Toby Perkins MP: speeches

Speeches

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is a member of the party that was in power for the last 14 years. The result of that 14-year period is that we are a nation with a housing crisis and huge numbers of people in inadequate accommodation or no accommodation at all, and that we are the most nature-depleted nation on earth, so the system clearly is not working. Does he have any real sense that there needs to be change, or is he saying that we can carry on with the system that we have?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to set out the case for amendments 136 and 150 and new clause 62, in my name. I am very pleased to hear what the Minister has said so far. The Bill would tackle the long-standing conundrum of how to deliver the ambitious house building targets to which the Government are rightly committed, while protecting the environment and enhancing, not reducing, protections for nature. Before I turn to my amendments, I want to speak briefly about the extent to which the Bill achieves those aims. I absolutely share the Government’s commitment to freeing up the planning system and ensuring that fewer people are unable to get on to the housing ladder and fewer children grow up in unsuitable, overcrowded and temporary accommodation. I see the impact of this country’s failure to build the homes it needs in my surgeries every single week, so I support the Government’s aims to speed up that process. I also agree that planning has too often been a barrier to those ambitions, and the Government are absolutely right to attempt to remove this blocker. Freeing up unnecessary restrictions, however, must not mean allowing further nature degradation, nor does it have to. The Government have said that these ambitions will be achieved alongside nature recovery. Wildlife populations in England have fallen to around 67% of their 1970 level; as I said a few moments ago, Britain is now one of the “most nature-depleted” places on earth. Most of England’s rare and vulnerable habitats are in poor condition. Alongside building the homes and infrastructure that our society needs, we must rebuild our natural capital—the air, water, soils and biodiversity —on which our society depends.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Governing the Marine Environment · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point and for his attention to these matters. The Committee looked in detail at bottom trawling, and we heard from a number of experts. It is also important to say that there is a devolved element. We considered the question of whether the Government’s plan should impose highly protected marine areas on devolved jurisdictions. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need consistency on this across the UK, and that we must insist on the same from nations across Europe and the rest of the world.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Governing the Marine Environment · Hansard source

  More

  I certainly think we should get on and do it. My hon. Friend raises an important point about whether primary legislation is needed. It is clear that the Government believe it is, and the evidence our Committee heard is that the Government are trying to find time for that. My hon. Friend makes an innovative suggestion, and I am sure the Government will listen. I think there is agreement across the House that this is important. It was the policy of the previous Government, but it was never brought forward; it is the policy of this Government, and it has never been brought forward. I think we would all agree that it is tremendously important for ratification to take place.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Governing the Marine Environment · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to present to the House the Environmental Audit Committee’s report on “Governing the marine environment”. Ahead of World Ocean Day and the United Nations ocean conference next week, there is an opportunity for the Government to send a clear signal that the UK is serious about protecting our marine environment. That is why the Committee worked hard to publish our report in a timely manner to advance that effort. I am grateful to all members of the Committee for their contributions. This is the first inquiry that has been initiated and completed by this Committee, and it has been a pleasure to conduct the inquiry together. I wish to record my, and the whole Committee’s, huge gratitude to the staff of the Environmental Audit Committee, in particular Dr Misha Patel, who worked tirelessly and swiftly to produce the report. The Committee initiated the inquiry due to the critical importance of, and risks to, our marine environment. Oceans regulate the Earth’s temperature, absorb carbon dioxide, produce oxygen, support biodiversity, underpin diverse industries and offer significant cultural, heritage and recreational value. At the same time, they are under immense pressure from a variety of activities, and those activities are governed by a complex and fragmented regime of regulation and policy. The Committee heard that this lack of joined-up governance and effective stakeholder engagement risks the unsustainable management and potential depletion of critical marine resources. In fact, UK waters are already failing assessments of their environmental health, leading the Office for Environmental Protection to investigate a suspected failure by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to take the necessary measures to achieve “good environmental status” of marine waters. It was a great pleasure and honour for many Members of Parliament to watch the film “Ocean” in the company of Sir David Attenborough yesterday. We heard the Prime Minister, in his warm embrace of Sir David, assert that his Government would take nature seriously, echoing the importance of action on oceans ahead of next week’s conference. The Committee is in excited anticipation of the announcements that the Government will make ahead of next week’s conference. Turning to the report’s findings in more detail, I wish to highlight four topics on which the Committee heard detailed evidence and has made recommendations to the Government. The first is on bottom trawling. While marine protected areas cover nearly 900,000 square kilometres of English waters, activities that harm marine life are still allowed in lots of those areas. The film “Ocean” I referred to clearly showed the devastation of the seabed caused by bottom trawling. Extractive and damaging practices undermine the very objectives that MPAs were established to address. While the Government have indicated that they are committed to not having bottom trawling in areas that damage MPAs, they have not yet set out a timeline for implementing the change. Every day we wait, further damage is done to the seabed and crucial ocean ecosystems. The Committee concluded that damaging practices, such as bottom trawling, dredging and mining aggregates, should be banned in offshore protected areas. Beyond protected areas at sea, the Committee heard that the overarching vision for how our oceans are used and managed is outdated and does not reflect the current or evolving pressures on the marine environment. The current marine policy statement published in 2011, for example, seeks to maximise the production of oil and gas. That is clearly not the current Government’s policy, but it is according to the MPS. The Committee recommends that the Government bring forward a long overdue review of the marine policy statement to update it to ensure that it reflects current Government policy and sets out how decisions will be made to balance marine exploitation and marine protection. On marine spatial planning, the Committee heard that the marine spatial prioritisation programme should be key in guiding marine governance and spatial planning of activities at sea, such as protected areas, renewables development and fishing. However, it remains unclear what outcomes are expected and what has been delivered by the programme to date. We urge the Government to clarify the scope, objectives and outputs of the marine spatial prioritisation programme to ensure that it effectively implements the Government’s vision for the sustainable use of the marine environment. Changes in marine spatial planning will have real impacts on those who rely on the sea for their livelihoods. The Government must ensure that traditional marine sectors are supported through these changes to retain their expertise and support sustainable practices. Finally, the Committee heard that despite signing the UN high seas treaty in September 2023, the UK has so far failed to ratify it. This crucial treaty would protect marine life in the high seas by establishing protected areas in international waters. Until the treaty is ratified by 60 nations, it will not come into force. We urge the Government to set a clear timeline for introducing the required legislation for ratifying the treaty before September 2025, which will mark two years since the UK signed it. This would send a clear signal that global marine protection is a priority for the Government, and it would take the UK and the world one step closer to real protection for marine life in the high seas. In our hearings, Ministers confirmed that it remains Government policy to ratify the treaty but explained that not enough time had been found in the parliamentary schedule for legislation. It is crucial, both for the UK’s contribution and for the treaty to come into force, that it is ratified. We call on the Government to bring that forward now. While the urgency of the situation for the marine environment is clear, there is an opportunity to turn things around. The evidence is indisputable, and the Government have a number of policy tools and options at their disposal. It is time to act to protect the marine environment. Ahead of the UN ocean conference next week, I look forward to hearing from the Minister the Government’s plans to safeguard our oceans for the future.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Governing the Marine Environment · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend and Committee colleague for her contribution. I absolutely agree. The warm words we heard from the Prime Minister yesterday were incredibly encouraging, but we need to see them backed up with real action. I look forward to hearing what the Government have to say at the conference. It is important that we negotiate strongly overseas, but we must also get our own act in order in this country. It would be a valuable signal ahead of the ocean conference if the Government committed to what we signed up to in opposition, and in our manifesto, and banned bottom trawling in marine protected areas.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Governing the Marine Environment · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend characteristically makes an important point. I am sure the Minister heard and will consider it. We commented on deep-sea mining in marine protected areas in our report. The film “Ocean” demonstrated how much we are already starting to learn, and the vastness of our knowledge gap in this area. My hon. Friend is right that we must continue to invest. The report talks about making sure that we have better data and information, and making sure that, on a global basis, we do not allow further degradation of this crucial ecosystem. Bill presented Pension Schemes Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Secretary Liz Kendall, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary John Healy, Secretary Shabana Mahmood, Secretary Bridget Phillipson, Secretary Peter Kyle, Jim McMahon, Ellie Reeves, Georgia Gould, Al Carns and Mary Creagh presented a Bill to make provision about pension schemes; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Monday 9 June, and to be printed (Bill 255), with explanatory notes (Bill 255-EN).

• 5 Jun 2025 · Governing the Marine Environment · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. We know that that is not the Government’s policy, but according to the MPS it is. That demonstrates the urgency of updating the plan, which goes back to 2011. It was updated after Brexit, but it clearly bears no relationship to the Government’s current policies. We expect those who use the sea in different ways to listen to the plan, so it is important that the plan reflects current policy. That is an important recommendation we made in our report, and I entirely agree with the hon. Lady.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Governing the Marine Environment · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Minister makes an important point. I know that the previous Government wrestled with this, and the current Government will too. It was not featured in our report, but I know my Front-Bench colleagues will listen and take it seriously. I thank him for raising that point.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for these amendments, because a number of people have written to me concerned about the very issue that she is raising. Does she agree that many people will just be opposed to assisted dying in all its forms, and I entirely respect that, but if that is really their objection, they should be honest about that and not pretend that it is only particular amendments they need? They should make the argument that they actually want to make.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady has just agreed with a point made by the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed). Exactly the same point was made when this House voted against the Assisted Dying (No. 2) Bill back in 2015. Would she say that in the nine years after the House voted against the Bill, we saw a golden age in palliative care as a result, or does she think that if we wait for palliative care to be perfect we might never vote in favour of assisted dying?

• 8 May 2025 · St George’s Day and English Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and thank him for doing so. It is important. I am one of those people— I suspect many of us are—who are proud to be English and proud to be British; I recognise them as different things that we should celebrate uniquely. Does he agree that those who seek to use Englishness to divide us, rather than bring us together, do a huge disservice to what being English is all about? Does he also agree that those of us who believe that we can have huge patriotism and pride in our Englishness, but who also recognise the values of inclusivity and generosity that our nation has shown over the years, need to do a much better job at defining exactly what it is as we go forward in difficult political times?

• 8 May 2025 · Environmental Audit Committee · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his kind words. I will start at the end of his question. He is absolutely right, and we agree with the Government that we need to be able to attract more private investment if the 30 by 30 aspiration is to be realised. It was notable that when the Government came to the Committee, they made it clear that they did not yet know—as their predecessor Government did not know—exactly how much was being raised by the private sector. The starting point of assessing whether the Government are on track to meet their targets is knowing how well they are doing right now. One of the recommendations in the report is therefore that the Government should get on with identifying the full scale of the current level of private sector investment. We will absolutely look to do that. The jury is still out on whether the nature restoration fund will be a good or a bad thing. It offers real potential. A one-for-one approach on small schemes is sometimes expensive to provide and offers relatively limited value, so there is real value to a pooled approach that enables money to go in so that wider-scale improvements can be delivered. However, as I said, we need to be really sure that that does not mean that urban areas get the blight and rural areas get all the nature gain. We need to see it delivered close to where the initial plans are being delivered.

• 8 May 2025 · Environmental Audit Committee · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her congratulations. As I say, it is not my report; it is ours. I thank her for her contribution to the Committee. She is right about that commitment, and I think all of us on the Committee are driven to make sure that growth is hand in hand with nature, rather than at its expense. I agree with her entirely.

• 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?