Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,750 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
Would the hon. Member like to put his money where his mouth is and tell us whether his faith in the Employment Rights Bill is such that he is prepared to make a commitment to his constituents in Ellesmere Port and Bromborough that if, having passed this Bill, unemployment goes up, he will resign his seat?
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
I am grateful to the hon. Member, who I like very much, for giving way on that point. He is clearly a massive fan of the Employment Rights Bill. The people of Falkirk are watching him, so would he like to commit to them that if, having passed the Employment Rights Bill, unemployment goes up and therefore we have fewer workers with fewer rights, he will resign from his seat?
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. I also thank Professor Francis for her work—any criticism of today’s announcement is directed not at her, but at the Government’s response to her review. I welcome some of the measures announced today. I am pleased that the Government have not moved away from our phonics reforms. In 2012, only 58% of six-year-olds met the expected reading standard; today, the figure stands at over 80%. Primary school children in England are now the best readers in the western world. I also note the introduction of a year 8 reading test, which I support in principle. If properly implemented, this could help to ensure that pupils maintain strong reading skills into secondary school. However, the review recommends maths and English tests, so why is the Secretary of State not introducing a statutory maths test? I have serious concerns that the proposed wider changes will water down standards, lower expectations and divert teaching time away from the core education, which gives every child the best chance to get on in life. The temptation to make the curriculum a repository for every social concern is ever present, but when everything is a priority, nothing is. If we keep adding and adding, we risk diluting the very core that underpins academic success. There are many things that the Government talk about adding to the curriculum, but there is little honesty about what will be squeezed out as a result. I hope that the Secretary of State will be honest about what is being taken out of the curriculum, particularly in primary schools. Let me make some specific points. First, the review states: “It is vital that schools and colleges are able to innovate…and that teachers have the flexibility to extend the curriculum”. I agree, but the Government’s disastrous Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill does precisely the opposite, by making the national curriculum compulsory for all schools and stripping away teachers’ freedom to adapt to the needs of pupils. It is nonsensical to talk about innovation while stifling it. The Secretary of State should abandon her assault on academy freedoms. Secondly, the Government propose to reduce the number of exams by 10%, on the grounds that “only Singapore does more”. Well, Singapore also tops the international league tables in maths and literacy. Surely we should be learning from Singapore’s education system, not disparaging it. Thirdly, the Government propose to abolish the English baccalaureate, which we put in place in order to give all children the chance to learn an academic core. Scrapping the EBacc is a backwards step. It will steer pupils away from history and languages, leaving fewer children with an understanding of our national story and fewer equipped to engage in a global economy. The irony is not lost on me that the Education Secretary herself studied history and languages. Why is she pulling up the drawbridge behind her and denying more young people the very opportunities that she benefited from? Fourthly, the Education Secretary will introduce a new compulsory citizenship curriculum for primary schools. Forcing primary schools to use precious time to teach deprived pupils about media literacy and climate change before ensuring that they can read, write and add up is not going to encourage social mobility, which I thought Labour Members cared about. It is not clear at all how they are going to make time for this. What aspects of children’s education are being sacrificed for the Secretary of State’s political posturing? As for new lessons on digital literacy and misinformation, I feel like a broken record. The Education Secretary said on the radio this morning, “I am worried about children spending hours in their bedroom looking at poisonous material that drips hate in their ears.” I agree. The right hon. Lady is right and I have a very easy solution: get smartphones out of schools and ban all our under-16s from social media. That does not need a lesson. It is something the Government have the power to do right now to help children with the vile content that they are seeing online, and to address the behaviour issues that we are seeing in schools—social media-driven knife crime and effects on attainment. I think the Education Secretary needs a lesson on social media harms, not children. Finally, I turn to the right hon. Lady’s changes to school accountability. Professor Francis was clear in her report: do not change Progress 8. She wrote: “We are strongly committed to the Progress 8 measure…it supports both student progress and curriculum breadth. We are therefore recommending making no changes”. Yet the Education Secretary has overruled the review—the independent review that she commissioned herself. Why? We have been here before. Under the last Labour Government standards fell, ambition shrank and the attainment gap widened. The number of pupils studying core academic subjects halved. Britain slid down international rankings. It took Conservative reformers, like Michael Gove and Nick Gibb, to turn that around with evidence-driven policy, rigorous assessment and high expectation.
That formula works, with English schools storming back up the global rankings. We on the Conservative Benches will always stand up for rigour, evidence and the life-changing power of high standards. We will fight Labour’s education vandalism every step of the way.
It doesn’t!
Later today, the Government will publish their financial inclusion strategy. I welcome the steps forward for financial literacy. Will the Secretary of State collaborate with the Economic Secretary and use the wealth of expertise and enthusiasm that exists among the banks and financial services industry to ensure that maximum strides forward can be made in financial literacy across the whole age range?
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the integration of ferry services with other transport services; to make provision about the regulation of ferry services; and for connected purposes. Our great nation, the United Kingdom, is a nation of islands. This country also invented the railways. Rail, road and ferries together ensure that in every corner of our country there is a place that somebody calls home. There is also a political consensus in this country, stretching back decades, that those who provide public transport do so with certain conditions imposed upon them. That political consensus has existed regardless of who is in government and which party holds power. That means that train operators—whether they are soon to be part of the state or private companies—must provide services for a fair price that the Government have a say over, and provide timetabling that allows people to move about, regardless of whether that individual train journey is profitable on its own. There are laws to ensure that those operators must publish performance data, and similar rules apply to bus service providers. However, there is no national provision that applies to those who operate the ferry services that communities all over the country—whether island communities or communities that live along riverways—rely on for accessing essential services, employment, seeing friends and family, and all the things we do in our daily lives. That has meant that constituents such as mine on the Isle of Wight—they are just an example—are faced with huge costs to take a car back and forth to the mainland, and that who wish to visit the Isle of Wight sometimes have to pay up to £400 just to take a car back and forth on a five-mile journey. Private equity groups have taken control of Wightlink and Red Funnel, which operate across the Solent, and in an entirely unregulated market they can do what they like. There is no fair competition because the barrier to entering that market for a new provider is simply too high. It also means that what were once half-hourly services are now hourly. When I arrived in Southampton last week, a minute late for Red Funnel’s Red Jet service to Cowes, I had to wait an hour and 10 minutes for the next ferry. Had one of my predecessors, Andrew Turner—who is sitting in the Gallery today—done that 10 years ago, he would have had to wait only half an hour. In too many places in this country, ferry services are getting worse. There is no mandatory reporting requirement on those companies either, so we have no objective way of telling whether they are providing a good service, other than the anecdotal evidence that people like me present. I am not looking in this Bill to put an undue burden on ferry operators—quite the opposite. I am looking to end the carve-out that they have enjoyed for too long, a carve-out that no other public transport provider benefits from. If I had the owners of Wightlink and Red Funnel in front of me now, this is what I would say to them: “We are tired of your methods, tired of your rip-off prices, and tired of funding your huge ballooning bank debt interest. You have not done us a favour, and you are not doing us a favour. You should be providing a lifeline transport service, which the taxpayer gave you money for so that you could stay profitable during covid.” If those ferry companies, not just on the Isle of Wight but across the UK, truly believed in a quality service for their passengers, they would embrace regulation, just as other providers do in other modes of public transport. Too often, when my neighbour the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) or I make the argument about expensive ferry prices, Wightlink in particular comes back and says, “Well, you can cross the Solent with us in a car for £31.” But it fails to admit that that is only if a person pays nearly £2,000 in advance and purchases 60 individual tickets. There are not many people living in my constituency who can afford to give the company nearly £2,000 in advance and who necessarily need to travel 60 times in a year. Ferry companies must be straight and not seek to mislead or hoodwink decision makers in this place when other Members and I talk about how expensive ferry services are. It is not just my constituents; I have had exchanges with the leader of the council of the Isles of Scilly, and we both share the view that our constituents are entirely reliant on ferry services for some educational opportunities and essential medical services and for accessing employment opportunities—things that people on the mainland of the United Kingdom take for granted. There is no reason why we should be beholden to private profits over and above everyone else. I present this Bill at a time when the Government are already moving in this direction in how they deal with rail and buses. While I do not necessarily agree with nationalisation, and I do not agree in the case of the railways, I agree with the sentiment and the reasons why they are presenting those Bills. The Secretary of State has said that she wants to ensure better value for money for passengers, to better integrate different modes of transport and to stop profit being a priority over passenger experience and connectivity. I invite her to transfer all that good sentiment she feels about trains and buses to ferries, too, and ensure that communities that I and others in this place serve are not left behind. I thank the Minister with responsibility for maritime, the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather), for meeting me, and I know that he has met my neighbour the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West. I urge the Minister to continue to work with us to look at solutions for my constituents. I would also like the Government to bring in their own regulation for us and to devolve those powers to a forthcoming mayor, if they think it appropriate. This Bill is about more than just my constituents; it is about ensuring a fair and level playing field across the whole United Kingdom. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Joe Robertson, Mr Richard Quigley, Dame Caroline Dinenage, John Cooper, Rebecca Smith, Darren Paffey, Neil Duncan-Jordan, Jess Brown-Fuller, Andrew George, Siân Berry and Jim Shannon present the Bill. Joe Robertson accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 November 2025, and to be printed (Bill 324).
I am going to leave wider criticisms of this review to others. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on financial education for young people, I welcome the recognition of all the lobbying that has gone into this review. Financial education being made a statutory requirement at primary school and its position being strengthened at secondary school are good measures. The one area where I want to push the Secretary of State further is on post-16 financial education. The review made reference to many examples of best practice around the country, but it stopped short of offering ideas on how we can continue to progress financial education at a time when young people are beginning to take financial decisions themselves. Will the Secretary of State work with the APPG to develop this area further?
Does the Minister not listen to the voices of business and business organisations? They say that what the Government propose will make young people—whom it is riskier to take on—less likely to get jobs in the first place. Why does she think she knows better than employers and the people who create jobs in this country?
The Minister referred to a nine-month probationary period as opposed to the six-month unfair dismissal period. A report from the Resolution Foundation—which is usually held in high regard on the Treasury Bench—says that this is a “messy compromise” that risks confusing employers and preventing them from taking people on. That is the point that I was making. Some 20% of jobs in my constituency are in the hospitality sector. The sector is not taking people on because of the jobs tax, and it will take on even fewer people because of these increased costs. Does she not realise the confusion that will come from this messy probation period, which is not on the face of the Bill?
If this provision is introduced, does the Minister think that there will be more or fewer strikes?
When the hon. Gentleman has spoken to employers in his constituency about this specific provision—I am sure that he has—what have they said?
Members of the public who are watching this debate will not necessarily have ready access to the records of the thousands of pounds that have been taken by each Member referring simply to their financial interests. In the interest of transparency, will the hon. Gentleman therefore say how many thousands of pounds he took from trade unions, if any, to support this Bill?
May I begin by associating myself and the Opposition with the Deputy Prime Minister’s remarks about the terrible, horrific attack in Huntingdon? We wish a speedy recovery to those still in hospital and pay tribute to the brave actions of the public and the police. Overnight, the father of the girl assaulted in Epping by Hadush Kebatu, the illegal immigrant released by accident, said that the Government had failed them “relentlessly”. I confess, I am surprised that the Deputy Prime Minister has not already apologised. I am going to give him an opportunity now: will he apologise to the family concerned?
Watching the interview last night was absolutely heartbreaking. I have to say, I do think the Deputy Prime Minister owes it to the family to offer an apology here on the Floor of the House—[Interruption.] But he should have done it at the start of his remarks. These are very serious matters, which is why I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a further, very important question: can he reassure the House that since Kebatu was released, no other asylum-seeking offender has been accidentally let out of prison?
We are talking about extremely serious crimes. I am going to ask the Deputy Prime Minister the question again. Can he reassure the House that since Kebatu was released, no other asylum-seeking offender has been accidentally let out of prison? It is a very specific question for him to answer.
The right hon. Gentleman is the Justice Secretary; he is responsible for the justice system, and he needs to take responsibility. I am asking him a straight question and I am going to repeat it once more, for the avoidance of doubt, because he did not answer it twice. He is here to answer questions, so can he reassure the House that since Kebatu was released, no other asylum-seeking offender has been accidentally let out of prison? It is a clear question. Can he give an answer?
The purpose of government is to take—[Interruption.]
It is getting noisy in here, so I say this again, just in case the Deputy Prime Minister did not hear me. He is the Justice Secretary. Can he reassure the House that since—[Interruption.]
People in Epping and right across the country want to know the answer, so I am going to ask the right hon. Gentleman this question again. He is the Justice Secretary. Can he reassure the House that since Kebatu was released, no other asylum-seeking offender has been accidentally let out of prison? Can he answer the question?
The public are extremely concerned about what happened in the Kebatu case; they want to know that there will not be a repeat, so I am putting to the Deputy Prime Minister a very clear question about his responsibilities. I repeat: can he reassure the House that since Kebatu was released no other asylum-seeking offender has been accidently let out of prison? Can he answer the question?
rose—
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
To be clear, Mr Speaker, my point of order is about a serious issue. The Telegraph is reporting that a police manhunt has been launched for a second asylum seeker who was mistakenly freed from prison. Can you advise me on how I can ask the Justice Secretary whether he was aware of that when I asked him about it repeatedly in Prime Minister’s questions?
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you have had any notification of a statement from the Ministry of Justice, and in particular from the Justice Secretary, about our interaction earlier and the very serious case that it now relates to. I have strong reason to believe that the Deputy Prime Minister was aware of the case when I asked him very clearly five times about whether he knew about these sorts of cases and he did not answer the question. This is about Ministers being transparent with the House, and I seek your guidance.
4. What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of diversity, equality and inclusion schemes in the public sector.
Earlier this year, the Education Secretary said that white working-class boys “have been betrayed”, yet this summer, MI5, MI6 and GCHQ ran an internship scheme that was open only to people from ethnic minority backgrounds. I am afraid the House of Commons runs a similar scheme, in partnership with the Windsor Fellowship. What message does the Minister think it sends to our children when some doors are closed to them because of the colour of their skin, particularly in the context of what the Education Secretary said about white working-class boys?
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—
It is, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that a Bill was presented to Parliament only this week that provides for a duty of candour for public servants. It is not enough simply to tell the truth; there has to be a duty of candour. Can you, Madam Deputy Speaker, share with the House whether the sponsoring Minister, the Justice Secretary, has decided to remove himself as the sponsor of that Bill?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, and to take part in this debate about Government support for house building in London. As is the case for all hon. Members here today, this issue is of great importance to my constituents and to me, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) for securing this important debate. I also thank all hon. Members for their contributions. London is Europe’s wealthiest city, one of the world’s most desirable destinations and the capital of our great country. I am deeply proud to have represented part of it for the past 28 years, having previously served for 23 years as a local councillor in a London borough—a period that overlapped with my 13 years as a London Assembly member—and been the Member of Parliament for the wonderful people of Orpington since 2019. What we have seen in recent years in Greater London is a constantly worsening housing shortage, and a mayor seemingly completely incapable of tackling a problem that is spiralling out of control. Sir Sadiq Khan has been mayor for nearly 10 years, and continues to oversee one of the greatest housing failures this country has ever seen. I can remember sitting in the chamber at City Hall in his first year as mayor when he boasted about having negotiated the highest housing funding settlement in the history of the mayoralty. He was awarded £4.82 billion to deliver 116,000 affordable homes between 2016 and 2021, and a further £4 billion to deliver 35,000 affordable homes between 2021 and 2026. That is a total of £8.82 billion to deliver 151,000 homes in a decade between 2016 and 2026. Naturally, he gave no credit at all to the Conservative Government who gave him that money, but let us gloss over that. Instead, let us focus on Sadiq Khan’s record. To date, 77,622 affordable homes have been completed from the two programmes—barely half of what was envisaged, with only six months to go. Including those programmes and other house building, in his almost decade-long tenure at City Hall, he has averaged 8,240 affordable homes per year. That compares with an average of 11,750 per year between 2008 and 2016 under his predecessor Boris Johnson. That is a 30% decrease under Sadiq Khan, despite what he boasted at the outset was the highest housing funding settlement in history. The fact is that development has become so costly and over-regulated on Sadiq Khan’s watch that, incredibly, as my hon. Friends the Members for Old Bexley and Sidcup and for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) pointed out, 80% of housing developments finished in London last year received planning permission under the London plan set out by Boris Johnson before he left office as Mayor of London in 2016, rather than under Sadiq Khan’s London plan.
I am afraid I cannot, because we are under time pressure. A report recently released by the Centre for Policy Studies described London as “The City That Doesn’t Build”. It is impossible not to agree with that when the mayor’s record is put under scrutiny. Under Sadiq Khan, housing starts have collapsed in London, with the number of private homes under construction set to slump to only 15,000 in 2027—a mere a quarter of what should be expected. Analysis from the Centre for Policy Studies has shown that, over the last financial year, only 4,170 homes have been started in London, amounting to less than 5% of London’s 88,000 home target. In the first half of this year, that has hardly been improved on, with just 2,158 private housing starts, again versus a target of 88,000 per year. Those totals are disastrous. The mayor, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister should be reversing those figures, not indulging or excusing them. The picture becomes even worse when we look at affordable housing. Affordable homes had just 347 starts between April and June, which is around 15% of the total starts for 2023-24, and just 9% of the total starts in 2024-25. Prior to the general election last year, the Mayor of London was telling anyone who would listen that he needed £4.9 billion per year for the next 10 years to build affordable homes. The Government elected last July did not accede to his request. Given his appalling record over the past decade, I cannot say I entirely blame them for not trusting his ability to deliver. At the last spending review in June, as has been mentioned, £11.7 billion was awarded for the next affordable housing programme, which will run from 2026 to 2036. At the last round of Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government questions, when I asked the Secretary of State what he was doing to hold the Mayor of London to account for his lamentable record of failure, he alluded to a pending announcement. As the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) noted, a written ministerial statement was snuck out without fanfare a couple of weeks ago that announced temporary reforms to London house building to try to cover the mayor’s decade of failure. Some of those proposals are welcome, including the sensible removal of elements that can constrain density, such as dual aspect and units around the core of a building, as well as some of the changes to the insistence on arbitrary and unviable affordable housing targets. However, it is deeply concerning that the Government are proposing to reward the mayor’s decade of failure by giving him more power to intervene on democratically elected local councils and take planning powers away from them. Most worryingly, that gives the mayor considerable additional powers to concrete over the green belt. There is nothing in the statement about facilitating brownfield development, despite the CPRE report published last month that shows that Greater London has the capacity to deliver in excess of 462,000 new dwellings on brownfield land. The Minister is a very decent man; he is respected across the House, including by me. When we hear him speak in a few moments, I am sure he will give us invaluable insight into how the Government justify these shocking figures. However, to me, they are simply not doing enough to build or to hold the mayor to account for his failures. The Home Builders Federation has written to the independent Office for Budget Responsibility to say that, without changes to boost affordability for first-time buyers and tax cuts, the Government will miss their national housing target. Another study by the planning and environmental consultancy Lanpro suggested that, at the present of rate of building, the Government would fall 860,000 homes short of their national target—that amounts to missing the target by 57%. Together, the Mayor of London and, more recently, the Government have shown that they are anti-business and anti-growth, with spending and borrowing rising, and with inflation at almost twice the target level, as well as anaemic growth, over-regulation and rising taxation curbing any chance of a housing recovery at every turn. As I have outlined, this is being felt most in our capital city. I am deeply proud to be a Greater London MP, to have been the London Assembly member for Bexley and Bromley, to have been the Conservative leader at City Hall, to have been a London borough councillor, and to live and work in this great city. That is why I care so much about holding this Government—and specifically their shambolic colleague, the Mayor of London—to account for their abject failures to get house building in London to flourish. Action is sorely needed and desperately wanted. The Government need to do a lot more, and they need to do it now.
Q15. People across the country are fed up with extensive and needless delays caused by road, rail and utility works happening at the same time because of a failure to co-ordinate. My Transport (Duty to Cooperate) Bill would fix that and cut disruption, supporting communities and the economy. I understand that the Government are looking for ways to support the economy—apparently—so will the Deputy Prime Minister pass on my proposal to the Chancellor and back my Bill?
Q8. Burning waste is as polluting as burning coal, and our incinerators are already over-capacity. When will this Government renew the previous Government’s pause on new incinerators, end perverse deliver-or-pay contracts with incinerator companies, and deliver an incineration tax, such as the landfill tax, to encourage waste reduction, reuse and recycling?
Sudan is a crushingly poor country, but it is not without resources, so it is hardly surprising that malign state actors and their proxies are closely involved there, and not in a good way. What can be done in particular to disrupt the smuggling of gold from Sudan to Syria by the Wagner Group to fund Russia’s war in Ukraine?
Scrapping the EBacc means potentially reducing the exposure of disadvantaged children to modern foreign languages, and the problem with that—a bit like their access to classics in the past—is that they will become relatively disadvantaged when it comes to places at elite universities. Does the Secretary of State agree that we must make sure that that does not happen, since we all want to see improved social mobility in this country—and scrapping the EBacc looks like a very funny way of doing it?
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—
It very much is, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have this week had the publication of a very important Bill—so important that the Prime Minister himself came to this House to present it on Second Reading. The sponsor of that Bill is the Justice Secretary. While I have no doubt that the Justice Secretary was being truthful today, there is a question over whether he was being candid, which is a higher test. Can you advise me on how the Justice Secretary might be requested to come to this House to clarify his position?
I am going to impose an informal five-minute limit, and we will see how we get on.
I call Peter Fortune, who I am sure will stick to the five-minute limit.