Category: Speeches

  • Nick Gibb – 2023 Statement on School Funding: Provisional 2024-25 Allocations

    Nick Gibb – 2023 Statement on School Funding: Provisional 2024-25 Allocations

    The statement made by Nick Gibb, the Minister for Schools, in the House of Commons on 17 July 2023.

    Today I am confirming provisional funding allocations for 2024-25 through the schools, high needs and central school services national funding formulae (NFFs). Core schools funding includes funding for both mainstream schools and high needs. This is increasing by over £1.8 billion in 2024-25—from over £57.7 billion in 2023-24 to over £59.6 billion in 2024-25. This is on top of the over £3.9 billion increase in the core schools budget in 2023-24.

    The core schools funding increase for both this year and next year includes the additional funding for schools’ teacher pay costs, through the teachers’ pay additional grant (TPAG). On 13 July, we announced this funding to support schools with the September 2023 teachers’ pay award. The funding is being split between mainstream schools, special schools and alternative provision (AP), early years, and 16 to 19 provision. The part of the additional funding that goes to mainstream schools, special schools and alternative provision is worth £482.5 million in 2023-24 and £827.5 million in 2024-25. This funding will be paid on top of NFF funding in both 2023-24 and 2024- 25. Further information on the TPAG is published here:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/teachers-pay-additional-grant-2023-to-2024.

    Funding for mainstream schools through the schools NFF is increasing by 2.7% per pupil compared to 2023-24. Taken together with the funding increases seen in 2023-24, this means that funding through the schools NFF will be 8.5% higher per pupil in 2024-25, compared to 2022-23.

    The minimum per pupil funding levels (MPPLs) will increase by 2.4% compared to 2023-24. This will mean that, next year, every primary school will receive at least £4,655 per pupil, and every secondary school at least £6,050. Academy trusts continue to have flexibilities over how they allocate funding across academies in their trust. This means, in some cases, an individual academy could receive a lower or higher per-pupil funding amount than the MPPL value. This may reflect, for example, activities that are paid for by the trust centrally, rather than by individual academies.

    The NFF will distribute this funding based on schools’ and pupils’ needs and characteristics. The main features in 2024-25 are:

    We are introducing a formulaic approach to allocating split sites funding. This ensures that funding for schools which operate across more than one site will be provided on a consistent basis across the country.

    The core factors in the schools NFF—such as basic per-pupil funding, and the lump sum that all schools attract—will increase by 2.4%.

    The funding floor will ensure that every school attracts at least 0.5% more pupil-led funding per pupil compared to its 2023-24 allocation.

    The 2023-24 mainstream schools additional grant (MSAG) has been rolled into the schools NFF for 2024-25. This is to ensure that the additional funding schools attract through the NFF is as close as possible to the funding they would have received if the funding was continuing as a separate grant in 2024-25, without adding significant complexity to the formula. Adding the grant funding to the NFF provides reassurance to schools that this funding forms part of schools’ core budgets and will continue to be provided.

    For the first time, in 2024-25 we will allocate funding to local authorities on the basis of falling rolls, as well as growth. Local authorities can use this funding to support schools which see a short-term fall in the number of pupils on roll.

    The 2023-24 was the first year of transition to the direct schools NFF, with our end point being a system in which, to ensure full fairness and consistency in funding, every mainstream school in England is funded through a single national formula without adjustment through local funding formulae. Following a successful first year of transition, we will continue with the same approach to transition in 2024-25. As in 2023-24, local authorities will only be allowed to use NFF factors in their local formulae, and must use all NFF factors, except any locally determined premises factors. Local authorities will also be required to move their local formulae factors a further 10% closer to the NFF values, compared to where they were in 2023-24, unless they are classed as already “mirroring” the NFF.

    Today we are also publishing local authority funding formula data for 2023-24. Following the first year of transition, the number of local authorities that mirror the schools NFF increased significantly from just over half in 2022-23, to just over two-thirds in 2023-24. Of the 72 local authorities that were not mirroring the NFF in 2022-23, 61 chose to move their local formula closer to the NFF than required.

    In 2024-25, high needs funding through the NFF is increasing by a further £440 million, or 4.3%—following the £970 million increase in 2023-24 and £1 billion increase in 2022-23. This brings the total high needs budget to over £10.5 billion. All local authorities will receive at least a 3% increase per head of their age two to 18 population, compared to their 2023-24 allocations, with some authorities seeing gains of up to 5%.

    The £10.5 billion funding includes the continuation of the £400 million high needs funding allocated to local authorities following the 2022 autumn statement, and the £440 million increase is provided on top of that. All special and alternative provision schools will continue to receive their share of that funding in 2024-25.

    Central school services funding is provided to local authorities for the ongoing responsibilities they have for all schools. The total provisional funding for ongoing responsibilities is £304 million in 2024-25. In line with the process introduced for 2020-21, to withdraw funding over time for the historic commitments local authorities entered into before 2013-14, funding for historic commitments will decrease by a further 20% in 2024-25.

    Updated allocations of schools, high needs and central schools services funding for 2024-25 will be published in December, taking account of the latest pupil data at that point.

  • Nick Gibb – 2023 Statement on the Minimum School Week

    Nick Gibb – 2023 Statement on the Minimum School Week

    The statement made by Nick Gibb, the Minister for Schools, on 17 July 2023.

    In March 2022, the Government announced in the Schools White Paper ‘Opportunity for All’ that to give every pupil the opportunity to achieve their full academic potential, all mainstream, state-funded schools would be expected to deliver a minimum school week of 32.5 hours by September 2023.

    Most schools already have a school week of at least this length, and others will have plans in hand to meet the minimum expectation by September 2023. However, in recognition of the pressures currently facing schools, the Government have decided to defer the deadline to September 2024. The Government are encouraging schools that are planning to increase their hours from this September to continue to do so.

    The Government have today published guidance and case studies:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/length-of-the-school-week-minimum-expectation to support those schools that are not yet meeting the minimum expectation.

  • Ben Wallace – 2023 Statement on Camp Bagnold and Gifting to the UN

    Ben Wallace – 2023 Statement on Camp Bagnold and Gifting to the UN

    The statement made by Ben Wallace, the Secretary of State for Defence, in the House of Commons on 17 July 2023.

    I have today laid before the House a departmental minute describing the provision of infrastructure worth £4,226,970 to the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilisation Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) in Gao, Mali.

    MINUSMA is a UN-led, non-combat mission to support the political processes in Mali and to carry out a number of security related task, for which the UK contribution, since December 2020, was the Long Range Reconnaissance Group (Mali) (LRRG(M)).

    The security and political situation in Mali has deteriorated significantly since the UK review of MINUSMA at the start of 2022.There have been two coups in the past two years and the transitional Government of Mali (TGoM), which seized power in 2021, has continued to delay democratic transition and has routinely failed to address the numerous security and humanitarian issues it is facing. The TGoM has also behaved in a way that is constraining MINUSMA’s delivery against its mandate. On 14 November 2022 the Government announced they were withdrawing their forces from Mali.

    The UK Ministry of Defence intend to gift the Camp Bagnold infrastructure, with a value of £4,226,970, for $1(US) to UN MINUSMA. The gifting transfers all ownership rights of the camp to the UN, including any future responsibility for the remediation and disposal of the site.

    On the 16 June 2023 the TGoM asked MINUSMA to leave Mali “without delay”. Despite this, we still intend to gift the Camp to the UN MINUSMA. Given the fast-moving situation on the ground we request special urgency to lay a departmental minute in Parliament for four sitting days before recess. This is necessary to allow us to meet the UN MINUSMA request that any contract to transfer the ownership of the camp must be signed before 31 July 2023.

  • Gareth Davies – 2023 Statement on the South Yorkshire Advanced Manufacturing Investment Zone

    Gareth Davies – 2023 Statement on the South Yorkshire Advanced Manufacturing Investment Zone

    The statement made by Gareth Davies, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, in the House of Commons on 17 July 2023.

    On Friday, the Government and the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority announced the creation of a new South Yorkshire investment zone focused on advanced manufacturing, building on the region’s long-standing research strengths and existing commercial operations in the area. Local communities and businesses across South Yorkshire, including in the Sheffield-Rotherham corridor, Barnsley and Doncaster, will benefit.

    The Government also announced that Boeing, Spirit AeroSystems, Loop Technologies and the University of Sheffield Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre (AMRC) have partnered to support the first investment within the zone, leading a portfolio of major new R&D projects into the future of aerospace. This investment will be worth over £80 million partially funded from the joint public-private sector Aerospace Technology Institute programme.

    The South Yorkshire investment zone will be co-designed with the University of Sheffield and Sheffield Hallam University. By harnessing the region’s local sector strengths, significant innovation assets and existing talent, the Investment Zone will catalyse further investment to boost productivity and deliver sustainable growth that benefits local communities. The investment zone will increase commercial opportunities in areas that have historically under-performed economically through a total funding envelope of £80 million over 5 years. It is expected that the investment zone will support more than £1.2 billion of private investment and the creation of more than 8,000 jobs by 2030.

    The Government will continue to work with the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority, the University of Sheffield, Sheffield Hallam University and other local partners to co-develop the plans for their advanced manufacturing investment zone, including agreeing priority sites and specific interventions to drive cluster growth, over the summer ahead of final confirmation of plans.

  • Kemi Badenoch – 2023 Statement on the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership

    Kemi Badenoch – 2023 Statement on the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership

    The statement made by Kemi Badenoch, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, in the House of Commons on 17 July 2023.

    Introduction

    The UK officially signed its accession protocol to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-pacific partnership (CPTPP) on 16 July 2023. This trade agreement contains some of the world’s largest and most dynamic economies. Our membership will take the agreement from 11 to 12 members and represents the first expansion of this high-standards trade agreement.

    The agreement will act as a gateway to the wider Indo- Pacific and Americas region, bringing new opportunities for British businesses, supporting jobs across the whole UK and shaping the future of international trading rules.

    The Indo-Pacific region will account for the majority of global growth in coming decades and be home to around half the world’s middle-class consumers. On the UK joining, the CPTPP membership will account for around £12 trillion in GDP, a number which will grow as new members join. Economies including Costa Rica, Uruguay and Ecuador have formally applied, and the Republic of Korea, Thailand and the Philippines have expressed an interest in doing so. As the first acceding country, we have placed ourselves in an ideal position to benefit from future expansion of the agreement.

    Geopolitical benefits

    Accession to the agreement will send a powerful signal that the UK is using our post-Brexit freedoms to boost the economy. It will secure our place as the second largest economy in a trade grouping dedicated to free and rules-based trade while taking a larger role in setting standards for the global economy.

    Becoming a member will see us deepening our multilateral relations and strengthening our trading links in the Indo-Pacific region. We will work closely with our partners to develop the agreement, creating further benefits for all its members.

    As CPTPP grows, the UK will help shape its development to fight unfair and coercive trading practices that threaten the future of international trade. British businesses will benefit from enhanced access to more markets while trading under fair rules that allow them to compete and thrive on the global stage.

    Our status as an independent trading nation is putting the UK in an enviable position. Membership of this agreement will be a welcome addition to our bilateral free trade agreements with over 70 countries.

    Gains for businesses and consumers

    In an historic first, joining CPTPP will mean that the UK and Malaysia are in a free trade agreement together for the first time, giving British business better access to a market worth £330 billion. Manufacturers of key UK exports will be able to make the most of tariff reductions to this thriving market. Tariffs of around 80% on whisky will be eliminated within 10 years and tariffs of 30% on cars will be eliminated within seven years.

    In addition, over 99% of current UK goods exports to economies in the agreement will be eligible for zero tariff trade. The agreement’s provisions will also help facilitate trade by ensuring that customs procedures of CPTPP parties are efficient, consistent, transparent and predictable.

    Beyond goods exports, the UK’s world-leading services firms will benefit from modern rules which ensure non-discriminatory treatment and greater levels of transparency. In key sectors, UK companies will not be required to establish or maintain a representative office in a CPTPP territory. This will make it easier for them to provide services to consumers in other CPTPP countries.

    The deal we have struck will also open up new opportunities in the Government procurement markets of CPTPP members, including in Malaysia, Singapore and Japan.

    Business travel will be easier under the agreement. Britons travelling to CPTPP members for work purposes will enjoy greater certainty on trips for short-term work meetings. Professionals going to Peru and Vietnam for short-term business will be able to stay for six months. That is double the amount of time for previous agreements.

    UK consumers are also set to benefit from tariff reductions on imports. These tariff reductions could lead to cheaper prices, better choice and higher quality. Products such as fruit juices from Chile and Peru, and Mexican honey and chocolate, to name but a few, could all cost less.

    Defending UK interests in negotiations

    We have ensured that joining will not compromise our high animal and plant health, food safety or animal welfare standards. We have also maintained our right to regulate in the public interest, including in areas such as the environment and labour standards. Furthermore, we ensured that the NHS was kept off the table throughout the course of discussions, as in all of our free trade agreement negotiations. We have also ensured that UK producers will be protected. We have reduced import tariffs in proportion to the market access we have received and kept safeguards where necessary. Market access increases will be staged over time for certain products, ensuring that farmers have time to adjust to new trade flows. Permanent limits on tariff-free volumes have been agreed on some of the most sensitive products that can be exported to the UK. This includes on beef and pork.

    Conclusion and next steps

    Following signature, the Government will now take the necessary steps to ratify the agreement. The Secretary of State will write to the Trade and Agriculture Commission to commission its advice on the agreement.

    The Government have now published the accession protocol and related market access schedules, as well as relevant side letters, an impact assessment and a draft explanatory memorandum. With the publication of the accession protocol, the agreement text has now been presented to Parliament, but the Government will not commence the pre-ratification scrutiny process under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 for a period of at least three months. This will ensure there is appropriate time for the relevant Select Committees to consider the agreement in advance. Legislation necessary to implement the agreement will be brought forward, and duly scrutinised by Parliament, when parliamentary time allows.

    Joining CPTPP marks a key step in the development of the UK’s independent trade policy. It will deepen our relations with a strategically vital region and offer exciting new opportunities for British businesses and consumers.

  • Penny Mordaunt – 2023 Statement on the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and Laura Cox

    Penny Mordaunt – 2023 Statement on the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and Laura Cox

    The statement made by Penny Mordaunt, the Leader of the House of Commons, in the House on 17 July 2023.

    I beg to move,

    That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that His Majesty will appoint Dame Laura Cox to the office of ordinary member of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority with effect from 1 August 2023 for the period ending on 31 July 2028.

    The Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has produced a report—its first report of 2023—in relation to the motion. I have no doubt that Members will have studied that report closely and will know of Dame Laura’s background. I note that the recruitment panel considered Dame Laura an eminently appointable candidate.

    IPSA is quite rightly independent of Parliament and Government, but as all Members will know and understand, it has an incredibly important role in regulating and administering the business costs of hon. Members and deciding their pay and pensions. I hope that the House will support this appointment and wish Dame Laura well in this important role, and I commend the motion to the House.

  • Stephen Kinnock – 2023 Speech on the Illegal Migration Bill

    Stephen Kinnock – 2023 Speech on the Illegal Migration Bill

    The speech made by Stephen Kinnock, the Labour MP for Aberavon, in the House of Commons on 17 July 2023.

    On Tuesday, I described the way in which this Government have

    “taken a sledgehammer to our asylum system”.—[Official Report, 11 July 2023; Vol. 736, c. 218.]

    I outlined the massive and far-reaching costs and consequences of 13 years of Tory incompetence and indifference. I described this bigger backlog Bill as a “shambolic farce” that will only compound the chaos that Ministers have created. I urged the Government to accept the amendments proposed by the other place and to adopt Labour’s pragmatic, realistic and workable five-point plan to stop the boats and fix our broken asylum system.

    I set out how the Bill’s unworkability centres on the fact that it orders the Home Secretary to detain asylum seekers where there is nowhere to detain them. It prevents her from processing and returning failed asylum seekers across the channel to their country of origin, instead forcing her to return them to a third country such as Rwanda. However, Rwanda can take only 0.3% of those who came here on small boats last year. The Rwanda plan is neither credible nor workable, because the tiny risk of being sent to Kigali will not deter those who have already risked life and limb to make dangerous journeys across the continent.

    Yet here we are again today, responding to the realisation that, in their typically arrogant and tin-eared fashion, Ministers are once again refusing to listen. They are once again closing their eyes and ears to the reality of what is happening around them and choosing to carry on driving the car straight into a brick wall. But we on the Labour Benches refuse to give up. We shall continue in our attempts to persuade the Government to come to their senses. I shall seek to do that today by setting out why the arguments that the Immigration Minister has made against the amendments from the other place are both fundamentally flawed and dangerously counterproductive.

    Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)

    If the principle of removal to a safe third country is not an adequate deterrent, why was that principle the flagship of the last Labour Government’s immigration policy in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002? What was the point of section 94—its most controversial provision—if it was not about the swift removal of failed asylum seekers?

    Stephen Kinnock

    The crucial point is that for a deterrent to be effective, it has to be credible. A deterrent based on a 0.3% risk of being sent to Rwanda is completely and utterly incredible. The only deterrent that works is a comprehensive returns deal with mainland Europe. If someone knows that, were they to come here on a small boat, they would be sent back to mainland Europe, they will not come and they will not pay €5,000 to the people smuggler. The only way to get that deal is to have a sensible and pragmatic negotiation with the European Union based on quid pro quo—give and take. That is the fundamental reality of the situation in which we find ourselves, but unfortunately those on the Conservative Benches keep closing their ears to that reality.

    Laura Farris

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again—I will not take long. Does he not accept that, in reality, there is no such thing as a returns deal with mainland Europe? The reason the Dublin convention was such a disaster and never resulted in us removing more people than we took in was that it was so incredibly difficult to get European countries to accept removals and make that happen. It is just an unworkable suggestion.

    Stephen Kinnock

    Surely the hon. Lady sees the direct connection between us crashing out of the Dublin regulation because of the utterly botched Brexit of the Government she speaks for, and the number of small boat crossings starting to skyrocket. There is a direct correlation between crashing out of the Dublin regulation and skyrocketing small boat crossings. I hope that she will look at the data and realise the truth of the matter.

    Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)

    We have had this conversation before. The hon. Gentleman knows that when we were covered by Dublin—before we came out of it through Brexit—there were more than 8,000 requests for people to be deported back to an EU country, and only 108 of those requests, or about 1.5%, were actually granted. So there was not some golden era when it worked under Dublin; it was not working then, and it certainly will not work now.

    Stephen Kinnock

    The hon. Gentleman is right, we have had this conversation before, and he consistently refuses to listen to the fact that the Dublin regulation acted as a deterrent, so the numbers that he talks about were small. The number of small boat crossings was small when we were part of the Dublin regulation. We left the Dublin regulation, and now the number is large—it is not rocket science. There is a clear connection, a correlation, a causal link between the two.

    Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)

    The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. The reason the small boats problem has grown exponentially is that we dealt with the lorries issue. We closed the loophole when it came to lorries and the channel tunnel in particular, and that is why people are now resorting to small boats. It is nothing to do with Dublin. Surely those are the facts.

    Stephen Kinnock

    I simply say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that last year, we had 45,000 people coming on small boats and goodness knows how many on lorries—of course, those coming by clandestine means in the back of a lorry are far more difficult to detect than those coming on small boats, so the small boats crisis is, by definition, far more visible. It is true that that juxtaposition and the new arrangements have had a positive impact, but we still do not know how many are coming. I have been to camps in Calais and spoken to many who are planning to come on lorries rather than on small boats—not least because it is a far cheaper alternative. The reality is that a very large number of people are coming to our country through irregular means, but it is also clear that that number was significantly smaller when we were part of the Dublin regulation. That is because it was a comprehensive deterrent, compared with the utterly insignificant power of the Rwanda programme as a deterrent.

    Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)

    Will the hon. Member give way?

    Stephen Kinnock

    I will make a little bit of progress, and then I will allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene.

    I will turn first to Lords amendment 1B, intended to ensure that the Bill is consistent with international law, which Labour fully supports. Last week, the Minister deemed the same amendment unnecessary, because:

    “It goes without saying that the Government obey our international obligations, as we do with all pieces of legislation.”—[Official Report, 11 July 2023; Vol. 736, c. 198.]

    That comment was typical of the Minister’s approach. He is constantly trying to calm his colleagues’ nerves by fobbing them off with that sort of soothing statement, but we all know that he does not really believe a word of it. He knows that the very first page of the Bill states that the Government are unable to confirm that it complies with our legal obligations. He also knows that the Government are more than happy to break international law—just look at how they played fast and loose with the Northern Ireland protocol. If the Minister really thinks that we will simply take his deeply misleading words at face value and trust him and his colleagues to uphold our legal obligations, he has another think coming.

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)

    Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman did not mean to use the phrase “deeply misleading”. Knowing that he is an honourable gentleman, I suggest that he might want to use a slightly different phrase—“inadvertently misleading”, perhaps?

    Stephen Kinnock

    I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would “misleadingly soothing” work?

    Madam Deputy Speaker

    It will do for the time being.

    Stephen Kinnock

    As always, Madam Deputy Speaker, you are very gracious.

    The late, great Denis Healey famously advised that when you are in a hole, you should stop digging. [Hon. Members: “Quite right!”] Hang on. He would certainly have approved of Lords amendment 9B, which goes right to the heart of the fundamental unworkability of this bigger backlog Bill and seeks to prevent it from becoming the indefinite limbo Bill.

    Let us be clear: the current state of affairs represents both a mental health crisis for asylum seekers and a financial crisis for British taxpayers, who are already shouldering an asylum bill that is seven times higher than it was in 2010, at £3.6 billion a year. Indeed, the mid-range estimate for the hotels bill alone is greater than the latest round of levelling-up funding, and three times higher than the entire budget for tackling homelessness in this country. The only people who benefit from the inadmissibility provisions in the Bill are the people smugglers and human traffickers, who are laughing all the way to the bank. As such, it is essential that this House votes in favour of Lord German’s amendment, which seeks to ensure that inadmissibility can be applied to an asylum seeker only for a period of six months if they have not been removed to another country.

    A major concern throughout the passage of the Bill has been its utter disregard for the mental wellbeing of unaccompanied children. Many of those children will have had to see their loved ones suffer unspeakable acts of violence, yet despite the Government’s concession, the Bill will mean that when they arrive in the UK, they will be detained like criminals for up to eight days before they can apply for bail. We are clear that that is unacceptable, and are in no doubt that the Government’s amendment is yet another example of their liking for performative cruelty. We urge the Minister to accept the compromise of 72 hours contained in Lords amendments 36C and 36D.

    Alexander Stafford

    Will the hon. Member give way?

    Stephen Kinnock

    Sorry, I meant to let the hon. Gentleman in earlier.

    Alexander Stafford

    I thank the hon. Member for giving way. The best thing for any person’s mental health, especially children, is to not put them on a dangerous small boat across the channel. Does the hon. Member agree that the best thing for any child’s mental health is for them to not make that dangerous journey, but instead use one of the many legal and safe routes? This Bill and its clauses will make sure that fewer children make that awful journey.

    Stephen Kinnock

    The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the only people who benefit from the small boat crossings are the people smugglers and human traffickers—that has to be brought to an end. Where we fundamentally disagree is about the means. Labour believes that the deterrence of the Rwanda scheme simply will not work, for the reasons I have already set out, and that the solution lies far more in pragmatism and quiet diplomacy, working with international partners to get the returns deal that I talked about, than in all the performative cruelty that is at the heart of this Bill.

    Likewise, the Government should show some humility and support Lords amendment 33B, which states that accompanied children should be liable for detention only for up to 96 hours. This is a fair and reasonable compromise, given that Lords amendment 33 initially set the limit at 72 hours.

    While we are on the subject of children, how utterly astonishing and deeply depressing it was to hear the Minister standing at the Dispatch Box last week and justifying the erasure of Disney cartoons on the basis of their not being age-appropriate. Quite apart from the fact that his nasty, bullying, performative cruelty will have absolutely no effect whatsoever in stopping the boats, it has since emerged that more than 9,000 of the children who passed through that building in the year to March 2023 were under the age of 14. Given that a significant proportion of those 9,000 would have been younger still, I just wonder whether the Minister would like to take this opportunity to withdraw his comments about the age-appropriateness of those cartoons.

    Robert Jenrick indicated dissent.

    Stephen Kinnock

    No. Well, there we have it. This whole sorry episode really was a new low for this Minister and for the shameful, callous Government he represents.

    We also support Lords amendment 23B, a compromise in lieu of Lords amendment 23, which seeks to protect LGBT asylum seekers from being removed to a country that persecutes them for their sexuality or gender. The Minister last week claimed that that was unnecessary because there is an appeals process, but why on earth would he put asylum seekers and the British taxpayer through an expensive and time-consuming appeals process when he could just rule out this scenario from the outset?

    Nothing illustrates more clearly the indifference of this Government towards the most vulnerable people in society than their treatment of women being trafficked into our country for prostitution. I have already described this Bill as a traffickers charter—a gift to the slave drivers and the pimps—because it makes it harder for victims to come forward and therefore more difficult for the police to prosecute criminals. The Immigration Minister last week repeated the false claim that the UK Statistics Authority recently rebuked him for. It was his second rebuke this year by our national statistics watchdog for inaccurate claims made to this House. Thankfully, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who is not in her place today, called him out on it. She correctly pointed out that the proportion of small boats migrants claiming to be victims of modern slavery stands at just 7%. This was a profoundly embarrassing moment for the Minister, but I do hope he will now swallow his pride, listen to the wise counsel he is receiving from those on the Benches behind him and accept Lords amendment 56B in the name of Lord Randall.

    Robert Jenrick

    The hon. Member is right that I misspoke when citing those statistics on an earlier occasion, but in fact the statistics were worse than I said to the House. What I said was that, of foreign national offenders who are in the detained estate on the eve of their departure, over 70% made use of modern slavery legislation to put in a last-minute claim and delay their removal. However, it was not just FNOs; it was also small boat arrivals. So the point I was making was even more pertinent, and it is one that he should try to answer. What would he do to stop 70% of people in the detained estate, who we are trying to get out of the country, putting in a frivolous claim at the last minute?

    Stephen Kinnock

    Sir Robert Chote of the UK Statistics Authority said clearly that the figure is only 20%, not 70%. I do not know whether we want to invite Sir Robert to clarify those points himself, but the rebuke the Minister received from the UK Statistics Authority was pretty clear.

    It is vitally important that the Minister’s position on this is not used as the basis for a policy that could cause profound harm to vulnerable women while feeding criminality in the United Kingdom. I therefore urge him to reflect on what he is trying to achieve, the proportionality of his actions and the unintended consequences he may be facilitating. Lords amendment 56B states that victims of trafficking who have been unlawfully exploited in the UK should be protected from the automatic duty to remove and should continue to be able to access the support currently available to them, but only for the duration of the statutory recovery period, which was set by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 at 30 days.

    On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead argued that the Bill as drafted would

    “drive a coach and horses through the Modern Slavery Act, denying support to those who have been exploited and enslaved and, in doing so, making it much harder to catch and stop the traffickers and slave drivers.”—[Official Report, 28 March 2023; Vol. 730, c. 886.]

    We strongly agree with her concerns and wholeheartedly support Lords amendment 56B, which I remind the Minister goes no further than to maintain the status quo of the basic protections and support currently available to all victims of trafficking and exportation.

    I will now turn to the amendments that are underpinned by Labour’s five-point plan: end the dangerous small-boat crossings, defeat the criminal gangs, clear the backlog, end extortionate hotel use, and fix the asylum system that the Conservatives have spent 13 years destroying.

    Sir Edward Leigh

    Presumably it is the hon. Gentleman’s most devout hope if he takes power in 15 months’ time, but charming as he is, it is a mystery to me why he thinks when he asks President Macron to take these people back, he will do so. Of course he won’t! Nothing will happen. May I gently suggest that, if there is a Labour Government, they will quietly adopt this Bill once it is an Act?

    Stephen Kinnock

    I will come to that in my comments, but as the right hon. Gentleman will know, any negotiation requires give and take, quid pro quo. As I said in response to one of his hon. Friends, to get that deal with the European Union we of course have to do our bit and take our fair share, and that will be the negotiation that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) will be leading on when he becomes Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, following the next general election.

    We are determined that the National Crime Agency will be strengthened so that it can tackle the criminal gangs upstream. Too much focus by this Government has been on slashing tents and puncturing dinghies along the French coastline, whereas Labour has set out its plan for an elite unit in the NCA to work directly with Europol and Interpol. The latest amendment from Lord Coaker, Lords amendment 103B, attempts to strengthen the NCA’s authority, and we support it without reservation. We are also clear that there is a direct link between gaining the returns agreement that we desperately need with the EU, and creating controlled and managed pathways to asylum, which would allow genuine refugees to reach the UK safely, particularly if they have family here. Conservative Members refuse to make that connection, but we know it is in the interests of the EU and France to strike a returns deal with the UK, and dissuade the tens of thousands of asylum seekers who are flowing through Europe and ending up on the beaches of Calais. The EU and its member states will never do a deal with the UK unless it is based on a give-and-take arrangement, whereby every country involved does its bit and shares responsibility.

    Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)

    On his visit to Calais, the hon. Gentleman will have met people who were trying to get to this country. Did it strike him how utterly desperate many of them were, and how they are fleeing from wars in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq and other places? Does he think that we have to address the wider issue of the reasons why people are fleeing and searching for asylum, not just in Europe but all over the world?

    Stephen Kinnock

    I thank the right hon. Gentleman. As he rightly points out, the key point is that these people are already fleeing desperate situations and have risked life and limb to get as far as they have. The idea that a 0.3% chance of being sent to Rwanda acts as a deterrent is clearly for the birds. In addition, he makes important points about the need for international co-operation, and finding solutions to these problems alongside our partners across the channel.

    Alexander Stafford

    The hon. Gentleman clearly thinks that the Rwanda plan will not work or be a deterrent, but why not give it a go? If he is so confident that it will not work, let it get through. It could have got through months ago, and he could have come back to the House and proved us wrong. At the moment it comes across as if the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party are scared that it might work, and that is the problem.

    Stephen Kinnock

    I suppose the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck, and the Rwanda plan is so clearly and utterly misconceived, misconstrued and counter-productive. Labour Members like to vote for things that are actually going to work, which is why we simply cannot support that hare-brained scheme.

    With the Minister last week reiterating a deadline of December 2024—18 months from now—to lay out what safe and legal routes might look like, and by stating that those routes will not deal with the challenges facing Europe directly, he appears to be reducing the chances of getting the returns deal with the EU that we so urgently need. Let us not forget that this Government sent Britain tumbling out of the Dublin regulations during their botched Brexit negotiations, and it is no surprise that small boat crossings have skyrocketed since then. This Government must prioritise getting that returns deal. We therefore support Lords amendment 102B, which demands that the Government get on with setting out what these safe and legal routes might look like, not only to provide controlled and capped pathways to sanctuary for genuine refugees, but to break that deadlock in the negotiations with the EU over returns.

    I note that the Minister loves to trot out his lines about the Ukraine, Hong Kong and Afghan resettlement schemes, but he neglects to mention that there are now thousands of homeless Ukrainian families, and we have the travesty of thousands of loyal-to-Britain Afghans who are set to be thrown on the streets at the end of August. More than 2,000 Afghans are stuck in Pakistan with the right to come here, but they are not being allowed to do so. He simply must fix those resettlement schemes.

    Robert Jenrick

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because this is an important point that all Members of the House should appreciate. The No. 1 reason why we are struggling to bring to the UK those people in Pakistan—we would like to bring them here, because we have a moral and historical obligation to them—is that illegal immigrants on small boats have taken all the capacity of local authorities to house them. If the hon. Gentleman truly wanted to support those people, he would back this Bill, he would stop the boats, and then he would help us to bring those much-needed people into the United Kingdom.

    Stephen Kinnock

    It beggars belief that the Immigration Minister says that, when he speaks for a party that has allowed our backlog to get to 180,000, costing £7 million a day in hotels. He should just get the processing system sorted out. The Conservatives downgraded the seniority of caseworkers and decision makers in 2013 and 2014. Surprise, surprise, productivity fell off a cliff, as did the quality of decisions. That is the fundamental problem, but we have to recognise that these Afghans have stood shoulder to shoulder with our defence, diplomacy and development effort in Afghanistan, and we owe them a debt of honour and gratitude.

    Robert Jenrick

    Does the hon. Gentleman know how many asylum seekers are housed in his constituency, or would he like me to tell him? It is none. There are no asylum seekers accommodated in Aberavon. If he would like us to bring in more people, whether on safe and legal routes, or on schemes such as the Afghan relocations and assistance policy, he should get on the phone to his local council and the Welsh Government this afternoon.

    Stephen Kinnock

    The Minister is talking absolute nonsense. I am proud of the fact we have many Syrians in our constituency. We have Ukrainians in our welcome centre. Discussions are ongoing between the Home Office and the Welsh Government. The incompetence of his Government means that they are not managing to house them. Wales is ready to have that dialogue with the Home Office.

    Rachael Maskell

    I find it a shocking admission from the Minister—we are fighting for the relatives of people in Afghanistan whose lives are at risk—that these Afghans are being blocked by him because he is not making available those safe routes to bring them to constituencies such as York, where we welcome refugees.

    Stephen Kinnock

    I completely agree with my hon. Friend. There are real concerns about the safety and security of those Afghans now in Pakistan. It is possible that they will be sent back. It is up to the Home Office to facilitate their transfer to the United Kingdom under ARAP and the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, but like so many things with this Home Office, it is just a catastrophic failure of management.

    In trotting out the lines about the schemes that I mentioned, the Minister conveniently ignores the fact that none of those schemes help those coming from other high grant-rate countries in the middle east and sub-Saharan Africa. Neither he nor the Home Secretary have been able to answer questions from their own Back Benchers on that precise point.

    The final point of our plan is to tackle migration flows close to the conflict zones where they arise through targeting our aid spending. That is a longer-term mission, but it is no less important than any of the other steps we need to take to meet these migration challenges. I therefore see no reason for the Government not to support Lords amendment 107B in the name of the Archbishop of Canterbury, which would instruct the Government to develop a 10-year plan to manage migration.

    I have lost count of the number of times we have come to the Chamber to debate the Government’s latest madcap Bill or hare-brained scheme. Not one of those Bills has helped to stop a single boat, and the Government have sent more Home Secretaries to Rwanda than they have asylum seekers. They are wasting their own time and the time of the House, and they really are trying the patience of the British people. It really is desperate stuff, and it has to stop.

    In stark contrast to the hopeless, aimless and utterly self-defeating thrashing around that has come to define the Government’s approach to the asylum crisis, Labour recognises that there is a way through: a route based on hard graft, common sense and quiet diplomacy. It comes in the form of the Labour party’s comprehensive plan, based on core principles, with a commitment to returning asylum processing to the well managed, efficient, smooth-running system we had prior to the catastrophic changes brought in by Conservative Ministers in 2013, which downgraded decision makers and caseworkers, leading to poorer results. With that, we have a commitment to go further in fast-tracking applications from low grant-rate countries so that we can return those with no right to be here, and fast-tracking applications from high grant-rate countries so that genuine refugees can get on with their lives and start contributing to our economy, enriching our society and culture. A third, key principle is the need for international co-operation, as I have set out.

    This is not rocket science; it is just sensible, pragmatic, serious governance. It is working in the United States, where the Biden Administration are winning the battle. They have introduced a combination of swift consequences for those who cross the border illegally; orderly paths and controls on which migrants can apply for asylum and where they do so; sensible, legal pathways for high grant-rate nations; and strong co-operation with Mexico. The result is that they are bringing numbers down significantly and quickly. The challenge is not over yet, and we would not see President Biden being foolish enough to go boasting at the border, but that shows that progress can be made.

    The Labour party is not interested in performative cruelty, chasing headlines or government by gimmick. We have a plan that will stop the boats, fix our broken asylum system and deliver for the British people. In contrast, the Conservative party has run out of ideas and run out of road. It should get out of the way so that we can get to work.

  • Keir Starmer – 2023 Speech at Unite Policy Conference

    Keir Starmer – 2023 Speech at Unite Policy Conference

    The speech made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, in Brighton on 13 July 2023.

    Thank you David and thank you conference.

    It’s a privilege to address you at such a pivotal moment for our country.

    And let me start by thanking the General Secretary and the Executive Council for inviting me here today, the first female General Secretary of Britain’s biggest private sector union.

    And look, when she speaks to me, when she speaks to the Government, when she speaks to anyone, Sharon never stops fighting for this union, and that’s right.

    She has a mandate to fight for your jobs, pay and conditions and she’s made it very clear, that’s what she’ll judge me on, as well.

    That’s how it should be, I respect that, and I respect the relationship that Sharon and I have.

    We have different roles, different jobs, different ways of fighting for working people – party and movement.

    But our shared interest is, as it has always been, the economic security of working people.

    That’s our purpose and that’s my political project. To square up to an increasingly volatile world.

    A world where revolutions in climate change, in technology, in the materials we need for prosperity, all ask new questions and through that – to steer my party and this country towards that purpose – a Britain once again, built for and by the solidarity of working people.

    It won’t be easy. It won’t be quick. And, just as in 1945, there’s no magic wand that can wave away the need for economic stability – the rock that any successful Labour project must be built upon. But mark my words, there is an opportunity here, a chance to tilt the direction of this country – firmly and decisively – towards working people.

    Win the battle of ideas, not just next year, but for a generation.

    But look there is one key word there, “win”.

    That’s my job and I make no apologies for pursuing it. Labour’s Clause One is my ultimate duty. We’re nothing without power.

    Look at our country now. The stagnation, the economic pain, the cuts to public services, attacks on working people and this movement – legislation that hits to the very core of trade unions and their ability to organise, your democratic rights.

    Hard-won, over centuries, by the great men and women of this movement, including the important TUC victory in court this morning.

    So I can stand here today and say, we will repeal that legislation.

    And mark my words, we will.

    But that, that is the prize of power. In this era, when the winds of change are blowing so fiercely as they were in the early 1980s, then make no mistake that prize is priceless.

    So we will stay focused. We will stay disciplined and keep our eyes fixed firmly on the future. We will replace the chaos of Tory drift with the stability of Labour leadership.

    The tools remain the same.

    One – dynamic government – unafraid to intervene on behalf of businesses and working people.

    Two – a strong trade union movement that can reshape the rules which govern working peoples’ lives.

    But also – three, higher economic growth – don’t forget that. Don’t surrender it to right-wing politics.

    Yes, we must always be clear who growth serves, but we must never accept that there is a trade-off between growth and security at work.

    Between higher productivity and respect for working people.

    That’s a Tory trap and let me tell you, the British people get it.

    The Tory idea that it’s only the privileged few that can grow our economy, people aren’t going to take that anymore. They know – it’s the cleaners, carers, technicians, warehouse workers, scientists, builders, ambulance drivers, engineers, farm workers, retail and hospitality.

    Who is growth for, where does it come from?

    The answer, the only answer, the Labour answer, is working people.

    Seriously, you can’t grow the economy sustainably with low wages.

    You can’t do it with insecure jobs and bad work and you can’t do it with a stand-aside state that doesn’t fight for the future.

    The evidence is all around us, the wreckage of the past thirteen years. A period where the average British family is now £8,800 poorer than in other advanced economies.

    Economies like France, Germany and the Netherlands. Economies that have better collective bargaining, have stronger workers’ rights, and have a fairer share of wealth across their country.

    It’s common sense.

    Nobody does their best work if they’re wracked with fear about the future, if their contract gives them no protection to stand up for their rights at work, or if there’s no safety net to support them in times of sickness and poor health.

    That’s why we’ll ban zero hour contracts.

    Strengthen parental rights and rights to flexible working.

    Better protections for pregnant women.

    Close the ethnicity pay gaps.

    Fundamental rights from day one.

    Statutory sick pay for all.

    No more one-side flexibility.

    No more fire and rehire.

    And look – this new deal for working people, our deal. It’s not just about individual rights.

    It’s not just about the fairer rules that a Labour government can set.

    No, the history of this country – of democracy around the world – shows you also need strong trade unions.

    That the prosperity of working people, the economic security, the foundation for their aspirations, and their hopes of getting on – all this goes hand-in-hand with worker power.

    So I will never be ashamed to say it. I say it to businesses, I say it to the country: to make work pay, this country needs strong trade unions.

    Now, I know that news about the pay review body recommendations will be in the minds of many public sector workers today, but those recommendations will of course be subject to negotiations and I don’t think it’s helpful for me to wade into that.

    But I will say this, if the next Labour Government cannot break the suffocating hold low wages have on our economy and years of wage stagnation, then yes, we will have failed.

    That’s also why our policy of fair pay agreements for every adult social care worker is so important.

    Fair pay agreements across the country. A country that doesn’t respect care work, can’t call itself a caring country.

    But I also say again: be clear about the argument, be clear about the evidence.

    Our new deal is for security, yes. For social justice, absolutely. But also for growth – higher living standards for all.

    For years, working people have been told that good pay, fair work and dignity are barriers to growth.

    No more.

    A reformed labour market where we finally make work pay – that is part of my mission on growth.

    A new way forward for this country and an argument that is winning.

    Trust me – the dismissal of industrial strategy, the contempt for dynamic government, the complacency that says only the market decides which industries matter for this country – those ideas are finished.

    They can’t cope with a world where other countries simply don’t behave in the way market dogma expects.

    The world now knows that global supply chains can be weaponised by tyrants, that a sticking plaster approach to public investment will only cost us more in the long-run, and that for working class communities – trickle-down economics means power trickles-up and jobs trickle-out.

    The Tories are burying their heads to this – of course they are. They’re standing still, stubbornly clinging on to a mind-set of the past, as the opportunities of the future – the jobs of the future – slip through our fingers.

    But look, most businesses get this. They can see the country before them as well as we can, and they see we need a new approach.

    They’re ready for partnership – and my Labour Party will welcome them. It’s a partnership where, as you would expect, priorities will be contested, debated, negotiated but also where we can come together: worker and business; politics and people; four nations in a union, all committed to that higher purpose, to serve the working people of this country and build, together, a new architecture that delivers on their interests in three distinct ways.

    One – with new investments like in clean British energy, including carbon capture.

    This isn’t just about economic security now, it isn’t just about energy security, this is the security of the future.

    Cheaper bills, not just now, but for the long-term, new jobs tomorrow and protection for jobs today.

    I went to the steelworks in Scunthorpe a few weeks ago, spoke to the workforce there – your reps – some of them here today.

    And they told me, in no uncertain terms, they want clean energy. They’ve got the customers, they just need the technology and a government that stands alongside them.

    That’s why we need number two – new institutions.

    A new Industrial Council – a permanent part of the landscape, an embodiment of that partnership.

    And alongside it – Great British Energy, a new publicly owned company that will turn British power into British jobs and a new National Wealth Fund that can crowd-in private investment alongside the public.

    Make sure that the projects that are critical for jobs and growth: the battery giga-factories; the ports that can finally handle large off-shore wind parts; and yes – the clean steel plants, get the money and stability they need.

    And look – where we invest, we will give the British people a stake.

    You know, some people talk about deindustrialisation as if it’s in the past – but it’s still happening before our eyes.

    Look at British Volt. Look at what is happening to our automotive industry.

    We’ve got to get on this pitch, get round the table on rules of origin, invest in the giga-factories we need and pull together a clear plan for the future of steel in this country – now.

    I don’t suppose they’re listening, but if they are, I can tell the Government exactly what the main points should be.

    It’s British energy, British jobs, British investment and a return for the British people.

    And number three – alongside new investment and new institutions, we also need new incentives, because be under no illusions, the race is on for the jobs of the future and the pace is unforgiving.

    America is leading the way with the Inflation Reduction Act, but our other competitors are gearing up, as well.

    So – with all the investments we plan to make in clean energy, we will set new rules.

    We will make sure our plans deliver jobs as well as investment: good jobs, well-paid jobs, union jobs, we will make sure of that.

    But we will also create a new incentive, a direct response to the quickening pace the world is setting on the jobs of the future, a British Jobs Bonus that will take the procurement tools at our disposal, and use them to make sure our investments in clean energy also create new jobs and supply chains in our industrial heartlands.

    This can be a new foundation for British prosperity – that’s our commitment – a down-payment on our shared purpose.

    The first steps on the road to jobs, to security, to good work, dignity and through that – to hope.

    We have to win, of course we do, but I know that my job is also to restore hope in Britain, if it once again is able to serve working people.

    That’s what we’re fighting for.

    A Britain with its future back.

    United, moving forward, standing tall, that delivers security, backs aspiration, higher living standards for all and commits, truly commits, to the interests of working people.

    Thank you.

  • Keir Starmer – 2023 Speech on Breaking down Barriers

    Keir Starmer – 2023 Speech on Breaking down Barriers

    The speech made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, in Gillingham, Kent on 6 July 2023.

    Thank you Bridget, and thanks for all your hard work on this mission. And thank you to everyone here at Mid Kent College for hosting us, for being here. It’s fantastic to be here to talk about a mission that so many of you have dedicated your lives to.

    Now, one thing I learnt from my teachers is that persuasive argument depends on clear objectives. So let me say that this speech should demonstrate two things.

    One, that Labour has a plan to tear down the barriers to opportunity that hold this country and its people back. And two, that I see this mission as our core purpose and my personal cause.

    To fight – at every stage, for every child – the pernicious idea that background equals destiny.

    That your circumstances, who you are, where you come from, who you know, might shape your life more than your talent, your effort and your enterprise.

    Breaking that link, that’s what Labour is for. I’ve always felt that and it runs very deep for me.

    I grew up in small town in Southern England. We had a semi-detached house, pebble-dashed – as I think I may have mentioned previously – with Mum, Dad, four kids, four dogs, and a blue Ford Cortina outside.

    This was the 1970s, and I don’t plead poverty, not at all. This is just how life was, but I do look back now and think I’ve been on a journey.

    To go from an ordinary working class background to leading the Crown Prosecution Service and now the Labour Party, I feel both privileged and proud.

    But over the last year or so, I’ve been thinking more and more about it. Because there is more than a touch of the 1970s about our economic situation right now.

    Like then, we face a cost-of-living crisis that gnaws away at our ability to move forward. So I think about what it felt like to get on during that period, and about the fact I did see plenty of people from my background go on to achieve their aspirations.

    I don’t think I’m being too sentimental to say I grew up surrounded by hope. We took it for granted.

    A sense that enterprise, hard-work and imagination would be rewarded in Britain, that – even in tough times – this would see us through, and that things would get better for families like ours.

    My parents didn’t just believe this – it comforted them. It’s what everyone wants for their family.

    More than a British value. It’s a story we still tell our children: “work hard and you can achieve anything. Work hard and you will get a fair chance in Britain”.

    The question is, do we still believe it? Do you look around our country today and believe – with the certainty you deserve – that Britain will be better for you or your children? Because you should.

    That’s something we should be able to trust, all of us. An unwritten contract, a bond of hope between citizen and country, generation and generation.

    So I promise you this: whatever the obstacles to opportunity, wherever the barriers to hope, my Labour Government will tear them down.

    And as with all our missions, we’ll do so spurred on by clear and measurable goals that we will change Britain, break the link between where you start in life and where you end up.

    We can measure that. The earnings of our children should not be determined by those of their parents.

    And make no mistake, from where we are now – that’s an ambitious target, but it’s also urgent.

    This is the world of artificial intelligence, of technologies that stretch the boundaries of our imagination.

    We’ve got to open our minds to meet that, turn our gaze towards our children’s future, and we’ve got to make sure we’re preparing them for life and work in their Britain.

    As I said in Leith recently, the industries of tomorrow can come to our shores but the rest of the world is pushing forward as well. The race for the future is unforgiving, so we’ve got to move fast.

    We must unlock the potential that is in every community, grow the talents of every child.

    This means we’ve got to get to the bottom of a challenge with a long history, the roots of this are deep.

    In part, it’s about security, and especially the diminishing access to affordable homes. When I think back to the 1970s and to the cost-of-living crisis we faced then, that pebble-dashed semi my parents owned, that was my springboard. It was the secure foundation that gave us stability, as the world beyond our front door became more uncertain.

    It’s about community as well. For a long time now, too many people have had to leave theirs to find success, had to get out, to get on.

    When talented young people start to leave a town, it becomes hard to break free from that dynamic. It’s a vicious cycle, it leads to communities – far too many in this country – where the only jobs on offer are low paid and insecure.

    And insecurity is the enemy of opportunity. It places barriers, not just economic barriers, subtle barriers in the minds of working people, chips away at the stability of family life, the reservoirs of confidence that people from less privileged backgrounds need to get on.

    I’m sorry to say it – but that’s what this cost-of-living crisis is doing right now, what the Tory mortgage bombshell is doing, what the total collapse of house-building is doing.

    But look, there’s also something more pernicious here, a pervasive idea, a barrier in our collective mind that narrows our ambitions for working class children and says – sometimes with subtlety, sometimes to your face – this isn’t for you.

    Some people call it the “class ceiling” – and that’s a good name for it. Yes, economic insecurity, structural and racial injustice are part of it, of course they are, but it’s also about a fundamental lack of respect, a snobbery that too often extends into adulthood, raising its ugly head when it comes to inequalities at work. In pay, promotions, and opportunities.

    Take my dad. He was a tool-maker – and a good one – highly skilled, proud of his work. But back in the 1980s, the Tories made it quite clear people like him were not valued and that actually, they didn’t see the point of our country making things, that his skills were not part of their future. This hurt him.

    Whenever anyone asked that old question “what do you do for a living” – I could see him visibly pull away. He felt looked down upon, disrespected. It chipped away at his esteem.

    Now, I’m not going to pretend the Thatcher Government invented this kind of snobbery. In truth, it’s always been there, but what happened back then is that our economy fundamentally changed and the complacency – that we didn’t need to educate all our children because they could just leave school at 15 and get a good job in their community – that was exposed, almost overnight.

    And this cultural bruise, it’s still with us – and we have to confront it. The last Labour Government had the best record on education in the history of our country – without question.

    We expanded higher education, fundamentally raised school standards, gave millions of working class children – children of all backgrounds – the tools to thrive in a new knowledge economy.

    But honestly? We didn’t tackle this, didn’t eradicate the snobbery that looks down on vocational education, didn’t drain the well of disrespect that this creates, and that cost us.

    Because when economic success began to cluster in fewer communities, when the penalties for not going to university became more severe, that left us without a response, chasing the future, unable to prepare all our children for life and work in their Britain.

    So these are the two fundamental questions we must now ask of our education system: are we keeping pace with the future, preparing all our children to face it?

    And – are we prepared to confront the toxic divides that maintain the class ceiling?”

    Hold them in your mind, because if they were a rumble of concern 13 years ago, they’re a deafening roar now.

    Rishi Sunak has given up on education reform. He’s not interested in our children’s future. If you think that’s unfair, then let me remind you what happened during the pandemic. When he, as Chancellor, cancelled the national recovery plan, after our children – and working class children especially – gave up so much for the greater good.

    So – for his Tory Party to turn around afterwards and repay their sacrifice with nothing, to sit there twiddling their thumbs as teachers leave in their droves, school buildings start to crumble and absenteeism goes through the roof – that’s shameful.

    And this is what the Tories don’t get. Those two questions – remember them.

    “Can we prepare all our children for the future”?

    “Will we confront the divides that maintain the class ceiling”?

    They’re one and the same. I’m serious, the sheep and goats mentality that’s always been there in English education, the “academic for my kids; vocational for your kids” snobbery – has no place in modern society, no connection to the jobs of the future.

    No – for our children to succeed, they need a grounding in both. They need knowledge and skills, practical problem-solving and academic rigour, curiosity and a love of learning – that’s always been critical.

    But now, as the future rushes towards us, we also need a greater emphasis on creativity, on resilience, on emotional intelligence and the ability to adapt.

    Emphasis on all the attributes – to put it starkly – that make us human, that distinguish us from learning machines, make our communities and our lives so rich and rewarding.

    Honestly – we’ve just got to get this into our heads. It isn’t the case that the status quo only fails children outside the academic route, without modernising education, we’re also failing the children who do go down that route, preparing them all for a world that is receding into the past.

    So, just as I will bulldoze through planning laws to reignite the dream of home ownership, just as I will take the tough decisions necessary to win the race for the jobs of the future, rebuild the secure foundation opportunity depends upon: the safer streets; the cheaper clean electricity; the NHS fit for the future; and sustained growth in every community.

    So too will I introduce a curriculum fit for the digital age. So too will I fight for vocational training to be respected as much as a university education. So too will I drag our education system into the future. And shatter the class ceiling.

    So let me set out five areas where a reformed education system can be the game-changer. Five barriers that, taken together, we must tear down to prepare our children for the future.

    Barrier one, the insecurity that right now is destabilising family life. Education is part of our response, part of the strong foundation our children need to get on. Most of all in the early years which we know, from all the evidence, are so crucial to lifelong flourishing.

    Let me tell you about Osob, this is a constituent of mine from Camden. Osob starting attending a children’s centre when her son was 18 months old. At the time she was sleeping on her mum’s living room floor, suffering from depression and poverty.

    Now thanks to the work of that children’s centre – kept open by a Labour council – she’s managed to get on her feet, a flat of her own, tailored support for her son – now diagnosed with autism – on his language development, and a place for him at nursery.

    Osob is a parents champion in our community now – a life turned around. But now after the wreckage of the past 13 years, her story is becoming rarer and rarer.

    Now, I won’t mince my words – rebuilding these services is going to be difficult, but we can start that journey with a clear target: to boost child development with half a million more children hitting their early learning targets by 2030.

    And we will set out the first steps: thousands more health visitors in the community, expanding mental health access for new parents, and working with local authorities to boost capacity in our childcare system, raise standards in early education, stop the growing number of nurseries that right now are being forced to shut their doors for good.

    Barrier two – confidence.

    It sounds simple, but all the teachers here will know how important this is. In every class there are kids who have so much ability and talent, but who struggle to find within themselves the confidence to express it, the belief that their ideas matter, the voice to speak up.

    This is a subtle and significant layer of the class ceiling – don’t doubt that. The inability to speak fluently is one of the biggest barriers to opportunity, and it’s also a massive challenge left behind by the pandemic, particularly in early language development.

    Just think for a moment about how sad that is. Watching those first playful steps towards expression, that has to be one of the greatest joys of parenting – of life, even. But it must also be one of the greatest anxieties if your child is struggling.

    So let’s take this on. Let’s raise the importance of speaking skills – ‘oracy’ as academics call it.

    Because these skills are absolutely critical for our children’s future success.

    First and foremost – for academic attainment. Talking through your ideas before putting them on the page, improves writing.

    Structured classroom discussion – deepens thinking.

    But it’s not just a skill for learning, it’s also a skill for life. Not just for the workplace, also for working out who you are – for overcoming shyness or disaffection, anxiety or doubt – or even just for opening up more to our friends and family.

    We don’t do enough of that as a society, and I’m as guilty as anyone, but wouldn’t that be something precious for our children to aim for? I think so.

    Confident speaking gives you a steely core, and an inner belief to make your case in any environment. Whether that’s persuading your mum to buy some new trainers, a sceptical public to hear your argument, or even your daughter to let-go of her iPhone. It’s not fool-proof.

    But we do need to nurture it early, in the early years and in primary school. So today I can announce, we will give every primary school new funding – paid for by removing tax breaks on private schools – that will let them invest in world-class early language interventions, and help our children find their voice.

    Barrier three – an outdated curriculum.

    The mentality that cleaves to a comfort-zone. A conservatism that refuses to re-examine whether what we teach our children should keep pace with the world outside.

    I say, in no uncertain terms, it should, because the race is on.

    All around the world, the best in class are rethinking their curricula, and every one of them is putting greater creativity front and centre, including countries like Estonia and Singapore.

    So today we start to catch-up.

    We will update the ‘progress eight’ performance measure, and we will use it to get children studying a creative arts subject, or sport, until they are 16.

    But we will also go further. We will weave oracy through a new national curriculum that finally closes the gap between learning and life, academic and practical, vocational skills, school and work. A curriculum that will finally crack the code on digital skills too. We’ve got to address this.

    The old way – learning out of date IT, on 20 year old computers – doesn’t work.

    But neither does the new fashion, that every kid should be a coder, when artificial intelligence will blow that future away.

    The basic truth is this: to prepare our children for their future, we’ve got to use every opportunity, in every classroom, to nurture digital skills.

    Ticking a “one subject, one lesson a week box” simply won’t work anymore, so the next Labour Government will review the national curriculum.

    And today we set out the principles of our review: how we must deliver high standards for every child, how we must crack the code on digital skills – starting that journey early, in primary school, and how we need every young person, whatever their background, to see themselves in the curriculum.

    With role models and stories that can inspire them to do great things.

    Look, I know people have been arguing about this for a long time. I salute those teachers who over the past few years, have taken their subject and developed a rich curriculum, of flowing knowledge and deep conceptual understanding.

    Let me be clear: Labour will build on that. But this debate about the relative importance of knowledge and skills, people outside the education world are baffled by it – and they’re right. Everyone with their feet on the ground in the real world knows you need both, and these old arguments, old practices, old divides – they’re holding our children back.

    Most of all, on barrier four, this country’s attitude towards vocational education. Make no mistake, this is one with the deepest roots and we can’t rip them all out by ourselves.

    This has to be a shared undertaking. It’s not just businesses, colleges and parents – it’s the whole of society. We’ve all been shaped by the class ceiling. We have to remove it, and there are steps we can take today.

    First – a practical goal that will drive us forward, to give more people than ever access to the best quality post-19 training.

    Next – a proper national skills plan, led by a new body, Skills England, that will work hand-in-glove with our industrial policy and make sure we can compete in the race for the jobs of the future.

    And finally – a new growth and skills levy that doubles-down on apprenticeships, high quality apprenticeships, and that also looks again at the full breadth of formal training available, identifies the best options and gives businesses greater flexibility to invest in them.

    Whether that’s the tech boot camps that can train AI experts in weeks, the technical courses that can prepare young people for the engineering jobs we need in clean energy, or the traineeships that can give kids a foot in the door in the first place.

    Finally five – the soft bigotry of low expectations. An old barrier, but one that always needs more work.

    Now, before anyone says it, I know that’s something Michael Gove said. I don’t agree with everything he did in education, clearly, but when he said that – it was an important strike against the class ceiling.

    An acknowledgement that school standards are the most fundamental frontline in the battle for more opportunity.

    And whatever else you thought about that period in education, the Tories simply don’t care anymore.

    They’re not interested in raising school standards. How can they be when the number of teachers leaving the profession is at record highs, and when in parts of our country, adverts for a maths or science teacher get no applicants.

    We’ve got to turn this around urgently. That’s why we’ll tackle the retention crisis by rewarding great new teachers who commit to a career in the classroom, why we’ll recruit more teachers in shortage subjects – over 6,500 more – and why to support high standards, we will reform Ofsted so that it works for parents and children once more.

    Safeguarding reviews should happen every year, and parents deserve a clearer picture on how their children are being educated.

    Not a one word judgment – a whole dashboard. This is the formula.

    Effective accountability, high quality teaching, a curriculum that prepares you for life and work. That’s what Labour will deliver – high standards for all of our children.

    S0, five barriers we can tear down, a new plan for a new future. The road to respect and shattering the class ceiling.

    You know, in Somers Town in my constituency – one of the poorest areas of London – kids can look out their window, down at Kings Cross and Granary Square, and see out there a glittering world of opportunity: construction everywhere, global technology firms, a whole new city being built just a mile away.

    But one that can feel so distant to them, almost another world.

    I want them to imagine themselves there and for that to feel natural. Whatever their race, whatever their background, to think they belong, that success belongs to them.

    That in this country your circumstances don’t hold you back, and that you don’t have to change who you are, just to get on.

    This isn’t a zero-sum game. If we grow the talents of every person in our country – that benefits everyone.

    Think about it. The sharp elbows, the ladder-pulling, the all-consuming fear of failure – it all springs from the same well as my dad’s feelings of disrespect.

    A rational response to the rungs of opportunity moving further and further apart, but an inequality that exhausts people and this country, and unravels the obligations we hold towards each other.

    This is what my political project – my mission – is about, because if we do shatter the class ceiling, that’s the prize.

    A nation once again, a community.

    A country where we share a stake in every child, not just our own.

    A Britain with its future back, united, moving forward, standing tall.

    That delivers security, backs aspiration, opportunity for all, and believes – truly believes – that the future will be better for its children.

    Thank you very much.

  • Michael Gove – 2023 Speech on the Long Term Plan for Housing

    Michael Gove – 2023 Speech on the Long Term Plan for Housing

    The speech made by Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on 24 July 2023.

    Introduction

    We shape buildings, Winston Churchill argued, and then they shape us.

    The quality of the homes that we live in, the physical nature of our neighbourhoods, the design of our communities, determines so much. Our health, our happiness, our prosperity, our productivity – all depend on where we live.

    That is why housing policy – the building of new homes, the stewardship of existing properties, the planning of our towns, the fundamental landscape of our lives – requires long-term thinking. And a long-term plan.

    In the months that I have been in this role we have been developing, and implementing, just such a plan.

    Today I want to outline the ambitions that plan embodies. And the critical next steps that we need to take, over the years to come, to build a better Britain.

    A Britain with many more homes – an assured path to home ownership – and homes in the right places.

    Our long-term plan has 10 principles.

    The regeneration and renaissance of the hearts of 20 of our most important towns and cities.

    Supercharging Europe’s science capital.

    Building beautiful – and making architecture great again.

    Building great public services into the heart of every community.

    Communities taking back control of their future.

    Greener homes, greener landscapes and green belt protection.

    A new deal for tenants and landlords.

    Ensuring that every home is safe, decent and warm.

    Liberating leaseholders.

    And extending ownership to a new generation.

    Our long-term plan for housing comes at a critical moment for the housing market.

    We have a record of delivery.

    We have built more homes over our time in office than Labour did under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

    In this Parliament we have delivered the highest number of new homes in a year for 3 decades, and we’ve ensured the highest number of first time buyers in 2 decades. And we will meet our manifesto target of delivering 1 million new homes in this Parliament.

    Not only that but our £11.5 billion Affordable Homes Programme is delivering well over a hundred thousand affordable homes – and we are scaling up to deliver tens of thousands of new homes specifically for social rent.

    But we know that there are immediate challenges to future growth. Across the developed world, there are economic pressures.

    And there is therefore a need for radical action to unlock the supply of new homes.

    In every western country inflation is a barrier to building.

    Inflation has pushed up the price of materials, it has required interest rates to rise, it has squeezed access to credit and, with tight labour markets across the West, construction has everywhere become more difficult. But construction is more necessary than ever.

    So tackling inflation is critical to the implementation of our plan.

    The steps the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have taken to control public spending and borrowing, and our broader fiscal and monetary strategy, are working. Inflation is coming down.

    But we need to maintain that discipline.

    And underpinning our long-term plan for economic recovery is a long-term plan for housing.

    Regeneration of 20 places

    And the first, and most important, component of that plan is our programme of urban regeneration and a new inner city renaissance.

    Renaissance – because we want to ensure our cities have all the ingredients for success that we identified in our Levelling-Up White Paper last year as the Medici model.

    Beautiful homes, flourishing public spaces, cultural jewels, safe and orderly streets, space for trees and nature, centres of educational excellence, dynamic new businesses and excellent public services.

    In our White Paper we committed to the regeneration of 20 places across England as the core of our long-term plan for housing. And today I want to say more about how we are implementing our ambitions.

    We are unequivocally, unapologetically and intensively concentrating our biggest efforts in the hearts of our cities. Because that is the right thing to do economically, environmentally and culturally.

    As my colleague Neil O’Brien argued in his landmark study for the think tank Onward on housing – Green, Pleasant and Affordable – cities are where the demand for housing is greatest. It is better for the environment, the economy, for productivity and well-being if we use all of the levers that we have to promote urban regeneration – rather than swallowing up virgin land.

    That is why we will enable brownfield development rather than green belt erosion, sustainable growth rather than suburban sprawl.

    So the economic and environmental imperatives all point towards a move away from a land-hungry destruction of natural habitats in favour of a much more efficient regeneration of our cities.

    And in the UK we have been markedly inefficient in this regard. Inefficient in how we use land.

    In recent years the rates of housebuilding in rural areas have been greater than in urban areas. And in our cities, especially those outside London, the population densities are much lower than in comparable competitor Western nations.

    We occupy more land with fewer people.

    That approach has not only been inefficient in planning terms – it’s cost us in productivity.

    Failing to densify our inner cities means lower growth – with a 10% increase in our cities’ population potentially unlocking a £20 billion increase in UK GDP.

    Failing to densify means longer commutes, a longer wait for a plumber or ambulance, and more vehicle journeys leading to congestion and pollution. At present, only 40% of people living in our great cities can get into the city centre in 30 minutes by public transport, compared to over two thirds of the population in comparable European cities.

    And we would not only be more productive, we would have an enhanced quality of life. People living and working in close proximity to one another is a key feature of the most creative, productive and attractive cities in the world and in particular a feature of the most attractive parts of those cities.

    The heart of Gaudi’s Barcelona, the Haussmann-designed centre of Paris, the Nash terraces of Regent’s Park, the apartment blocks of Pimlico, Marylebone and Knightsbridge, Edinburgh’s New Town, the Upper West side of Manhattan or the centres of Boston or Austin, Texas – all are districts where what economists call the agglomeration effect – the mixing of talent and opportunity which sparks innovation and growth – is marked.

    Densification of our inner cities would not just enhance economic efficiency and free up leisure time – it would also help with climate change. Denser cities on the American eastern seaboard emit 50% less carbon than the suburban and exurban areas near them.

    That’s why we have been developing and implementing policies explicitly designed to support urban regeneration.

    We have given the metro mayors more powers, and resource, to build homes in our cities. We’ve allocated an extra £250 million to the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and to the West Midlands.

    And we have shifted government funding to support housing delivery already – the money needed to assemble and then to remediate the land on which the private sector can then build – and this week a further £1 billion will be launched to make brownfield land fit for development in our cities and towns, including landmark investments in Greater Manchester and the West Midlands.

    In addition the new Infrastructure Levy which we are legislating for in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill will further incentivise that brownfield development.

    Developers aiming to build on greenfield sites will have to pay more – to provide for the new affordable housing and the infrastructure necessary in areas where there just aren’t the roads, GP surgeries, the schools and shops already in place.

    By contrast, in urban areas where the infrastructure already exists – and indeed in London, where school rolls are falling in the heart of the city – densification and growth can ensure existing public services thrive and remain sustainable.

    And to make it cheaper for development to deliver more affordable housing, more schools and hospitals – when it’s right for the community – our Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill will eliminate the “hope value” that landowners and property speculators try to extract from any sale.

    And we are already supporting gentle densification of existing areas of housing through our proposals for ‘street votes’ – where local communities can collectively decide to extend their homes to capture more value and to create more space for new householders or bigger families.

    We are also consulting on new and expanded Permitted Development Rights to maximise the potential of existing buildings for new homes.

    And as I look forward to publishing the updated National Planning Policy Framework a little bit later this year, we are looking at how we can support more development on small sites –

    To support more upward construction with existing beautiful street design.

    And we want to see agreed development and plans go ahead on locally agreed sites.

    We are then also tackling – at source – some of the reasons that have held back investment in the flats and the apartment blocks that help urban regeneration and densification.

    In the aftermath of the Grenfell fire, the market for many properties in our cities froze because of the fire-safety issues which had gone unaddressed for years. That meant that householders were in the terrible position where they could not sell their homes until they had a commitment that remediation would be undertaken.

    We took decisive steps to unfreeze the market, to protect leaseholders, to get developers to pay for that remediation and to prompt lenders to start offering mortgages on those properties once more.

    And today we are taking further steps by opening our new Cladding Safety Scheme – and also providing much-desired clarity to builders that 18m will be the threshold that we will introduce for new buildings requiring second staircases.

    And of course there will be transitional arrangements in place to make sure that there is no disruption to housing supply.

    All of these building safety measures have got a vital sector of our urban housing market moving again – and that lays the ground for the further expansion we now need.

    Because we know that there have, recently, been successful examples of the sort of urban regeneration that I’ve been envisaging. The wonderful King’s Cross redevelopment in London where we are today, the transformation of central Manchester, the riverside development in Newcastle.

    But as I’ve explained, we must now go much further.

    While some local leaders have set the pace in building homes in urban areas – with Andy Street in the West Midlands exceeding the numbers assessed as necessary for his authority – delivery elsewhere is behind where we need to be.

    London has a particularly poor record. The London Plan identified capacity for around 52,000 new homes annually – but in recent years London has been building as few as 30,000 homes a year.

    The mayor’s failure on housing, like his failure on crime and his failure on transport, undermines the vitality and attractiveness of our capital.

    And that holds back the whole country. I support the mayoral model. But I also will not hesitate to act in the national interest when politicians fail.

    The number of homes we need in London is only likely to rise beyond the 52,000 there is already provision for in the plan – but these homes are not being delivered. And the failure to turbocharge the redevelopment of inner city London is putting further pressure on the suburbs. If just 5% of the capital’s built-up area had the density of Maida Vale, it could host an additional 1.2 million people without the need to expand outwards.

    That is why we now need in London to emulate the ambitious approach that Margaret Thatcher and Michael Heseltine took to London Docklands.

    We are planning to intervene, using all the arms of government, to assemble land, provide infrastructure, set design principles, masterplan over many square miles and bring in the most ambitious players in the private sector, to transform landscapes which are ripe for renewal.

    Our ambition in London is a Docklands 2.0 – an eastward extension along the Thames of the original Heseltine vision. Taking in the regeneration of Charlton Riverside and Thamesmead in the south, and the area around Beckton and Silvertown to the north, tens of thousands of new homes can be created. Beautiful, well-connected homes and new landscaped parkland are integral to our vision – all sympathetic to London’s best traditions.

    We will look at how we can ensure better transport connections from east to west, to crowd in local and private investment, and we will build on the best evidence on how and where to invest ourselves in the future.

    Making sure we unlock all the potential of London’s urban centre – while also preserving the precious low-rise and richly green character of its suburbs such as Barnet and Bromley – is critical to the nation’s future success.

    And because it is a mission of national importance, I want to work with the Mayor to ensure we have a London Plan – a housing and development blueprint for the capital – worthy of the task.

    We can do it together. The Dockland 2.0 sites we have identified – and of course the new homes and investment we will also bring to Old Oak Common – are in line with the GLA’s own ambitions. But we owe it to Londoners, and to the nation’s economic well-being, to get this right. To regenerate inner and East London, while protecting the character of family life in the suburbs and our green spaces. Which is why I reserve the right to step in to reshape the London Plan if necessary and consider every tool in our armoury – including development corporations.

    And London will of course also see the benefits of this government’s decision to allow the Affordable Homes Programme to be directed towards regeneration for the first time – with up to £1 billion available in London alone – as part of a transformative reform that will change how we level up communities across the country.

    Because while London is the world’s most attractive capital for new investment, and a national asset beyond price, the country will only succeed if our other cities also secure the investment needed to raise their productivity faster. That is why, in our programme of 20 city-centre renewals, the Midlands, and particularly the North of England, are our future focus.

    In Leeds we will – over the next decade – bring comprehensive regeneration to the city centre, working with the local authority to build new homes in areas such as the South Bank, the Innovation Arc and Mabgate.

    We will work with the Department for Transport to unlock wider development on the land which is currently being safeguarded for transport projects – and we will also progress work on a mass transit system, providing better links within the city, and between Leeds, Bradford, and indeed Kirklees, through our £96 billion Integrated Rail Plan.

    And we will continue to support the rapid regeneration of Manchester with £150 million to unlock brownfield land, and a trailblazing £400 million devolved housing investment. We also have a new partnership with Great British Railways that will turbocharge travel on the newly integrated Bee Network, rolling out in full by 2030. We want to provide the modern homes and the rapid transport system that Manchester needs.

    It’s not just in Leeds and Manchester. In Sheffield and Wolverhampton we are already active, with £160 million of investment unlocking homes and wider regeneration – including the City Learning Quarter in Wolverhampton, where I will be later today and Castlegate in Sheffield.

    In the months ahead we will be working with other great cities to ensure we have the development vehicles and the ambition necessary for further regeneration.

    And in each case we want to use the planning and tax levers provided by our new Investment Zones to help drive activity, and we will work with the metro mayors to align the new housing we envisage with the wider economic development that they are helping to drive.

    And we will also ensure that new homes are built in line with the best urbanist principles of gentle densification. That means new urban quarters of terraced houses and thoughtful apartment blocks – the Haussmannian-style transformation of urban space.

    And this programme will make vividly real the vision in our Levelling Up White Paper – ensuring that cities outside London which are rich in talent but do not enjoy the same level of productivity as cities in other jurisdictions get the rich mix of financial, human, cultural and social capital which will drive growth.

    And it’s not just Manchester and Leeds, Sheffield and Wolverhampton, and existing great cities where we see opportunities opening in the North. Barrow in Cumbria is the home of engineering excellence, the site of significant new investment over the next four decades, and of course it will be building the submarines of the future through the historic AUKUS deal.

    We want Barrow to be a new powerhouse for the North – extending beyond its current boundaries with thousands of new homes and space for new businesses to benefit from the scientific and technical expertise already clustered there. The Cabinet Secretary will be in Barrow later this week, with an elite civil service team, to meet with local leaders and the superb local MP Simon Fell, to scope out the room for significant further expansion and investment.

    Because making the most of our science strengths is vital to Britain’s future. And of course the establishment of the new Department of Science, Innovation and Technology under Michelle Donelan, the new AI task force under Ian Hogarth, and the amazing life science breakthroughs that enabled the Vaccine Taskforce’s work during Covid – all of these are examples of how we lead the world in science, and all are essential to our future prosperity and well-being.

    Supercharging Europe’s science capital

    And we know that we have wonderful sites of scientific innovation across the country – in the West Midlands, in Liverpool, and in the North East – but of course nowhere is more central to our scientific leadership than Cambridge.

    Cambridge has been one of the intellectual centres of the world for eight centuries – the home of Newton, Widdowson, Rutherford, Crick, Watson, Franklin, Venki Ramakrishnan and Richard Henderson – the birthplace of generations of innovation. But Cambridge’s future potential has been circumscribed by a lack of new space for lab capacity and research activity. And also by the constraints on new housing which have priced new graduates out of the market and have also made attracting and retaining talent harder.

    While Cambridge’s growth has been held back, its rivals abroad have benefited. In 2021, Boston had 6 million square feet of lab space under development; in an average year, Cambridge and Oxford together managed just 300,000 square.

    In Cambridge today, you have to wait almost a year for the next available lab space: that is no way to incubate the dynamic technological innovators that we sorely need.

    So this government will now start to write the next, expansive, chapter in Cambridge’s story of scientific endeavour.

    We are going to develop a vision for Cambridge, a vision that will involve growing beautiful integrated neighbourhoods and healthy communities while supercharging innovation and protecting green spaces.

    I am delighted today to be able to appoint Peter Freeman – the Chair of Homes England and one of the country’s foremost delivery experts when it comes to new development – to lead this effort; under a Cambridge Delivery Group, backed by £5 million, to start this scoping work.

    In concert with national and local partners, Peter will be charged with crafting the detailed vision for Cambridge’s future.

    What it means for housing and for businesses – including those technology and life sciences firms.

    What it means for transport, critically what it means for water supply and for public services.

    And just as importantly what a new vision can offer for healthy living, for green spaces and for cultural institutions.

    I have asked Peter to advise me on what the right long-term delivery vehicle needs to look like as well, because I do not underestimate the scale of the task, and just as the Olympics succeeded thanks to the right leadership and structure, so too will delivery of this vision require the expertise, focus and momentum of a dedicated, freestanding organisation.

    One that can develop the masterplan, enforce high quality design standards, acquire land, approve planning and work with developers.

    It will be for Peter and his new team to take forward the vision for Cambridge, but I want to take a moment to paint a picture of the kind of evolution that we want to see in the city by 2040 – so that the scale of our intent is clear.

    First, imagine a major new quarter for the city, built in a way that is in-keeping with the beauty of the historic centre.

    One shaped by the principles of high-quality design, urban beauty and human-scale streetscapes – emulating the scale and quality of neighbourhoods such as Clifton in Bristol or Marylebone in London, and with a high proportion of affordable homes and other properties set aside for key workers and young academics.

    Then connect that new quarter to the rest of the city with a sustainable transport network that sees current congestion becoming a thing of the past, drawing on Cambridge’s existing strengths in promoting cycling and walking – allowing for faster and easier travel in and around the city, including to science and business parks.

    Then think about expanding existing commercial infrastructure so that the constraints that businesses currently face, including on lab capacity, are removed – supporting more jobs and more growth.

    Next: turn your mind’s eye to how the environment might look in which those living and working in Cambridge will spend their evenings and weekends – adding to Parker’s Piece, Jesus Green and the Botanic Garden a substantial new green space that rivals not just the Royal Parks of the capital but the best urban parks in the world.

    And in the wider region, we could support some of our most remarkable nature reserves, such as Wicken Fen, with what could become a new National Park. Finally, we can envisage new centres for culture – perhaps a natural history museum, or a genuinely world-class concert hall – proudly taking their place alongside some of Cambridge’s existing institutions such as the Fitzwilliam and the Scott Polar.

    That is the kind of Cambridge that I want to see come 2040. And under Peter’s leadership, the hard work to deliver against that ambition starts today.

    Building beautiful and making architecture great again

    But to achieve success in this vision of Cambridge – like everywhere else – we need homes that are accepted and wanted by their local communities. And core to that acceptance must be a new philosophy of community-led housing that is beautifully designed to match local character, has local input, and respects the local environment.

    That’s why we have established a powerful new body to drive building beautifully. The Office for Place – which will find its home in Stoke-on-Trent. This new body, led by the brilliant urbanist Nick Boys-Smith, will ensure that new places are created in accordance with the very best design principles. That we are place making and not just house building.

    For the first time, communities will be enabled to demand from developers what they find beautiful, and banish what they find ugly.

    And we will support the thoughtful stewardship and repurposing of existing buildings.

    As my department has demonstrated, it is both right environmentally and aesthetically to protect and preserve existing beautiful buildings and make it easier for their use to change and evolve.

    Communities taking back control of their future

    And we know that communities will welcome development when it is beautiful. I saw for myself in Poundbury the support that exists for the right sort of major development if it is properly master-planned and well-designed.

    And that is why I am so glad that the spirit of Poundbury is animating new garden towns and villages across the country – like the outstanding Welborne development in Hampshire, championed by my colleague Suella Braverman.

    Six thousand new homes delivered to a design blueprint shaped by the landscape architect Kim Wilkie and the aesthetic genius Ben Pentreath. It provides a model for the future. More garden towns and villages built on similar lines, master-planned to be communities that anyone would aspire to live in – that is critical to our future.

    And we will go further to empower communities to build beautiful in the places that they already love – supporting people to build homes themselves by scaling up the role of community land trusts and also making more resource available to support custom and self-built homes.

    We will also support communities to ensure that the beautiful new homes they want are delivered rapidly. Through the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, we are simplifying and speeding up the process of updating local plans.

    But of course in order to do that, that means investing in quality planning. So today we are more than doubling our funding to bust planning backlogs with over £24 million of additional investment.

    And also we are creating a new “supersquad” of expert planners, backed by £13 million of new funding, to unblock major housing and infrastructure developments. This team will first land in Cambridge to turbocharge development that contributes to our vision for the city, but it will also look at sites across our 8 Investment Zones in England, to help provide high quality homes which complement the high-quality jobs that are being created.

    Ensuring every home is safe, decent, and warm

    As you can see, we believe in speed and scale. Speed and scale matter. But our pursuit of quantity must not involve, as I have always stressed, any compromise on quality.

    Too often in the past we have met housing targets but in the wrong way – ignoring the need for beautiful and well-constructed homes.

    Many of the homes that were built at speed, and on a significant scale in the fifties and sixties were brutalist blocks or soulless estates. Many are now unsafe, poorly insulated and prone to damp and mould, and are also alienating environments rather than loved neighbourhoods.

    We must learn the lessons from past failures as we build for the future. We must ensure that new builds are of the highest quality and also that renovation work proceeds apace in our existing housing stock, so that everyone can have a safe, decent and warm home that meets their family’s needs.

    So for new build homes we will roll out new design codes, and later this year we will consult on a universal Future Homes Standard – to deliver comfortable homes built to be zero-carbon: warm in the winter and cool in the summer.

    And we will continue of course to improve life for those in existing homes. We have reduced the number of non-decent homes by 2.5 million since 2010. But we must go further.

    We will now more rigorously hold social landlords to account for providing quality homes for their tenants and renovating the stock they have. Because the tragic death of Awaab Ishak demonstrated that we need to act and we in central government we need to regulate more robustly.

    Just last week our Social Housing Regulation Bill became law – and that requires social landlords to respond to serious hazards like damp and mould within new strict time limits. And of course we will penalise those social landlords who fail to make homes decent – with new unlimited fines for failing landlords, and the removal of house-building subsidies where social landlords are not keeping their existing stock in good repair.

    And of course we will update the Decent Homes Standard and apply it to private rented homes for the first time – tackling the fifth of homes which still do not meet basic standards of inhabitability.

    A new deal for landlords and tenants

    Through all of these interventions we recognise that a house is not just an asset to be traded but a home to be loved. Countries around the world have always recognised that thoughtful, focused, regulation is vital to ensure that everyone involved in the housing market benefits.

    That is why of course we have introduced legislation in the private rented sector to deliver a fairer deal for both landlords and tenants.

    For tenants, we will implement our manifesto commitment to end ‘no fault’ evictions – protecting those currently afraid to ask their landlord for basic repairs, for fear of losing their home.

    And we will also help landlords deal with tenants who abuse their position – expanding landlords’ ability to evict anti-social tenants, or those who wilfully refuse to pay rent. And a new Ombudsman will provide quicker, cheaper redress, alongside reformed court processes which ensure landlords can get their properties back quickly when they need them back.

    Liberating leaseholders

    Action again to get our housing market to work.

    But making the housing market work better will also require fundamental reforms to leasehold law. We want to ensure that those who have paid for their home by acquiring a leasehold can finally truly own their own home by becoming free of an outdated feudal regime which has been holding them back.

    So we will continue action on exploitative ground rents, expand leaseholder’ ability to enfranchise – and to take back control from distant freeholders we will reduce punitive legal service charges, reduce insurance costs – and improve transparency.

    All in new legislation to be in the King’s Speech.

    Extending ownership to a new generation

    And of course this new legislation, these changes to leasehold law will mean that true home ownership is extended to millions more. But it is also critical to our long-term housing plan to get many more people on a sustainable path to home ownership.

    Most recently of course we have backed existing buyers facing hardship. The Chancellor has worked with lenders to help owners facing temporary difficulties to stay in their homes, and he has extended mortgage interest support to help those who are most vulnerable and who need a helping hand.

    But through backing British first-time buyers across the country through the tax and planning system we are also planning to extend the ladder of opportunity to many more – by prioritising first time buyers for homes over those with multiple properties, over those seeking to convert family homes into holiday lets, and over speculative buyers who have been seeking to invest only to inflate property prices.

    We have helped already over three quarters of a million people to buy their first home since 2010 – through programmes including Help to Buy, Right to Buy and shared ownership and we will go further later this year.

    Conclusion

    All of the steps we are taking – on ownership, on leasehold reform, on decency, on beauty, on simplifying planning procedures, expanding planning capacity, and on regenerating and reviving our inner cities – are the components of a long term plan for safe, decent, warm and beautiful homes for all.

    In the weeks and months ahead we will be saying more, and delivering more.

    The comprehensive, and coherent, nature of our plan demonstrates a seriousness of intent in improving the supply of new homes – rather than an approach that returns to the failures of the past to encourage urban sprawl, to ignore environmental imperatives, to omit the need for new infrastructure, to avoid the rigorous work of thoughtful master-planning, to neglect the need for urban regeneration, to duck the leadership required to think big, and to forget the importance of beauty and community.

    These are policies that would encourage resistance to development, not incentivise it. They would weaken communities not strengthen them, and they would see the biggest economic prizes elude our grasp.

    That is why we are committed to a better way.

    Acting at every level – with a vision of national renewal – hundreds of thousands of new homes built from Barrow in Furness to Barking Riverside, Wolverhampton to West Yorkshire. Beautiful new neighbourhoods and thoughtfully-landscaped new quarters in our historic cities – proving to the world that the energy and ambition of our Victorian ancestors has now been superseded by a matchless modern spirit of endeavour.

    This is a plan to build a better Britain – and It is a plan we are determined to deliver.

    Thank you.