Showing every spoken contribution, including 142 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
I thank the Select Committee Chair very much for the report’s conclusions, particularly the call on the Government to consider a secure legal footing for safer drug consumption facilities. From the discussions that have been had, does she have any sense of the chances of a lesser legal mechanism from the Attorney General to give comfort in relation to the risk of prosecution for people using and running such facilities in England and Wales?
Winter is coming, and nearly 3 million households are living in fuel poverty, which is an absolute scandal. The long-awaited warm homes plan cannot come soon enough, but given that previous piecemeal programmes prioritised private profit and left us without the changes that our constituents so desperately need, will the Secretary of State commit to funding a public body to co-ordinate, monitor and evaluate a nationwide programme of home insulation to hold cowboy builders—cowboy contractors—to account and deliver energy savings for all?
The Green party stands shoulder to shoulder in cross-party solidarity with the victims and survivors of the horrific attack on the Heaton Park synagogue. I pay particular tribute to those who put their lives at risk to bring the attack to a swift stop. The Home Secretary has today spoken passionately and personally about the fight against the scourge of antisemitism being the same as the fight against any form of prejudice, and I very much welcome that. I am sure she will agree that it is essential to say loudly, clearly and unequivocally that prejudice, hatred or violence against Jewish people is totally unacceptable in our country, and will not be tolerated. The Home Secretary has used this opportunity—this moment—to announce further restrictions on protest, which, I confess, do concern me. Important points have been raised in the Chamber today regarding radicalisation within online spaces. Will the Home Secretary ensure <span id="55" class="column-number" data-column-number="55"></span>that every policy measure she takes is focused on building solidarity between communities and countering division in our country?
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{84E4BCC3-AAC8-4D06-A792-015E4668B0F7}"> </QNum></strong> I want to press you slightly on the make-up of audit committees. Mr Davies said that it was not for him to say, but given the varied make-up of councils across the country, I do not think it would be too hard for you to say that an opposition councillor could be the chair, or something along those lines. In your experience, what makes a good audit committee? <em><strong>Gareth Davies:</strong></em> It is about the person and their skills and approach more than any office they hold or party they come from. You need the right approach and the right skills to do a good job. I have seen elected politicians fulfil that role brilliantly. The reason I said what I said is that I am a bit suspicious of anything that says, for example, “We must have an independent chair who is not a member of the council.” The audit committee is there to be part of the council’s governance arrangements. If it is too independent of the council, it does not engage with the machinery of running the council or influence the decision makers sufficiently, in my experience. If it is entirely made up of members who, with the best will in the world, do not have the skills required to perform a role that sometimes has technical elements, that model also has weaknesses. The best models I have seen consist of a cross-party committee of members who are very interested in getting value for money for the taxpayer and ensuring that controls are operating properly across the council, and in ensuring that the council is maintaining public trust; you need people with those kind of motivations, supplemented with some independent membership. The chair does not necessarily have to come from that independent membership, but it must be somebody who is prepared to read all the accounts and ask difficult questions about why a surprising number has appeared out of nowhere. That is why I would not be prescriptive. You need a mix of skills around the table and the committee must be connected to the leadership of the council, so that difficult messages coming out of the audits are relayed to the decision makers, raised in full council if necessary, <span id="64" class="column-number" data-column-number="64"></span>and certainly raised with the executive or the mayor. That linkage needs to be clear and fully operational for it to work properly. <em><strong>Bill Butler:</strong></em> That is not different—
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{6D6C4EC5-2802-4E82-8F78-B5D3E03FD84D}"> </QNum></strong> Could each of you lay out what you think are the benefits of the Bill from a planning perspective? Are there lessons from London? We just listened to John Denham talking about how there is a gap at London level below the unitaries, but there is nothing in the Bill that is changing the way the boroughs are, and maybe that works; maybe it does not. Can you tell us more about that? <em><strong>Richard Hebditch:</strong></em> I think the Bill could be a very powerful tool from a planning point of view. The ability to co-ordinate across housing, transport and planning is really important. As in the London model, which obviously you know very well, that can be very powerful. One thing that is interesting with the Bill is the comparison with London’s accountability. What has been really important in London is the fact that you have the directly elected Assembly, committee structures with powers, and active civil society and media. There is also the statutory passenger watchdog in London, London TravelWatch, of which I am a board member. There is a developed infrastructure to scrutinise what the strategic authority and the mayor do, and that is important. Particularly given the increased powers there will be for strategic authorities elsewhere to call in planning applications and have mayoral development bodies, it is important to have that level of accountability.
Naomi, do you have anything to add? <em><strong>Naomi Luhde-Thompson:</strong></em> I could mention a little bit about public participation, but I do not know if you have a question on that later.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{C14E0AA4-3E90-49CD-8EF4-5382523C5F07}"> </QNum></strong> Others might. I want to move to duties. We see duties for health and health inequalities in the Bill already. Are there any other duties that you would like to see added, potentially in Committee or at the next stage? <em><strong>Richard Hebditch:</strong></em> As I mentioned, these are potentially very powerful bodies, as the Bill collects powers and duties from other legislation, rather than being a stand-alone piece of legislation. The health duty is potentially important. We would like to see duties around climate and nature. Those are long-term issues; they are not the kinds of things where, as a mayor or an authority, you are under short-term pressure—or, necessarily, pressure from central Government—to deliver, but they are really important. In the collection of duties from elsewhere—on local transport plans, for example—there are duties to have <span id="78" class="column-number" data-column-number="78"></span>regard to national policy, but not in terms of the exercise of your functions, so these strategic authorities will be powerful delivery bodies in their own right, not simply as plan-making and strategy bodies, which makes it important to have those climate and nature duties as well. <em><strong>Naomi Luhde-Thompson:</strong></em> The Labour Government in Wales introduced a different format in the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015—a public authority duty. It has a series of goals, and each public authority has to carry out those duties in relation to their functions. I should declare that I am a member of the Eryri national park authority, so I have a very close view of how this is actually carried out. It comes to the point about where the public interest is in the proposals in front of us. There is growth and a bit about health, but where is the public interest? It does not seem to me to be properly explained or described in the Bill that this is all about delivering on the public interest—what is the Government’s role in doing that? There is a bit of confusion between the two Bills. Look at the health duty in this Bill and then look at the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which is obviously in the Lords at the moment. There is no consultation for health groups in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, but there is a health duty on the combined county authority. It is just not connected. On the spatial development strategies, it is not particularly mentioned as a group, but there is a duty on the CCA, so it is really important to examine the connection between the two a bit more closely.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{93EC7F79-A81E-4831-9BEE-7CDEACB46C3E}"> </QNum></strong> Minister, has today’s evidence shown a gap opening up, with the simultaneous creation of unitaries alongside these new mayoral bodies, in terms of real professional scrutiny, accountability and actual checks on these powerful new bodies between elections? In particular, will you look again at resourcing the scrutiny of the mayors and bringing in opposition-led scrutiny, which is what has existed successfully and constructively in London for 25 years now?<span id="90" class="column-number" data-column-number="90"></span> <em><strong>Miatta Fahnbulleh:</strong></em> We recognise that, if you like, the scrutiny landscape is not as it should be, which is why some of the measures that we are driving through the Bill try to address that. We are moving at pace and creating institutions at pace—we recognise that and do not resile from it. We are doing so because we looked at the inheritance and were not pleased with it, so we thought that we had better make some progress in the time that we have. However, it is absolutely the case that strong, accountable leaders are only as strong and accountable as the scrutiny institutions that you build around them. I think they have emerged organically in some instances, but we hope to use the Bill to create more structure around that so that alongside—hopefully—powerful mayors and powerful local authorities, we have that scrutiny function in place. Again, we will learn from what is working well and we will look at how we build on what is working well.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{646B90C4-485C-4C3B-A72A-29D63FABFD07}"> </QNum></strong> My question was about resourcing. Have you had assurance that you will get some resources for this? <em><strong>Miatta Fahnbulleh:</strong></em> Resourcing is a challenge across the piece. As we think about the structures that we are creating, we are also thinking about how we build capacity, because if we do not do that, we will create structures that will not be effective, which is not the outcome that we are trying to achieve.
I thank all the people who signed this petition, including 202 in my constituency, as well as the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for presenting it today. We all recognise the challenges in the system. Far too many families are let down, and I hear from them all the time in my inbox and surgeries, as do Members on both sides of the House. We face a huge challenge. Indeed, in my constituency, we have a larger proportion of children with recognised special educational needs but lower-than-average education funding. The challenges are huge, and the deficit in my council looks like it will go up from around £6 million last year to £40 million next year. These are councils, systems and families at crisis point. I recognise that the Government are trying to square a very difficult circle with the White Paper they are seeking to bring forward, but fundamentally, the voices of the children and young people, and of the families and those who work most closely with them, are most important. I ask the Minister to confirm: will she ensure that those voices are at the centre of every part of the <span id="483WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="483WH"></span>plan that the Government set out? Will she defend the rights of those children who have benefited from being able to get EHCPs? Families have told me that their children are now thriving because of the support that they have. Will she defend the rights of children who are currently not accessing support, and ensure that they have what they need, whether that is specialist provision or integration into the mainstream?
I absolutely recognise that. That is who I meant when I talked about the people who work most closely with these children and young people—the teachers and educators who support them. In my constituency, numerous children have to travel out of county to get the support they need, and numerous teachers are frustrated and tearing their hair out because they do not have the resources needed. There are fantastic examples of excellent SEND provision in my constituency, including in mainstream settings, as well as excellent examples of special schools. We all recognise, however, that there are nowhere near enough state-funded special school places.
A key part of that is about ensuring there is more state-run special school provision. As the hon. Member for South Cotswolds mentioned, the evidence shows that independent school places cost about two and a half times more than state special school places. We need investment to expand state educational provision so that we can get more bang for our buck in what we are providing for our children. On that topic, I would like to ask the Minister about special school places specifically. Last May, the Department for Education announced that Herefordshire had succeeded in its bid for a new special school with 80 places for children with autistic spectrum disorder and severe learning difficulties, but we have heard nothing further since. Will the Minister confirm whether we can count on that funding coming forward soon, and will she outline the timetable for it? We need to ensure a fair system across the country. I am making a bid for resources for North Herefordshire, but we need to sort out fairness across the entire country. We need to end the postcode lottery in which people have a better chance of accessing support in some places than others, and end the problem of people having to jump through extraordinary hoops and fight unbelievable battles to access the support that should be every child’s birthright. We need a system that enables every child to thrive, and I hope that the Minister will outline how to achieve that.<span id="484WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="484WH"></span>
Given that 1.3 million households are on council housing waiting lists, and given the previous Labour commitments to tackling the social housing crisis that he presented, does the hon. Member agree that it is extraordinary that the Minister has repeatedly refused to set a target for social housing? The Government think that setting a target for building any type of housing will address the housing crisis, but they are failing to address the specific problem of building social housing.
Given that the Minister feels that social housing is so important, can he explain why he will not set a target for it?
The question was why.
I thank my fellow members and the Chairs of the Public Bill Committee for the work they did; I felt work on the Committee was very constructive from the different Opposition Members. It followed some very constructive amendments that were made and agreed in the other place, too, including on villages and vision zero for road danger. I was sad to see so many good ideas defeated and removed in Committee. I think this issue crosses party boundaries; it should be about practicalities, not party politics. On road danger, I am pleased to have tabled new clauses 41, 42 and 43, with support from members of the RMT, which seek to improve safety through driver support and wellbeing. These measures are all necessary to achieve vision zero for road danger for our buses. I am full of support for new clause 2 and other measures that seek to remove time restrictions on concessionary bus passes. Having these time restrictions <span id="973" class="column-number" data-column-number="973"></span>is a major disincentive to working. The Government cannot keep dodging this contradiction in their stated policies, and must act to enable disabled people’s mobility and enact real equality. Young people, too, have received attention with the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) and in Liberal Democrat measures. I myself have tabled new clause 44, which seeks simply to enact a policy that is already in place in Scotland in order to give free bus travel to anyone under the age of 22. Today, however, I want to advocate mainly for clean air, as the promoter of the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill—Ella’s law—and for toilet access to be taken seriously by Government in relation to buses. My amendments 62 and 64 would help to fix those policy gaps. The clauses in the Bill on zero emission buses seem to block the highest ambition by not setting the earliest date for a mandate on new procurement of zero emission buses until 2030. That is a really long time still to be buying dirty, diesel-powered buses. It is extremely poor when dirty air is a killer, and when in certain streets and hotspots—often where the least advantaged live—cleaner buses can make a real difference and it is in the gift of public authorities to deal with it. I believe that the Mayor of London and Transport for London began procuring zero emission buses only as long ago as 2021. Given that some London routes are very long indeed, such buses could be introduced in other areas much sooner. With the right help and investment, the infrastructure could be built and good, green jobs could be filled, as implied by the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank). I have yet to hear good reasons from Ministers why the clause is so tragically unenterprising. Another vital issue of equality is ensuring that access to toilets features in local transport plans for bus infrastructure and facilities. This is the ideal time for me to be talking about this topic; I apologise to Members who have also been in the debate for a while. As Age UK said in January in its delightfully named “Lifting the lid” report, for older people, those with health conditions and many others, the availability of public toilets can determine whether they feel able to leave their homes. It is basic equality of mobility. My Green colleagues on the London Assembly are famously very persuasive. Working with groups including Age UK, they have gained consensus and won investment, and targets have been set for toilet access on the tube network—toilets should be no more than 20 minutes of travel time away. The Minister talked about creating more accessible stopping places. That kind of standard access to essential toilet facilities on bus routes would enable mobility, and it is so achievable. I hope that Ministers will listen and take these proposals forward in their work.
We keep talking about a ceasefire, but how can one be achieved if one side is intent on killing the negotiators from the other? Attacking peace negotiators is simply reprehensible and undermines any possibility of the only thing—dialogue—that has any chance of bringing a resolution to the horrors in Gaza. It is not the action of a state seeking peace; it is the action of a rogue state operating with impunity completely outside international law, crossing red line after red line. I ask the Minister again: given that repeated crossing of new red lines, what action will he match his condemnation with? Will he stop all arms sales, all military co-operation, all intelligence-sharing and all defence deals, current and future, with Israel? Will he sanction Netanyahu and all officials complicit in the war crimes and genocide in Gaza?
<Question HRSContentId="{E729BAAD-D096-47DA-AF00-895535D4CA1D}">Q4. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{26E8A7C0-1B43-42D2-A9F2-F5F7C235F54E}"></QuestionText>Fifty-one Israeli arms companies are exhibiting at the Defence and Security Equipment International arms fair in London this week, and some of them even boast that their products are battle tested. We all know what that means: that they have been used to kill men, women and children. This Government often ask us what more we expect them to do when it comes to Gaza. Here is one thing: will be Prime Minister stop Israeli arms dealers parading their Gaza-tested weapons on UK soil?</Question>
We in this House all know that some landlords use the excuse of selling up to evict tenants only to re-let at a higher price. Does the hon. Member agree that Lords amendment 18, which would shorten that re-let period from 12 months to six months, would severely undermine one of the main aims of the Bill—to end no-fault evictions—by making it disappointingly easy for landlords to evict on just that basis?
The work I did this year with Mandu Reid, the former leader of the Women’s Equality party, found a continuing crisis among the providers of childcare. Our call was for broader investment in pay, conditions and training, to mitigate national insurance contribution burdens and to take real action on morale. How will the £45 million announced today really help those existing childcare workers who are right on the verge of leaving the sector?
As I have reminded Ministers on a number of occasions, tackling pollution in our rivers and seas requires us to address agricultural pollution as well as sewage pollution. I am disappointed not to hear the Minister mention that, but I like to come with solutions. I recently visited the Wyescapes landscape recovery project in my constituency, which is an innovative farmer-led project of 49 farmers protecting soil, reducing pollution, restoring nature and producing great-quality food. Will the Minister, or perhaps <span id="427" class="column-number" data-column-number="427"></span>her colleague the Farming Minister, come to visit this innovative project to see how we can tackle river pollution and protect nature and food production?
The Government’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action has caused a growing legal, political and policing crisis. A judicial review has been granted. The police are struggling to deal with the sheer volume of people being arrested, and the UK’s reputation has been seriously harmed. Does the Leader of the House recognise that this rushed proscription, and the cynical decision to bundle it together with two other clearly terrorist organisations, is bad politics and bad process? We should have a chance to revisit the decision, learn from this debacle and seriously consider the important human rights implications.
<Question HRSContentId="{AF3ACA3F-EFF5-48AD-BDA2-24B6EEE8649E}">Q9. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{BEEDFB2E-5A14-4D48-95C1-DE441CB9FC8C}"></QuestionText>While the Conservative party deludes itself with the myth of endless fossil fuels, the rest of us know just how ridiculous and reckless that is. Extracting more oil and gas from the declining North sea basin will do nothing to protect energy security or jobs. The Prime Minister himself has stated:“Climate action is at the heart of this government’s mission for the protection and prosperity of Britain and the world.”With a decision looming on the Rosebank oil field, will the Prime Minister prove that his words mean something, and finally put an end to this climate-wrecking project?</Question>
There are ideas in this Bill that devolve powers that we Greens can support. A layer of strategic government with funding and fundraising powers could empower areas of the country, such as Sussex, to improve daily life for our citizens and could strengthen democracy. However, it is worrying that the process for doing that so far and the ways in which decisions are moving forward on the reorganisation of local government have not listened to people who want to maintain their district and borough councils and have not properly engaged local people in devising new proposals rather than just commenting on them. If this is done without consent or respect for local areas, it will not be democratic or empowering. Clause 57 is very unfair in grandfathering in existing mayoral arrangements for local councils but not preserving any committee systems—not even those chosen recently by referendum. On fair voting, the Bill is inadequate. For the new elected mayors, the Bill specifies a supplementary voting system that is better than first-past-the-post, but, as other Members have pointed out, that should be used next year in Sussex. Also, for the new authorities where new councillors are being elected, there is a genuine missed chance to have a fairer voting system for councils too. The Bill is dangerously light on the democratic scrutiny of new mayors and combined authorities, and poor on standards in public life. There should be transparency duties on mayors to disclose their lobbying meetings, as Ministers do and all MPs should. Mayors will also be able to appoint commissioners for different areas of their powers, which will be powerful positions that are likely to be well remunerated. Yet the Bill appears to be silent on any higher standards of accountability, transparency or conduct for such people. Mayors and commissioners should all come under the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, as other people in this place do. There are big missed chances in the Bill in terms of new duties for poverty and inequality, climate, nature, healthy air, land and water pollution and health, particularly in relation to the impacts of transport and housing policy. On health determinants, the Bill mentions prosperity but not poverty or inequality; nor does it mention the huge chance to improve health by cleaning up filthy air pollution. Why not? Greens will be arguing for all these goals and duties and more to be put in place firmly and clearly in the Bill, and for them to be matched with powers, funding and the ability to raise and use investment for homes, transport, education, justice, social justice, public health and all these other things to close the gaps that have so shamefully grown under successive Governments and continued Labour austerity. This Bill could help to deliver great things, but it will take many big changes, much work and much listening to good ideas from this part of the House for the Government to achieve that.
On devolving the ability to run pilots, and following up on the point made by the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), Bristol city council—including Labour councillors—voted cross-party to have the power to pilot rent controls. Recent figures show that typical private renters in my constituency spend 45% of their income on rent. That is not sustainable. This Bill could offer the opportunity for that pilot—
The Israeli Government are clearly hellbent on their horrific plan of eradicating Palestine with their continuing and ever-worsening genocide in Gaza, and now their approval of the shocking E1 plan that will divide the west bank and East Jerusalem. How can the Government continue to take no further action when there are so many options open to them? How many times have we heard the Foreign Secretary say in this Chamber that if things do not improve and if Israel does not desist, he will take further action, and yet he has not? When will this Government take action to end UK complicity and end the horror in Palestine?
Our communities are divided, and they are scared. We—all of us—want to be with our families, and communities are at their strongest when family life is protected and supported. If the Secretary of State lifted the ban on asylum seekers working, she would be giving those who subsequently achieve refugee status a stronger footing to support their families and be ready to join our communities, and they would not need to seek the homelessness relief she mentioned. Instead of keeping children and their families apart, why does she not help families to support themselves?
The last time we discussed Prax Lindsey, I asked the Minister to support my energy jobs Bill—a plan for the redeployment and retraining of oil and gas workers that is proactive and industry-wide rather than reactive and crisis by crisis, and that would be paid for by the companies. That is what the workers and the unions want, but the Minister said he did not agree with it. He has now said that the Government will fund a training guarantee for these refinery workers and is asking this company’s owners to make voluntary contributions to support workers. That is progress, but will he now turn this into a proactive and industry-wide plan, and please go beyond asking the company nicely to do the right thing and require it?
Data published last week shows that despite the Government’s initial action, the proportion of dentists working in the NHS in Norfolk and Waveney continues to drop. I am pleased to hear about the Government’s work on the dental contract, but the Public Accounts Committee is clear that this will work only if it is backed by sustainable funding. I will give the Minister another chance to answer the question: will the Government ensure that the extra funding that has been put into the Department is actually reflected in extra funding for NHS dentistry?
I have heard from and met with numerous constituents who are parents of children with special educational needs, all frustrated with the way that the system currently works. I welcome the Secretary of State saying she wants outcomes for children to be at the centre of reforms, but a parent of a child with an EHCP, which helps them to be in mainstream education, recently told <span id="538" class="column-number" data-column-number="538"></span>me of the fear and horror she felt when she heard about potential Government reforms due to the risk of her son losing the ability to stay in a school that has, in her words, been an absolute godsend for him. Can the Secretary of State assure parents that her reforms will not take away support that children currently have and will ensure that every child has the support they need to genuinely thrive?
Words do matter, but actions speak louder. What Members across the House and citizens of the country—our constituents—cannot understand is why the Foreign Secretary will not take the actions available to him to end UK complicity in this horror. A full arms embargo and an end to all military co-operation, a full ban on all settlement goods, sanctions on all those responsible for genocide, recognition of the state of Palestine—why will he not take those concrete actions now?
Will the Minister give way?
The Minister referred to the anguish felt by the Ukrainian families who have been displaced. Does she recognise that uncertainty over visa conditions adds to the anguish faced by those families here in the UK, and indeed to that of their very generous hosts? Will she therefore commit to reviewing the situation and giving them hope for the future?
The UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls has said that Palestinian mothers are repeatedly watching their children slowly starve to death, be maimed, be killed and be buried alive, and that it is a deliberate part of Israel’s strategy physically and psychologically to destroy women and the continuity of the Palestinian people. She called this a femi-genocide. The Secretary of State has repeatedly said that the situation is intolerable, yet by failing to pull every single lever that this Government could pull, they are tolerating it. When will he stand on the right side of history and implement a full arms embargo, widespread sanctions and a ban on the import of settlement goods, and when will they fund evidence collection for prosecutions?
My constituency has a proud history of being a welcoming community. We have had an asylum hotel for two years with no problems; the families are well integrated in the local community with many children in the local schools. Late last week, however, we were told that people would be asked to move from that hotel with no notice from today, despite the fact that the hotel will still be used for asylum seekers. They do not know where they will need to move to. I have raised the issue with the Home Office and had no response, so can the Minister urgently look into it today? Does she agree that every MP with an asylum hotel in their constituency should have a dedicated Home Office contact so that we can work together to promote peace and harmonious community relations, and against disinformation and violence?
This Government-commissioned review looked at how to tinker with the Conservatives’ failed privatised monopoly system, but the truth is that it is a moribund model that has resulted in billions being paid out to shareholders and billions in debt being loaded up, and in crucial infrastructure being neglected, meaning that sewage is regularly pumped into our rivers and seas. Does the Secretary of State accept that the cost of that failure must be part of the calculation of the cost of bringing water into public hands, where it belongs, and that figures like £100 billion are grossly inflated by those who do not think the water industry should pay for its greed and terrible mismanagement of our water system?
<em>rose</em><em>—</em>
The hon. Lady has now pre-empted my intervention. I wanted to highlight that further education leaders I have spoken to, such as those from Suffolk New college, who run the Halesworth campus in my constituency, have highlighted that £8,000 to £10,000 gap in pay between FE lecturers and secondary education teachers teaching the same subjects. Does the hon. Lady agree that this needs to be addressed in order to tackle the challenge of retaining and recruiting staff?
<Question HRSContentId="{0A4D4C60-38EE-4431-BF69-F2F9315F5D43}">T2. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{518D9D7B-D9DA-4CA6-BAA9-1D7A1B8BAD53}"></QuestionText>The Government’s new Scope 3 guidance for offshore projects is hugely welcome. We are already battling deadly heatwaves and overshooting climate limits, so it is critical that we stop extracting new oil and gas. Given that there is no scenario in which Rosebank, or indeed any new oil and gas wells are compatible with limiting global temperature increases to 1.5°C, why are the Government trying to delay recognition of that climate reality by saying that applications will be considered on a case-by-case basis? Will the Minister give us a conclusive science-backed answer now, and confirm that Rosebank will not be going ahead?</Question>
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?