Darren Paffey

Party affiliation

Parliament's party history for this member: Labour (4 Jul 2024 – present).

Register of interests

Register on Parliament's site

Latest on this tracker 184

1. 3 Nov 2026·Parliament·Darren Paffey

   Young People and Work: Milburn Interim Report

   It is pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) on securing this very popular and important debate. The Milburn report shows that we have to change how we talk about young people out of work and education. As has just been cited, 84% of those who we call NEETs do not want to be out of work. They do not lack potential or desire; they lack opportunity. That is the problem we have to fix. The report also shows that disconnection begins long before the age of 16, in school. Sadly, I see that in Southampton, where persistent absence has been creeping up year on year. I very much welcome the push in the curriculum and assessment review to make school more engaging—to broaden the curriculum so that there are more hooks, including, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) said, in the humanities. If we allow children to switch off at around 14, they are far more likely to be out of education and training at 18. Southampton has also shown some great opportunities that work. Safe New Futures is a local charity that works with long-term unemployed young people, combining mental health support and group cognitive behavioural therapy with job-ready skills and vocational training. When I visited, one young person told me that, after an incredibly difficult period, the course had given them the confidence to enter the world of work and pursue their career. Half of the NEET participants in that scheme go on to find work. Saints Works, which is run by Saints Foundation—the charitable wing of our excellent football club—combines skills growth and mentoring, and then in-work follow-up support once someone has got into a job. We also have a young adults employment hub, which brings the council, jobcentre work coaches and youth workers under one roof. None of those are national schemes; they are all local partnerships that know their young people by name, and that is the lesson I hope the final report draws. My question to the Minister is this: when we respond to the final report, will there be sustained funding for local programmes like these that are getting the work done?

   Hansard source
2. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Darren Paffey

   Social Media: Ban for Under-16s

   When the Education Committee looked at online harms, we had every major social media corporation before us. They did not recognise our characterisation of their features as inherently addictive. Does my hon. Friend agree that, with that kind of denial going on, we have very few options available other than to ensure that corporations’ access to our children is restricted? That is how we should look at it, rather than as restricting children’s access to social media.

   Hansard source
3. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Darren Paffey

   Higher Education Funding

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) on securing this important debate. Southampton is home to two excellent universities and yet in my constituency, only 7% of kids on free school meals will hold a degree by the time they are 22. Of those who do not receive free school meals in Itchen, just 19% will get there. If we go a few miles up the road to Winchester, however, that become 39%. We must make sure that higher education is not shut down <span id="142WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="142WH"></span>as an option for young people. In my speech, I will focus on three points that are becoming worryingly clear about the funding system as it stands: it is not working for students, it is not working for universities, and—I fear—it is working only for the Treasury. I do not believe that is what this Labour Government are about. First, on students, I was the first in my family lucky enough to go to university. I started in 2000 when fees were—wait for it—£1,025. My annual loan was about £3,500. We looked enviously on the generation before us, who did not pay fees and who received a grant to go to university. This generation is looking enviously on my generation, which is worrying. I went on to spend 20 years as university lecturer, so I saw every subsequent wave of student finance agreements. The Treasury Committee has concluded that we were essentially mis-selling some of the previous loan agreements on terms that no commercial lender would ever be allowed to offer.

   Hansard source
4. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Darren Paffey

   Higher Education Funding

   My hon. Friend makes an absolutely salient point. Many of us never imagined that we would get to an even worse place, but here we are. Only the top three earnings deciles of recent intakes will ever pay off their student loans in full. The nurse, the teacher or the engineer on £35,000 will pay 9% for decades and still never clear the balance. Dare I say it, but if it walks like a tax and quacks like a tax, let us call it a tax and treat it as one. If we properly sort it, it could well be a better deal than the current loan system.

   Hansard source
5. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Darren Paffey

   Higher Education Funding

   I agree that this is not the deal that I think our country wants to offer its young people, particularly if the Government are about breaking down barriers to opportunity. Secondly, on universities, the Office for Students reported in May that more than a third of English higher education institutes were already in deficit last year, and that if recruitment simply flatlines, nearly six in 10 could be in deficit within five years. International student numbers, as hon. Members have stated, fell by around 45,000 last year, and student visa applications in the first months of this year were down by a third. In May, the Education Committee, which I sit on, warned of the real threat of insolvency. Universities such as those in my constituency—the University of Southampton and Southampton Solent University—are anchors of our local economy, and that is reflected around the country. We cannot afford to let them fail. They are not immune to the job losses that are affecting other HEIs.<span id="143WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="143WH"></span> Thirdly, I turn to the taxpayer. The Government estimate that the state meets 35% to 40% of the cost of higher education. Others take a different view: the Institute for Fiscal Studies put the figure for the 2022 cohort at around 3%, with 97% of the cost met by students. Sir Philip Augar recommended a 50:50 split. Whichever number we look at or choose to believe, we are a long way from the balance that Parliament intended, and the bill is quietly being passed to young people. That brings me to the international student levy. Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely welcome the return of maintenance grants—for families on low incomes, they really matter—but a grant of up to £1,000 a year amounts to about £20 a week, and it is to be funded by a levy of £920 per international student from 2028. Last November, that was forecast to raise £445 million in its first year, but that forecast was made before visa applications fell by a third. I fear that a grant that depends on a shrinking tax base is a good intention built on sand. Before the levy legislation completes its passage, will the Minister commit to publishing an updated forecast of what it will raise based on today’s recruitment figures? Will she confirm that maintenance grants will be protected if they fall short? Finally, the Government have said that the whole student finance system is under review, and I welcome that news enthusiastically. Will the Minister set out how and by when that review will report, and whether it will move us back towards a fair balance between the state and the individual? As hon. Members have very eloquently said, this is all about intergenerational justice. It is about whether 22-year-old me would look at university and say, “Yeah, I can risk that,” or whether I would now be more likely to say, “Nah, my family has never done that and I simply cannot afford it.” It is about growth and the 7% of kids in Itchen, and more across this country, who deserve better opportunities and better odds.

   Hansard source
6. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Darren Paffey

   Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

   Southampton Itchen is one of the places in Hampshire with the most buildings with unsafe cladding. As hon. Members have said so eloquently, that means people live with the worry that the horrendous tragedy that befell Grenfell all those years ago could well befall them. Even where there has been action, it is hardly ideal. Nearly 200 of my constituents are currently out of their home. They were evacuated in the spring and summer of last year, and they will not be able to return until the summer of 2028 at the earliest. This is the stark reality that drives the urgent need for this Bill, and it is why I very much welcome it. I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for bringing forward the Bill. Like other Members, I pay tribute to residents and campaigners, including those from End Our Cladding Scandal who supported one of the very first public meetings that I conducted as a new MP, and who have not let go of this issue over the years. Since I was elected, I have listened to residents who are affected by unsafe cladding on their buildings, pressed Ministers, and submitted evidence to the Public Accounts Committee’s inquiry on remediation. The Bill is the next instalment in resolving these ongoing issues; it will certainly not be the last. I want to acknowledge the real progress that it makes, but also ask for important clarification from the Minister. Take Oceana Boulevard, a flagship development in the regeneration of brownfield sites in the centre of Southampton. It was built some 20 years ago, and its fire safety problems were first identified nearly 10 years ago. Since then, compartmentation works have been done, but that is all. Today, we have finally got in an application to the Building Safety Regulator, covering cladding, automatic opening vents and balcony remediation works, but—sadly, as we have heard, this is not an isolated story—there is still no agreement between the freeholder and the developer on who will pay for the non-cladding-related remediation, and none of that work is anywhere near starting. In the meantime, as we all know, residents’ costs have been skyrocketing. Ellie bought her flat in Oceana Boulevard brand new. Her service charge and insurance rose from £1,500 a year to £6,000 a year, and she has not been able to keep up with the payments, so she has handed her home back to the bank. People are losing their homes, even if not to fire, because of these issues, which have taken far too long to resolve. For that reason, alongside this very welcome remediation Bill, we must with all urgency progress the draft Commonhold <span id="237" class="column-number" data-column-number="237"></span>and Leasehold Reform Bill, and the action that the Prime Minister recently announced on regulating managing agents.

   Hansard source
7. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Darren Paffey

   Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

   We are all fighting for our constituents to be protected from the bills that are landing on them through no fault of their own. They certainly did not choose any of this. They want the simple comfort of having their own home, and they work incredibly hard to achieve that, yet look at where so many of them are. I welcome the mandatory auditing of fire risk assessments to that all-important single standard. A dispute about what is wrong with a building must never again, as in the case of Oceana Boulevard, outlast a decade; there has been constant back and forth about whether the parties accept what they read in the fire engineer’s report. I certainly agree with the comments made by Members on both sides of the Chamber about people picking and choosing who to commission a report from. In some cases, it seems that they decide whether they like what they read in a report before commissioning a different one. That has to come to an end. I welcome the message that waking watches are temporary. At Sirocco, a development in nearby Ocean Village, the residents paid for one for years. One of the residents, Ro, tells me that she had to use a freedom of information request just to see the fire risk assessments. Under this Bill, remediation plans have to be published, along with timelines and contacts. No resident should need an FOI request to learn the truth about their home. I welcome the legal duty to remediate. Ben and his family have told me their story, and again, unfortunately, it is not the only time I have heard such a story. They have put their life on hold and have put off having more children—growing their family—because they cannot sell and move on. Since when should anyone’s life aspirations be subject to the stalling of these companies, many of which have literally not bothered to get their own houses in order? Sadly, being unable to sell and move on is a story I have heard many times, and which other hon. Members have repeated. Remediation work at the Blake building close by began only this summer. It certainly will not finish before next summer, four years after enforcement action was first taken. It is clear that delays cost, and it is far too often still the residents who pay those costs.

   Hansard source
8. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Darren Paffey

   Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

   I absolutely agree. As I will come on to say, it is simply unforgivable that too many companies still have no plan whatever for remediation, and people are paying the price, financially, but also with their life ambitions.

   Hansard source
9. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Darren Paffey

   Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

   I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman’s closing point. The Bill must fix that, which is why I welcome its progress, but like Members from across the Chamber, I will follow its progress very closely to ensure it is not just a Bill that gets a headline, but instead fixes things and gets things right. The Blake building sits outside the developer contract, so this new duty will finally reach it. That is real progress from the Bill, but there are points on which residents still have questions, and campaigners are not yet convinced that all this goes far enough. I hope that the Minister will address some of those questions today. First, most Ocean Village buildings are subject to the developer contract, but the Bill excludes them from the new duty because “equivalent requirements” are already in place; however, physical works have still not started on Sirocco, Moresby, Hawkins or Oceana Boulevard. We have heard different statistics, but those I am looking at tell me that nationally, there are over 2,500 buildings in that contract, but for 854 of them, work has not started and there is no plan in place—not a single plan between them. What will the measures mean for those living in buildings with no plan? It must mean progress. Should they not have audited assessments, published timetables and a backstop if a developer stalls? I hope that the Minister will confirm that Ocean Village residents will benefit from all three. The Bill rightly focuses on cladding, but residents live in whole buildings, and internal safety matters, too, so I very much welcome the announcement made at the Dispatch Box today. When it comes to filling that gap, I hope that as the Bill progresses, we will hear more detail about what the grant funding will cover. Secondly, on enforcement, the Bill provides for prosecution, penalties of up to £500,000, and a backstop that allows Homes England or councils to step in, but as we all know, a power is only as good as the capacity to use it, and the route to the backstop will run through notices, representations and tribunals. How long will it take from first notice to a contractor on site? Will Homes England and councils such as Southampton city council be resourced to use that power? Finally, and most practically for residents like Ben, is the question of when. The duty is to remediate “as soon as reasonably practicable”,<span id="239" class="column-number" data-column-number="239"></span> but the detail is left to regulations. The Government’s 2029 and 2031 deadlines, already put forward in the remediation acceleration plan, do not appear in the Bill. I ask the Minister to add them; my constituents would find that reassuring. If she will not, can she commit to dated milestones, and a hard stop date in those regulations, so that 2029 is the final, legally enforceable deadline that constituents need, not just an aspiration? Those who have been waiting years and cannot move on have asked if there is any way for the Government to buy back those homes while they are waiting. Now, I suspect that I know the answer, but I will ask—particularly as the Budget is tomorrow. The previous Chancellor amended some of the rules to ensure that council-owned properties are assets, not liabilities. By releasing people from the stalemate that they are in with their homes and families, could we be looking at assets that this Government, who need to build and own more housing, could very much use? I will proudly support the Bill on Second Reading. For everyone who needs the Bill to be the strongest it can be, I will be glad to engage with Ministers and others as it progresses through the House. We need to fix all our buildings. We need to ensure that the work is paid for by those who were responsible for this sorry episode, which I believe is an absolute stain on our history. In doing so, we might just be able to give people their futures back—people like Ellie, Ro, Ben, the hundreds of others in Southampton Itchen, and the thousands more across the country whose stories have been told by Members across the House. They have all had enough and want an end to the nightmare. The Bill—if we do it right—gives them that hope.

   Hansard source
10. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Darren Paffey

    Kinship Carers: Statutory Paid Employment Leave

    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) on her years of hard work on this issue and on securing this debate. The Government’s core mission is to provide stable, loving homes for every child. That policy happens to have come out of the Department for Education, but the issue we are discussing spans across the Department for Business, the Department for Work and Pensions, and so on. Does the Minister agree that this issue is a fantastic example of where proper cross-Government work, pulling in the same direction, could produce outcomes for young people that are greater than the sum of the different policy parts?

    Hansard source

2024 General Election: Southampton Itchen

Election result on Parliament's site

Parliamentary career

Career on Parliament's site

Published contact details

Only the details Parliament publishes for this member. Contact page on Parliament's site