2025 · English Football: Financial Sustainability and Governance · Hansard source

  More

  As I said in my brief intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang), I have been contacted by Chesterfield football club, which is very keen that its support for the Football Governance Bill be known. I would like to start by expressing the sadness that everyone in Chesterfield feels at the news that the club’s owner, Phil Kirk, has inoperable cancer and is receiving end-of-life care. He is the absolute epitome of a great owner and has absolutely transformed Chesterfield’s fortunes. Chesterfield has also had the opposite: Darren Brown almost took the club into insolvency at the same time that he was going to jail, so we know that there have been many owners who have let clubs down. There have also been lots of owners who did everything they could, but were simply not wealthy enough to operate within a business model according to which the better a club does, and the further along the way it gets towards the premier league, the greater its losses are on every step of the way. It loses money by being promoted from league one to the championship. There is a perverse incentive where the financial success of the company gets worse the better it does, until it reaches the promised land of the premier league. That all needs changing. It is madness. We have a very wealthy game. A slightly better distribution would still allow the premier league to be the golden goose, but it would also support the pyramid.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I am listening carefully to the right hon. Lady. She seems to be evangelising the role of IfATE, but I have heard far stronger criticisms of it than she appears to make. Is her position that IfATE does not have many faults and should carry on the way it is, or does she think that the organisation’s remit has grown and is vague, and most employers feel that it is a block to getting the standards they need, rather than the vehicle for that, as she seems to suggest?

• 25 Feb 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  On the subject of construction, does my right hon. Friend agree that a huge amount of the construction industry is made up of small employers and that one of the biggest failings of the apprenticeship levy approach has been that small and medium-sized enterprises have been shut out? We have had a 50% reduction in the number of SMEs offering apprenticeships since the introduction of the levy. How will she increase the number of SMEs that are able to offer apprenticeships? If the major employers are the ones that have all the budget, how do we ensure that we increase the number of SME apprenticeships?

• 25 Feb 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way again. She is speaking incredibly powerfully and passionately about the role of Skills England, and I share her commitment and excitement about it, but as she knows, this IfATE Bill abolishes IfATE rather than creating Skills England. There were those who believed that putting Skills England on a statutory footing as an independent body, rather than keeping it in the Department, might have been the way to go. Will she explain to the House why she has taken this approach, and why she believes that Skills England will, as a body in her Department rather than as a truly independent body, have the strength and respect in the sector that it so badly needs?

• 25 Feb 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on apprenticeships, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes), I welcome the Government’s focus on this crucial aspect of skills policy. They have inherited a wildly diverse and dysfunctional skills landscape. I would not go so far as to describe what we have as a skills system, which would seem to suggest something far more considered and structured than what currently exists. This Bill is the Government’s first very small legislative step towards addressing the skills crisis that is one of our nation’s biggest barriers to growth and productivity. It is almost impossible to have a meeting with an employer—private or public sector—without the issue of the UK’s skills deficit arising. Apprenticeships are a crucial but criminally underutilised dimension of providing Britain’s learners with an opportunity to earn while they learn, and provide our employers with skilled and qualified workers who contribute in the workplace as they develop the skills they will need. Indeed, the Government’s ambitious aspirations for growth will remain purely aspirations if the current failure in our skills approach is not rectified. The right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) suggested that the previous Conservative Government’s record on apprenticeships was world class, but I beg to differ. In discussing apprenticeships, it is worth first identifying what is wrong with the current system before considering the extent to which the Bill moves us towards resolution of those issues. First, it is estimated that around £480 million will be left unspent in the major employers’ apprenticeship levy pot this year. FE News reported in February 2024 that SME apprenticeship starts had fallen by 49% since the introduction of the apprenticeship levy, with the cost, rigidity and bureaucracy of the current system all cited as reasons why SMEs do not take on apprentices. Level 2 and 3 apprenticeships, in particular, have suffered, with a 53% reduction since the introduction of the levy, while a growing portion of the levy pot is being spent on degree-level courses. Degree-level apprenticeships should be a huge social mobility tool, with learners from poorer backgrounds who might be dissuaded from attending university relishing the opportunity to secure a degree while working and without accruing debt. However, recent research has shown, shockingly, that degree apprenticeships are being swept up by the wealthier students, with free school meals pupils less likely to get a degree apprenticeship than to get a place at Oxbridge. Finally, the completion rate of apprenticeships is worryingly low, at just 54.3% of all students, compared with 97% of A-level students passing across all subjects. This is due to many causes; the Government have set about addressing one by removing the need to pass functional maths and English in order to complete an apprenticeship for under-19s. However, there also needs to be a much greater link between the completion of the apprenticeship and the fitness-to-practise requirements. Many learners do not complete the apprenticeship, but not because they have failed—they may well have secured the skills they needed to start work, and do not see the apprenticeship as being relevant once the job has been secured. There is, therefore, a great deal for the noble Baroness Smith, in the other place, to sink her teeth into. This Bill is the Skills England Bill that dare not speak its name. By abolishing IfATE, it lays the groundwork for the creation of Skills England. There are important questions for the Government to answer, and I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister responds to the debate, she will be able to enlighten us on a number of them. First, is she concerned that Skills England will have the necessary weight and independence to bring about the scale of change that its own report acknowledged was necessary? What will the extended scope of Skills England be, beyond the identification of standards and the potential alternative use of the Government’s new growth and skills levy? If the Minister is not clear about what shape Skills England will take post IfATE, is she concerned about abolishing IfATE without being clear on what will replace it and where the responsibility for those functions will fall? Can she say any more about how the voice of employers will be heard when the powers are centralised with the Secretary of State? There may be huge enthusiasm for the Secretary of State taking a more streamlined approach, on occasions, to the process of creating new standards, as IfATE is seen as too cumbersome. However, does she agree that that must be the exception rather than the rule? How will she ensure that employers’ voices are still heard? Can she also confirm that the powers to approve standards will indeed pass to Skills England once that has been created, and can she say any more about the role of Skills England with regard to the growth and skills levy? I very much welcome Baroness Smith’s announcement about removing the need for passing maths and English for students who are over 19, but has the Minister done any assessment of the merits of that for students under the age of 19? I am interested in understanding the arguments in favour of that change for over 19s that do not apply to students who are under 19. I hugely welcome the Government’s commitment to this area of policy and the positive initial steps. I suspect that it will not be news to my hon. Friend that I think that far greater systemic change is needed if we are to deliver the more transformational change that our employers, our learners and, indeed, our nation desperately need.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I see that the hon. Gentleman has received the briefing from the Association of Employment and Learning Providers. He appears to be reading it virtually word for word; I do not know whether he contributed anything to the speech, but it has been very interesting to hear what he has said. With the Bill having been through the House of Lords, the hon. Gentleman is proposing a wrecking amendment that would kill it. Although I sympathise with some of the points in his amendment, does he not think that with the reassurances that we have heard from the Secretary of State—which can be scrutinised over the course of this Bill’s progress—we can at least get Skills England set up at speed, so that it can take on the shape he is suggesting in future? The hon. Gentleman’s proposed approach would cancel all this reform. It would go right back to square one and stop reform dead in its tracks.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  This week is National Apprenticeship Week. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for apprenticeships, I can tell the Prime Minister that employers are very pleased to see this week’s announcements, which will make a real difference both to completion rates and to the flexibility around apprenticeships. Does the Prime Minister agree that schools should be promoting apprenticeships alongside A-levels and other options? And can he tell us what more he will do to support more young people into apprenticeships?

• 10 Feb 2025 · Rosebank and Jackdaw Oilfields · Hansard source

  More

  The sixth carbon budget was put in place by the previous Government. It was pretty ambitious, and it is now for this Government to identify how it will be achieved. The Minister seems to be taking an entirely practical approach, and I commend him for that, but can he assure us that the Government will ensure that any new applications will be approved only if they can achieve any offsets or mitigations in their own right, so that we keep in line with the carbon budgets that are in place, which we are legally obliged to achieve?

• 10 Feb 2025 · Biomass Generation · Hansard source

  More

  We have a new line from the official Opposition. We are told that they are a firm under new management, but this sounds to me like the same circus, just with different clowns. The Minister is right to say that the new deal that the Government are putting in place is a far better deal for taxpayers, because the previous deal was an absolute disgrace for taxpayers, but can he tell us a little more about the projections that he has seen? Do they confirm that this deal is the best for taxpayers, even in comparison with gas? How can he be certain of that? We heard a different suggestion from the shadow Minister.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Coalfield Communities · Hansard source

  More

  Mining has long been deeply woven into the practical and cultural fabric of people’s lives in Chesterfield, as it has in all mining communities. I need only look out of the window of the Labour club where I base my constituency office to be confronted with the former Derbyshire Miners’ Association offices, and the statues of Chesterfield’s first two miner MPs. Indeed, until the election of Tony Benn in 1984, every Member of Parliament for Chesterfield in the 20th century had been a former collier. My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) spoke about the educational role of the National Union of Mineworkers. That is one of the many legacies that have been lost as coalmining has disappeared. The union had a real commitment to making sure that its members were educated to the highest standards. Evidence of mining in Chesterfield and Derbyshire ranges from tragic memorials to miners lost in our various tragedies to the dwindling number of miners’ welfare clubs and former offices on Saltergate. They serve as a reminder of the past—a window into a time when the region was dominated by the pits and the opportunities that they provided. It is important, however, that this debate also focuses on the future for coalmining areas, and on investments, such as the investment in junction 29A secured by my former colleague Dennis Skinner. It means that more people are now employed on the old Markham pit site than ever worked underground there. This timely debate reminds us that the former coalfield areas, cruelly put out of use by the industrial vandalism of the Thatcher Government, have never been satisfactorily repurposed in any strategic way by subsequent Governments. The Coalfields Regeneration Trust recently reflected on the impact on health, not just for those with an industrial legacy, but for the one in five people in my constituency who are out of work due to long-term sickness. The same proportion have no formal qualifications. Those statistics paint a picture of what can happen when industry retreats from an area and no plan is made for what happens next. I have heard former Conservative MPs talking about a benefits culture, but who created that? It was, of course, the Thatcher Government, putting all those miners out of work and expecting them to go on to incapacity benefit. The coalfields are fighting back, however. I pay tribute to John Burrows, the former Derbyshire NUM president and leader of Chesterfield borough council for six years, and his successor, Tricia Gilby. They were successful in attracting £25 million in town deal funds from the previous Government, and the dedication and success of the Staveley town deal board, of which I have been a proud member for the last five years, has brought about welcome investment that will support Staveley to support itself through the regeneration that we need. However, I agree with colleagues that what we need is not occasional little pots of money, but a long-term strategic plan for re-energising coalfield communities. They are very different from cities, which Governments tend to find it easier to get investment into. We desperately need the new Government’s industrial strategy to speak to the needs of constituents like mine, and to set out a thought-through plan for coalfield communities. I see a real opportunity for coalfields to be at the vanguard of the green revolution. The Government’s “clean power by ’30” mission alone will unlock £40 billion of investment a year and create thousands of skilled jobs. The coalfields have kept the lights on in this country over the last century, and there is so much opportunity for them to be at the forefront of doing that again. The people of Chesterfield have a proud history of working hard to keep the lights on, and they can keep that noble tradition going.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Coalfield Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this really important debate. He is reflecting on the historic past of the coalfields, which is absolutely integral to any of us who represent coalfield communities. However, does he agree that what people in the coalfields want is not mainly a focus on their past, but a Government with a sense of ambition for their future? What we really need to see in the coalfields is that the Government’s industrial strategy recognises the unique contribution that they can make, so that we can focus on a bright future for our coalfields as well as our proud past.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Coalfield Communities · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend generously thanked coalfield MPs, but I would like to repay the compliment to him, because his leadership on the mineworkers pension scheme has been exemplary. We are all happy to support him as the chair of the APPG. I put on record how important a part he played in that significant commitment that this Government made.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Coalfield Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way. We have just had a very good debate, but it must be a considerable embarrassment to him that not a single Member of His Majesty’s Opposition thought that it was worthwhile attending to make a substantive speech. I appreciate that he is not a coalfield MP, and I appreciate that not many Conservative Members are, but does he not think that, if the Conservatives are serious about being ready to represent the whole country again, we should be hearing from some of their MPs in a debate such as this?

• 6 Feb 2025 · Flood Preparedness Projects · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State deserve great credit for attracting the large investment that they have secured, but once they have finished the lap of honour, they will be aware that this is the first step up the mountain. The Minister is right that the Government have inherited flood defences that are in an appalling state, and the latest estimate shows that as many as 6 million houses are at risk of flooding. I call on her to get on with the flood improvements that we demand in Chesterfield. First, will she tell us more about how she will ensure the money will be spent wisely? Secondly, how will she ensure that the Treasury understands that this is not a one-year commitment, but something that we will need for the rest of this term in office?