Category: Speeches

Chris Stephens – 2023 Speech on Building Safety

The speech made by Chris Stephens, the SNP spokesperson on Levelling Up, in the House of Commons on 14 March 2023.

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I have a couple of quick questions.

On the developers who have not signed, the Secretary of State is obviously talking about the situation in England. Does he intend to share that information with the devolved Administrations? Those companies may have interests in devolved areas.

What happens if a non-compliant building has defects that extend beyond fire performance matters? Further defects are often discovered only after the opening works have commenced and cladding has been removed—I am thinking particularly of acoustic and thermal non-compliance. Could the Secretary of State tell us which independent bodies will manage the work to identify such defects, and how will developers be held to account for them?

Finally, what is the Secretary of State’s plan when owners and/or developers of non-compliant buildings cannot be traced?

Michael Gove

We will certainly share information with the devolved Administrations. As I mentioned briefly, we want to work with the Welsh Government, and indeed with the Scottish Government, to ensure that everyone is in a safe building and that businesses that are not operating in accordance with their responsibilities cannot wriggle out of their responsibilities. I look forward to working with the new First Minister—whoever she is—in due course to achieve progress.

On non-compliant buildings, the hon. Gentleman is certainly right that, as we replace cladding, new faults are sometimes identified. Developers have a responsibility to deal with those if they were the original responsible actor. That brings me to his third question. Where it is not a developer who takes responsibility but a freeholder, our recovery strategy unit is working to identify all the freeholders responsible. It is only in the very last instance that leaseholders may be liable for costs, and even then, they are firmly capped under legislation that this House passed.

March 15, 2023
Lisa Nandy – 2023 Speech on Building Safety

The speech made by Lisa Nandy, the Shadow Levelling Up Secretary, in the House of Commons on 14 March 2023.

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. We want to see every developer sign the remediation contract and urgently move to fix the unsafe buildings and free leaseholders who have been trapped for too long. Throughout this process, we have supported steps to speed that up and provide support to leaseholders. In that spirit, I welcome the statement and I do not doubt the Secretary of State’s sincerity in dealing with this problem, nor the deeply held convictions on all sides of the House.

However, I fear that the collective will of this House to see that done is being damaged by what appears to be an increasingly dysfunctional approach from the Government. Last week the Secretary of State was on social media threatening major house builders with a nationwide ban if they failed to sign up to the contract within a matter of days. He is 100% right to say the developers should pay, but it undermines his case when his own Department had not even managed to send the contract to them.

That really matters, because until builders sign, leaseholder groups remain in limbo. They need more than tough talk; they need clarity and competence. For the 10 developers who signed the initial pledge but not the contract, which as the Secretary of State rightly says includes Galliard Homes, Ballymore and—shamefully, given its role in Grenfell—Rydon Homes, will he be using the powers at his disposal to designate the developers who cannot be granted planning permission? Crucially, can he tell us from when?

The Secretary of State is right to say this is a step forward, but there are many more steps to go. Leaseholders need not another deadline, but real action and hope on the horizon. Can he spell out exactly what this action will mean for developments that have already begun under those developers and that have already received planning consent? Will he be using the powers at his disposal to issue remediation orders to force them to fix their buildings in the meantime? Can he also tell us whether the 39 who have signed the contract will be obliged to fix all critical fire safety defects, as defined by the Building Safety Act 2022, and what will happen if they do not? There is a gap between the contract and the Act, and we need to make sure that the cost of that gap is not borne by leaseholders.

The contract, the Secretary of State says, will cover over 1,000 buildings. Given that his own Department has estimated that there are between 6,000 and 9,000 unsafe 11 to 18-metre buildings alone, it clearly only deals with a fraction of the problem. How does he plan to assist leaseholders in buildings with defects that are outside the scope of the contract in getting them remediated? Remediation remains painfully slow—something he knows and has rightly acknowledged—but the contract stipulates only that repairs and remediation must be carried out

“as soon as reasonably practicable”.

Again, I push him for hard timescales and deadlines.

On the issue of who is responsible, may I again ask the Secretary of State why British house builders are being asked to pay, while foreign developers and the companies that made the materials used in affected buildings are still not? That is a basic question of justice.

We should all be moving heaven and earth to right this wrong, yet the House of Lords Committee that scrutinised amendments to the Building Safety (Leaseholder Protections) (England) Regulations 2022 found that that instrument contained an unintentional drafting error that excluded parent and sister companies from being considered as associated with the landlord. That meant that landlords could avoid the £2 million net worth threshold above which they must not pass on to leaseholders costs for repairing historical defects. Despite that error as a result of a mistake at the Secretary of State’s Department, no compensation has been forthcoming for leaseholders who have had to pay remediation costs, and no plans are in place to alert those leaseholders to the possibility of applying to a tribunal to seek cost recovery. What is the Department doing to identify affected leaseholders and inform them that an appeal route to recover costs is available to them?

Finally, I say to the Secretary of State that there is, I think, cross-party agreement now that this is not the only issue for leaseholders. Leasehold is a feudal system that has no place in a modern society. It is time that we ended—abolished—the scandal of leasehold once and for all, and ended the misery for the far too many people who are trapped in that feudal system. Labour appreciates what he has done to move this desperate situation forward, but it remains in his gift to fix it once and for all, and we would fail in our duty if we did not take every opportunity to urge him to do so.

Michael Gove

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the thoughtful and detailed way in which she has responded to the announcement, and for the support from her and colleagues across the House for the work that we have undertaken.

The hon. Lady asks about contracts and the speed with which they have been signed. Again, just to inform her and the House, we ensured that developers were given a copy of the contract on 30 January, when it was published. A final version was sent to developers with minor alterations on 21 February. The execution version of the contract depended on the developers themselves providing the Department with a list of affected buildings, so it was the work of developers, not of the Department, that led to the late signing of contracts, but I am grateful to all who have now signed.

The hon. Lady asks about the responsible actors scheme, when it will be implemented and the effect it will have. We will lay details of the responsible actors scheme next week. I want to allow some of the 11 who have not yet signed a little leeway to ensure that they live up to their responsibilities. The letters that I have written to the directors of the companies concerned will, I think, help to concentrate their minds to ensure that they have a chance to sign before we lay the responsible actors scheme details next week.

The hon. Lady asks if the powers in the 2022 Act will be used for those who will not have signed by that time. They absolutely will. She asks if we will fix all critical features. All life-critical features in medium and high-rise buildings will be addressed by developers. It is the case that with buildings under 11 metres, there are some fire safety issues, but we have to look at them case by case—some will be life-critical; some will not. Our cladding safety scheme, which addresses mid-rise buildings specifically—those between 11 and 18 metres—should, I hope, deal with the delay, which she rightly points out, in dealing with the fire safety issue for that crucial section of our housing sector.

The hon. Lady makes the point about foreign developers and the need to tackle them, and I quite agree with her. It is important that we use all the tools in our power, and we are exploring sanctions, criminal options and others. The one thing that I would say is that there is one jurisdiction—not a foreign jurisdiction but an adjacent one—where action has not been taken to deal with some of those responsible, and that, of course, is Wales. I ask her to work with me to ensure that the Welsh Labour Government take appropriate steps to deal with the situation in Wales. We stand ready to work with them and with all parties in that regard.

The hon. Lady also asks about the need to abolish the invidious and feudal system of leasehold. As someone who was born in Scotland—mercifully, a country free from that system—I can say only that this is one area where I hope that England at last catches up with one part of the United Kingdom that is, in that respect at least, more progressive.

March 15, 2023
Michael Gove – 2023 Statement on Building Safety

The statement made by Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, on 14 March 2023.

With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to update the House on the progress the Government have made in securing commitments from developers to remediate properties with building safety defects. Last year, the major house builders signed a pledge to fix all the medium or high-rise buildings that they had built or refurbished that were unsafe. The developers also promised to reimburse the taxpayer for work already undertaken at Government expense.

This Parliament has always been clear that those with ultimate responsibility for those buildings should bear the cost of remediation. Innocent leaseholders, who are neither responsible for safety defects nor equipped with the resources to fix the problem, should not be on the hook. Those who are responsible must pay. We have worked with developers to draw up a contract that gives direct effect to the pledge that they made. I was and remain grateful to those developers who have been so keen to live up to those obligations, and I am particularly grateful to Stewart Baseley of the Home Builders Federation for his skilful work in supporting the commitments made.

We published the legal contract on 30 January this year, and I gave an initial cohort of developers six weeks to confirm that they accepted the list of buildings for which they take responsibility and then to sign the contract. That deadline expired yesterday. I can confirm that 39 developers have signed the contract. We have published a list of those developers on gov.uk and hard copies of the list have been shared with the Vote Office. By signing the contracts, those developers have committed to fixing at least 1,100 buildings. They will invest more than £2 billion in that work—money saved for the taxpayer and invested in giving leaseholders a brighter future. I thank those developers for their hard work and co-operation in helping us to right the wrongs of the past. They are making significant financial commitments and I am grateful to them.

Leaseholders who have been waiting for work to be done to make their building safe will quite rightly want that work to start without delay. I know that those responsible developers who have signed the contract understand that expectation and will be in touch with leaseholders to set out the programme of expected works as soon as possible. I take the opportunity once again to apologise to those leaseholders and others who have waited so long for this work to be done. While there is still much to do, I hope today shows that their campaigning and that of so many hon. Members has not been in vain. While the overwhelming majority of major developers have signed, some regrettably have not. Parliament has made clear what that means, and so have I. Those companies will be out of the house building business in England entirely unless and until they change their course. Next week I will publish key features of our new responsible actors scheme, a means of ensuring that only those committed to building safety will be allowed to build in future.

Those developers who have been invited to sign the remediation contract, but who have not agreed to live up to their responsibilities, will not be eligible to join the responsible actors scheme. They will not be able to commence new developments in England or receive building control approval for work already under way. The House should note that the companies invited to sign the remediation contract who have not yet lived up to their responsibilities are Abbey Developments, Avant, Ballymore, Dandara, Emerson Group (Jones Homes), Galliard Homes, Inland Homes, Lendlease, London Square, Rydon Homes and Telford Homes.

While my officials remain in discussions with several who are making progress towards signing, I am concerned that some companies do not appreciate the grave nature of the responsibility they bear. I hope the directors of those firms will now exercise the same level of responsibility as the leaders of the building industry. The reluctance so far of some companies to sign up only underlines the need for the responsible actors scheme. It will ensure that there are consequences for developers who wish to be, at the moment, neither answerable nor accountable.

I will take other steps to ensure that companies live up to their responsibilities. I will be writing to major investors in those firms to explain the commercial implications of their directors’ current decisions. I will write to local authorities and building inspectors to explain that those developers’ projects may not be started or signed off. I will notify public bodies to be prepared to reopen tender award processes or rerun competitions. House buyers will want to know what that means for them, and we will formally set out the risks involved in purchasing homes from companies that have chosen to ignore the prospect of prohibitions.

I accept that the course of action that I have set out today is a significant intervention in the market for any Government, but the magnitude of the crisis that we faced and the depth of the suffering for all those affected clearly justified a radical approach. To their credit, the leaders of the development industry have willingly accepted the need for action. The vast majority of developers, as we should all appreciate, have made undertakings to the British public to put right the wrongs of the past. I am glad we can now work together with leaders in the industry on making sure that we deliver more safe, affordable, decent homes for the country.

As those developers have rightly argued, we in Government will also do more to pursue freeholders who have yet to live up to their responsibilities and construction product manufacturers, who also bear heavy responsibility for unsafe buildings. I will have more to say on that in the days and weeks to come. For the many thousands of people whose lives have been blighted by the failure properly to address building safety in the past, today’s update brings us one more step closer to at last resolving the issue, and for that reason I commend the statement to the House.

March 15, 2023
Lucy Powell – 2023 Speech on BBC and the Government Role in Impartiality

The speech made by Lucy Powell, the Shadow Culture Secretary, in the House of Commons on 14 March 2023.

This week’s whole sorry saga has raised serious questions about the Government’s role in upholding BBC impartiality. They have their fingerprints all over it. It is no wonder the Secretary of State has gone AWOL. First, it exposed how susceptible the BBC leadership is to Government pressure. After days of holding off, the BBC capitulated to a Tory cancel campaign, orchestrated by Ministers and Conservative Members with their friends in the press, and took Mr Lineker off air. These are the same voices, by the way, who claim to be the champions of free speech. What changed? Can the Minister tell us what contact she or any member of the Government had with any BBC executives or board members during this time? What does she think it looks like to the outside world when a much-loved sports presenter is taken off air for tweeting something that the Government do not like? It sounds more like Putin’s Russia to me.

Secondly, the Government have seriously damaged the BBC’s reputation by appointing a chair who is embroiled in the personal finances of the Prime Minister who gave him the job. No doubt the Minister will tell the House that that is under investigation, but it is an investigation that I instigated, not her. Her boss is the only person with any power to fire the BBC chair. Does she agree that he is now completely unable to carry out his role of providing confidence, credibility and independence? What is she doing to put this right?

Finally, the Government have pursued a deliberate strategy of undermining the BBC in order to keep it over a barrel to get themselves more favourable coverage. That was on full display overnight and I am sure it will be on full display here today. They threaten the licence fee, cut the BBC’s funding and undermine its credibility, all in pursuit of keeping their foot on the BBC’s throat. Will the Minister today finally call off the dogs behind her and stand up for the BBC’s independence from the Government?

Julia Lopez

I thank the hon. Lady for her spirited questions. I have watched her valiant attempts to kick this political football across the weekend and into this week. As Politico notes, we are now on Lineker day 8. She shouts about a political campaign to undermine the BBC that is akin to Putin’s Russia. She professes that she is the shield trying to protect the BBC from political interference, but all the while demanding that the PM gets more stuck in and telling the BBC that it is in the wrong. Forgive the bewildered licence fee payer for wondering why W1A and SW1A are still focusing on this individual case—one that the Government have consistently made clear is for the BBC to resolve internally, which we note it has now done.

As the hon. Lady knows full well from the Secretary of State’s reply to her correspondence over the weekend, our Department regularly engages with the BBC on a range of issues. At no time have any of us as Ministers sought to influence the BBC’s decision on this case in any way. The events of last week are rightly a matter for the corporation’s determination, and we as a Government do not seek to interfere. I have not added, and do not intend to add, my views on this specific case in response to this urgent question. In response to assertions yesterday that he bowed to political pressure from the Government, the BBC director-general, Tim Davie, said:

“That is a convenient narrative. It’s not true.”

The hon. Lady has sought to make the BBC chairman, Richard Sharp, the ultimate arbiter of such matters. In fact, the BBC charter is clear that it is the director- general, as editor-in-chief of the BBC, not the chairman of the board, who has final responsibility for individual decisions on the BBC’s editorial matters. On the issue of Mr Sharp, she will be aware that previous Governments have appointed people to senior positions in the BBC who have declared political activity. That is not prohibited under the rules. Once appointed, however, all board members are required to adhere to the code of conduct for public body board members. She will know that there are separate independent inquiries into Mr Sharp’s appointment process, and they must be left to conclude. When it comes to the timetable of that, the Government are also awaiting the outcome, and it is right for the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments and the investigator that it has appointed to determine the timetable for that process, not the Government.

The hon. Lady said that the Tory Government had long wanted to undermine the BBC. Not true. This is an organisation with a near-guaranteed licence fee income of £3.8 billion per annum until the next charter review in 2027. We back the BBC. We want it to survive as a thriving cultural, creative and democratic engine for many years to come. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office announced just this week that it is giving an extra £20 million to support the BBC World Service over two years, building on the additional support that we gave it for its Ukraine and Russia reporting operations.

The social compact that underpins the BBC’s funding arrangement depends fundamentally on the broadcaster maintaining the trust and confidence of viewers. The BBC’s currency in a world of misinformation and “shout the loudest” public discourse is truth, impartiality, accuracy and editorial integrity. It remains our priority as a Government to work with the regulator, Ofcom, to deliver an effective and proportionate framework that holds the BBC to account in its duties, including to impartiality. In May 2020 we launched the mid-term review, a key focus of which was impartiality, and we will assess Ofcom’s regulation in ensuring that the BBC meets the high standards that licence fee payers expect of it.

March 15, 2023
Julia Lopez – 2023 Statement on BBC and the Government Role in Impartiality

The statement made by Julia Lopez, the Minister of State at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on 14 March 2023.

The BBC is a world-class broadcaster, a creative engine and a cultural institution producing some of the best television and radio in the world. The impartiality of the BBC, as a publicly funded broadcaster, goes to the heart of the contract between the corporation and all the licence fee payers whom it serves. That is why the royal charter, which is the constitutional basis of the BBC—along with the underpinning framework agreement—enshrines the need for the BBC to be impartial in both its mission and its public purposes.

The BBC’s mission and public purposes, as set out in the charter, require it to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain, helping people to understand and engage with the world around them. The BBC’s first public purpose is to provide duly accurate and impartial news and information to help people to understand and engage with the world around them. It must also represent and serve the diverse communities of all the United Kingdom’s nations and regions. Both the charter and the framework agreement also explicitly guarantee the independence of the BBC. As such, the Government have no say in the BBC’s operational or editorial day-to-day decisions or staffing matters, including as they relate to the application of the requirement for impartiality.

The Government stand fully behind the requirements of the royal charter. We are clear that the BBC must truly reflect the nation and guard its impartiality in all of its output. The BBC’s director-general has repeatedly said that the corporation’s impartiality is a priority for him and must be protected. We welcome that the BBC accepted the findings and recommendations of the Serota review and is committed to reform through its 10-point impartiality and editorial standards action plan. It is Ofcom, established by the Government as the independent regulator of the BBC in 2017, that is responsible for holding broadcasters including the BBC to account on the impartiality of their news and current affairs coverage, against the broadcasting code under the Communications Act 2003.

In November last year, Ofcom published its annual review of the BBC. It found the BBC’s impartiality to be a key area of concern among audiences and one where they consistently rate BBC news less favourably for trust and accuracy. Ofcom stated that addressing audience perceptions on this matter is challenging, and the regulator recognises that this is a complex area. It will continue to monitor the performance of the BBC and has urged the BBC not to lose momentum in its efforts to address this issue. It remains a priority for the Government to ensure that Ofcom delivers an effective and proportionate regulatory framework that holds the BBC to account while maintaining its creative freedom and operational independence.

In May 2022, the Government launched the mid-term review. This is a new mechanism established by the current charter, focusing on the governance and regulatory arrangements for the BBC, given the reforms that were introduced when the charter was granted. One area of focus in the MTR is impartiality, and it will assess the efficacy of the governance mechanisms and Ofcom’s regulation in ensuring that the BBC meets the high standards that licence fee payers expect of it. It is also an important milestone in our road map for BBC reform, and work is well under way. The charter specifies that the review must take place between 2022 and 2024, and we will publish our findings and conclusions in due course.

The BBC is respected globally. It reaches hundreds of millions of people across the world every week. No other country in the world has anything quite like it. We have been clear that the BBC must place a firm emphasis on accuracy, impartiality and diversity of opinion. It can never be the BBC’s role to judge, or appear to judge, the diverse values of the people from across the country it serves. In the era of fake news, public service broadcasting and a free press have never been more important, and the BBC has been and should be a beacon that sets standards to which others can aspire.

March 15, 2023
Gavin Newlands – 2023 Speech on the Revised Timetable for HS2

The speech made by Gavin Newlands, the SNP MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, in the House of Commons on 14 March 2023.

I almost feel sorry for the Minister—almost. Mr Speaker, you will know that the north of England has seen cut after cut not just to HS2, but to any real modernisation of its rail network, with HS2 to Leeds cancelled and Northern Powerhouse Rail cut to the bone. We on the SNP Benches have supported HS2 because we believe increased sustainable connectivity is to all our benefit. However, what we have now is a gold-plated commuter line of just over 100 miles for two cities in the south of this island, costing nearly £50 billion, while the rest of the country is expected to fight for scraps from the table.

Combined with the announcement of slashed funding for active travel, which leaves England, outside of Greater London, receiving less than £1 per person per year—30 times less than Scotland—that makes it clear that the Government regard transport funding outside the M25 as nothing more than a rounding error. Thankfully, we in Scotland have a Parliament and a Government investing in our rail network, investing in active travel and taking transport decarbonisation seriously, so can the Minister tell me in which decade high-speed rail will reach the Scottish border?

Huw Merriman

The Government are plainly not committed only to delivery between London and Birmingham, because the entire plan is predicated on a two-year rephasing of the parts going up towards Crewe from the midlands. Beyond that, up to Manchester, the indicative timeline does not change at all. The Bill Select Committee remains in place, as does its brief, so that commitment is there. It is not a commitment just to the south-east, and the hon. Member has certainly got that wrong. The £96 billion integrated rail plan is based solely on the midlands and the north, and that shows this Government’s desire to level up across the midlands and the north, as opposed to spending money in the south-east.

Active travel is not part of this urgent question, but £3 billion will be spent by this Government on active travel during this Parliament. There are levelling-up fund bids that go toward active travel. We are absolutely passionate and committed to the delivery of active travel, and that will continue, as will our delivery of HS2.

March 15, 2023
Louise Haigh – 2023 Speech on the Revised Timetable for HS2

The speech made by Louise Haigh, the Shadow Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 14 March 2023.

Eighteen months ago, the Government slashed Northern Powerhouse Rail, binned HS2 to Leeds and sold out the north of England. Here we are again: huge changes affecting billions in investment and jobs announced at 5 pm on Thursday—minutes before the House rose.

We now know why the Secretary of State was desperate to dodge scrutiny: I have a leaked document written by his most senior officials that blows apart his claims and lays bare the consequences of the decisions he has hidden from. His chief justification for the delays to HS2 was to “balance the nation’s books”, but his Department admits what he will not—that the delays themselves will increase costs. It admits that they will cost jobs and that construction firms could go bust; it cannot rule out slashing high-speed trains that serve Stoke, Macclesfield and Stafford altogether; and it suggests that HS2 could terminate on the outskirts of London until 2041.

Is it not time that the Minister came clean that this absurd plan will hit jobs, hurt growth and cost taxpayers even more? As his own officials ask,

“you have already changed the design once, which wasted money. What will be different this time?”

Even the Government have lost faith in this Government, and little wonder. Is there anything more emblematic of this failed Government than their flagship levelling-up project that makes it neither to the north nor to central London? Last year they crashed the economy, and once again they are asking the country to pay the price. Does this announcement not prove once and for all that the Conservatives cannot fix the problem because the Conservatives are the problem.

Huw Merriman

I thank the hon. Lady, but we obviously do not comment on leaked documents, certainly not documents that I have not been given. I say to the hon. Lady that it is an entirely responsible Government approach to balance the commitments we make—as I have stated, the transport commitments that have been set out to the House total £40 billion—and, indeed, to reflect on how the delivery of HS2 had been designed. It is also well within a responsible Government’s remit to consider the public spending pressures that there are right now, due to the help that this Government have given to those facing increased energy costs and the continued costs from the pandemic, and therefore the impact on the amount of borrowing. Over £100 billion is required each year, or it was last year, to service the overdraft, which is greater than the amount we spend on defence. It would be entirely irresponsible for any Government to look at all of its portfolio without those figures in mind.

However, I am very proud of what we are doing on delivering HS2. The construction of the Curzon Street station in Birmingham, which remains, as I have stated, is expected to create 36,000 new jobs. On the hon. Lady’s point about not levelling up across the country, the redevelopment of Piccadilly station in Manchester is expected to create 13,000 new homes. In London, the regeneration of Old Oak Common will contribute £15 billion over the next 30 years. Those are figures to be proud of, and we will deliver them.

I found it very helpful, at the end of last week, to discuss this with stakeholders from across the country—businesses, regional organisations, council leaders and Mayors on the route—who were all very supportive about what the Government are doing. They also have to run budgets—unlike the Opposition—so they understood the pressures that the country faces, and were absolutely delighted that this project will continue to be built.

March 15, 2023
Huw Merriman – 2023 Statement on the Revised Timetable for HS2

The statement made by Huw Merriman, the Minister of State at the Department for Transport, in the House of Commons on 14 March 2023.

Although we notified the House first about Thursday’s announcement, I start by apologising for the timing of the written ministerial statement, which I accept was discourteous to Members and to you, Mr Speaker.

As part of the largest capital programme ever committed, the Transport Secretary last week confirmed more than £40 billion in transport investment over the next two financial years. This will enable the opening stage of HS2 to be delivered on schedule. By 2033, passengers and communities will benefit from high-speed rail services between new stations at Old Oak Common in London and Curzon Street in Birmingham, but the House will also be aware that we face significant economic headwinds. Record inflation caused by Putin’s illegal war and ongoing global supply chain issues have ramped up construction costs, making capital projects more difficult to deliver. It means we must make responsible decisions on which parts of our capital programme we can deliver within current budgets and timeframes.

While we remain committed fully to HS2, we will need to rephase the delivery options as part of the project due to inflationary pressures and the need to spread costs. Between Birmingham and Crewe, we expect to push back construction by two years, with an aim to deliver high-speed services as soon as possible after accounting for the delay in construction. We also remain committed to delivering HS2 services to Euston, but will take time to ensure an affordable and deliverable station design, which means delivering Euston alongside the high-speed infrastructure to Manchester. While HS2 Ltd and Network Rail continue work on developing HS2 east, we are also considering the most effective way to run HS2 trains to Leeds.

The Prime Minister promised to place trust and accountability at the heart of this Government. That means strengthening connectivity across the country while managing public finances effectively. It means never shirking the tough, but necessary decisions as we deliver on the people’s priorities to halve inflation, grow the economy and reduce debt.

Iain Stewart

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. As Chair of the Select Committee, we feel that there was not enough detail on a number of areas in Thursday’s statement, so I would be grateful if my hon. Friend gave further detail.

First, my hon. Friend rightly references inflationary cost pressures in construction, which are affecting all sorts of projects up and down the country, but the written ministerial statement also referenced other “increased project costs”. What are they? Is he satisfied that HS2 Ltd has a grip on its finances? Secondly, the statement said that Old Oak Common to Birmingham will be finished “as soon as possible”. What does that mean? Is there a delay to the planned opening date?

Thirdly, what is the reason for the delay to the Euston to Old Oak Common section? Is it purely down to costs or are there other reasons for a redesign? A lot of construction work is happening at Euston now, so should the redesign not have been identified earlier? Finally, when can we expect to see further detail on HS2 east, the integrated rail plan and the Leeds route options? The industry and the public require—nay, demand—certainty on this. Can we be assured that this is the last delay to the project?

Huw Merriman

I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Transport Committee for his questions. I will provide some answers, but there will no doubt be further detail to discuss as we go through the session.

On my hon. Friend’s question about the increased project costs, they chiefly relate to the opening section of the line in phase 1, which is the part that is under construction at the moment. We are spending about £600 million a month on phase 1 construction, which is at its peak. He rightly talks about inflation; the Office for National Statistics shows that construction inflation is running at about 15%, which is why we have an issue with costs. He is right to say, however, that we need to bear down on costs. Yesterday, I met the chief executive of HS2 Ltd. I am delighted with the appointment of the chairman, Sir Jon Thompson, who has a background in finance. Certainly, it is within HS2’s requirements to ensure that, where we have inflationary pressures, it fills the gap by bearing down on costs.

My hon. Friend asked what finishing Old Oak Common to Curzon Street “as soon as possible” means. As I stated in my opening remarks, we expect that, by 2033, passengers and communities will benefit from high-speed rail services between those two stations. He asked about the reason for the Euston delay. Euston was always scheduled for delivery after the opening of phase 1, which is why we are prioritising Old Oak Common. We will not proceed with construction at Euston in the next two years, due to affordability and profiling issues, but we will use that time to work with partners to ensure an affordable and deliverable design.

My hon. Friend asks for detail on HS2 east, the integrated rail plan and the Leeds route study. I will be writing to him on the back of the integrated rail plan report this month and further information will be tabled in the six-monthly HS2 report, which is due in May. On the Leeds route strategy, it has been cleared by the Department and we expect it to be published soon.

My hon. Friend is right to say that the industry needs certainty, and I believe he asked whether we can be certain that this is the last change to the project. Although the pandemic and Putin’s illegal invasion of Russia were not anticipated, we expect these HS2 plans to be the plans that deliver it from London to Manchester.

March 15, 2023
Ben Wallace – 2023 Speech at DSEI Japan

The speech made by Ben Wallace, the Secretary of State for Defence, made in Japan on 15 March 2023.

Thank you for the kind welcome you showed to me and my team from the United Kingdom. We’re all delighted to be here.

In 1964, Honda Formula One entered into global motorsport, and the rest is history. Six constructors championships, six driver championships, and in turn 223 podiums and 89 race victories. When I was younger I used to race motocross. I had a Suzuki and was always beaten by Kawasaki.

Britain’s partnership with advanced engineering in Japan is not new. In fact, it goes over many decades. It’s a 60 year partnership with Honda and Formula One. And we know that as we go forward with GCAP, it’ll be an equally long and enduring relationship. GCAP is a strategic partnership to create a sixth generation fighter. I’m excited not only because it’s a great partnership of these three nations, bridging Europe and the Pacific, but also because we’re one of the first to lead the sixth generation development.

It’s going to fuse the best of all of our technologies. And we’re going to not only be partners but we’re also customers. I think that is important also to remember. We’re going to unlock paths and new technologies, new platforms, export markets and potential new partners, but lock in a strategic partnership of liberal open democracies, who believe in the rule of law and upholding international values across the world that are threatened so strongly today. It’s a global partnership. It’s not a local partnership.

GCAP isn’t going to be a short love affair. It’s going to be a marriage. AUKUS was another project we announced this week – the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, developing the next generation of nuclear attack submarines. That’s a 20, 30, 40 year programme. And GCAP will also be of a similar length. So when we as the nations committed to this programme, there’s no going back. The three partners have to keep each other going with forward momentum. There’s no changing our mind at the end of the decade or halfway through because to do so is to let each other down. People don’t like letting teams down and nor should they and industry must also share that overall responsibility. Industry mustn’t look just to itself and its own shareholders. It’s got to look across because as ministers and Chief of Air Staff, our job is to deliver a requirement to defend our nations and that goes above all else. It goes above individual industry self interest, it will go above shareholder interest and that has to be the overruling principle that must guide this.

So as we progress to the next phases, let’s remember that at the heart of this it’s about defending our democracies and our values. It will not only help deliver a sixth generation fighter, but will also help other industries and complement other developments.

GCAP from the United Kingdom’s point of view, we will be investing £2 billion up to 2025 and £10 billion over the next 10 years. The overall development programme will be above £25 billion over the next 10 years and they’ll share designs and hopefully get towards development by 2025. And in service to Japan by 2035, a key milestone, a milestone that we must all meet and all deliver for the Japanese. It’s incredibly important that we don’t let this slip.

The next milestone this year is the agreement of the system’s requirements. And I will add my own air force to make sure that the requirements are common amongst all three air forces and kept consistent. 2025 is the development phase and the flying phase is towards the end of the decade or early 2030s. I think it’s incredibly exciting.

When you look at the lead industries engaged in this, BAE, Mitsubishi, Leonardo, Rolls Royce, IHI. It’s some of the world leading companies that are going to be contributing to sixth generation capability. I think we should all be incredibly proud we’ve got to this stage, but momentum is important. Keeping our side of the bargain will be very, very important. Unlocking the potential of SMEs to collaborate and recognising that this sixth generation fighter will unlock a whole new hope for global air dominance, global export markets, and lay the foundation for thousands of jobs for all our countries and our taxpayers, who after all, are contributing to make this a reality. Thank you.

March 15, 2023
Amanda Spielman – 2023 Speech at the Annual Apprenticeship Conference
The speech made by Amanda Spielman, the Chief Inspector of Ofsted, on 13 March 2023.
Hello, and it’s good to be here, thank you for inviting me.

State of the nation

I want to start by recognising the great job that you do. In recent inspections, two thirds of apprenticeship providers have come out as good or outstanding. This shows that we have a lot of high-quality training in the sector – but of course, there is still work to do.

High-quality apprenticeships are particularly important right now. They play such a big part in making sure that the economy has the right skills to grow. And while they may be mainly aimed at young people, they can be just as valuable for those wanting a career change.

On a recent visit to a learning provider, I met Lauren. Lauren had already completed a childcare apprenticeship, but when she started working, she realised it wasn’t the right career for her. As she’d really enjoyed her first apprenticeship, she returned to the same learning provider for a business administration apprenticeship. And the learning provider then hired her, and she now works in their digital marketing team.

This is a wonderful example of how your work makes a difference. You can help the country meet its skills needs. And you help individuals to find the career that works for them, personally and professionally.

Workforce challenges

The fact that so many of you are offering this kind of high-quality training is particularly impressive given some of the challenges you have faced and are still facing.

Many of you are struggling with workforce pressures. Recruiting and retaining staff is difficult in all kinds of education, and beyond. And these difficulties are even greater for specialist staff, many of whom can earn far more working in their sectors.

We also know that, with the current economic uncertainties, smaller employers are less willing to take on apprentices. So, opportunities for level 2 and level 3 apprenticeships are continuing to decline.

English and maths

And we know that many of your apprentices have had their education hampered by the pandemic. You may well have young people who are behind where you need them to be in English and maths. You may also be having to do more to work out which apprentices need additional help. This leaves you and their employer with the challenge of getting them get to the right level.

We know that some of you have concerns about the reformed functional skills qualifications. You think they are harder to pass. The fact that pass rates are lower might support this, but of course there are other factors at play such as disruption to younger apprentices’ education.

It is also important to remember that functional skills tests are summative tests not diagnostic assessments. They may not be the best tools to identify what apprentices still need to be taught. You need to assess their skills properly and make sure that you’re genuinely helping them to improve, not just to pass an assessment.

Just think of all the subjects that you teach and all the different ways that you use English and maths every day. Care apprentices need to measure medicines accurately. Hospitality apprentices need to measure ingredients and calculate portion sizes. Business analyst apprentices need to interpret data and client requirements. Management apprentices need to communicate with their teams, write job specifications and create marketing materials. The list goes on, but these examples show how important English and maths are at every level and in every subject.

So, you do need to think carefully about how to assess and improve your apprentices’ English and maths skills. You should be asking yourselves the questions:

Are you identifying apprentices’ starting points when they begin their training?

Are you using the information you gather to plan a suitable curriculum?

Are English and maths teachers working with vocational trainers to help apprentices learn these skills in a way that’s relevant to their other training?

And it’s not just younger apprentices or those at lower levels who need help with English and maths. We recently visited a police constabulary that was training police community support officers as part of a level 4 apprenticeship. Those apprentices did need to be taught spelling and grammar because their notes and statements weren’t always fit to be used as evidence in court.

Ready for work

We do also know that some new apprentices don’t have a good attitude to work. They may not have done any work experience in school or college, nor had a part-time job. This can make the start of on-the job training difficult and strain employer relationships which also adds to your workload.

Funding

Of course, funding plays a big part in many of these challenges, and in their solutions. We know there are concerns about the complexity of the apprenticeship levy. And we know that several billion pounds have been returned to the Treasury since the levy was introduced which could have funded many more apprenticeships.

It’s encouraging to hear that the amount being returned is declining which could indicate that businesses are taking on more apprentices. But these new apprenticeships tend to be at higher levels, which are more costly to teach. And the recent data does show a further decline in starts at levels 2 and 3 and for under-19s. Skills gaps often are at the lowest levels, and it is important to maximise opportunities for under-19s.

We welcome the UCAS announcement that it’s extending its service to apprenticeship vacancies. Along with initiatives to improve school careers guidance, this could significantly improve young people’s awareness and take-up of apprenticeships.

We also welcome the Institute’s announcement that it’s reviewing funding for the 20 highest enrolling apprenticeships. But we know that some of you are already cutting apprenticeships because they aren’t economically viable. In a few cases, providers are leaving the market completely. We know that the sector is resilient and reactive, but it’s wasteful to lose good capacity only to have to rebuild it.

I hope that these kinds of changes can accelerate improvement in the sector. We will continue to play our part by highlighting good practice and identifying what needs to improve.

A need for improvement

Because, while many of you are doing a great job, we do have concerns about some parts of the sector. We know the current environment is tough, but it is our role to report on the quality of provision as we find it. We will always acknowledge the context, but we can’t soft-pedal on inspection. That wouldn’t be fair to you, and it wouldn’t be fair to the apprentices you train. And by reporting accurately, we can then make a case for systemic change when it’s needed.

We are concerned about the slow pace of improvement particularly among new providers. The picture is improving and the proportion who aren’t doing well enough at their first inspection has declined. But that proportion is still too high despite all the information, guidance and support that is available.

Looking at our judgements, we cannot ignore that apprenticeships are the worst performing type of provision in the further education and skills sector.

Achievement rates

So, we do welcome the DfE setting a target of 67% for apprenticeship achievement rates. But it’s important to think about why achievement rates are often so low.

The pandemic, yes it had an impact, but achievement rates were often too low even before this. And it’s worth noting that the apprentices who do take their end-point assessment are very likely to pass. The big challenge is apprentices leaving before they finish their training.

And of course, there are various reasons for this. They include poor-quality tuition that doesn’t include meaningful practical experience, employers not releasing staff for off-the-job training or just not enough opportunities for on-the-job training.

Low wages in childcare, hospitality, adult care, and other sectors means that some apprentices are leaving for higher paid roles. This is obviously understandable in the current climate, and different skills aren’t always equally rewarded. But it’s worth asking yourself questions:

Could I be doing more to explain the longer-term benefits of apprenticeships?

Do my apprentices understand the importance of a career path over a short-term pay boost?

Am I acting with integrity when I recruit apprentices?

All these factors must be considered and tackled if the DfE target is to be met.

We know that low achievement rates don’t necessarily indicate a problem with the provider. When we inspect, we won’t hold previously low achievement rates against you. But we will want to see that you know the reasons for low rates and have taken actions to improve them where you can.

High-quality educational experience

Of course, the most important factors in determining whether apprentices complete their programmes are the quality of the training and the experience.

Apprentices need high-quality training from skilled and experienced staff. You need to plan it well and teach it in a coherent order. You need to balance the on- and off-the-job elements carefully. You need to know what will be learnt and when, and your apprentices should know this too.

You need to think about how and in what order you’re going to teach the knowledge and skills. If your hairdressing apprentices need to colour a client’s hair, you obviously need to teach them the practical skills. But you also need to teach them the health and safety aspects around using colouring chemicals. And you’ll need to teach them the skills to hold a client consultation.

You also need to consider the apprentice’s experience. Online learning and self-study can be part of that. But they can also be a toxic combination when they’re overused or used too soon in an apprenticeship.

I know that many of you balance these factors well but failing to do so can damage apprentices’ motivation and enthusiasm. If an apprentice spends most of their first 3 months studying at home on their own, we can hardly be surprised if they drop out.

So, it is important to think about how and why you use these methods. It can be appropriate when it improves the apprentices’ experiences or prepares them well for work in their chosen sector. But it shouldn’t be for your convenience or to save money.

Other sessions

We know that part of the value we can add is engaging and supporting you with training. As usual, we’re offering several workshops at this conference. They are being run by our knowledgeable HMI, so you’ll be able to talk directly to the people who come to inspect you.

The workshop topics reflect the areas where we think we can offer the most help.

We have a session on on- and off-the-job training and the important relationship between these 2 elements.

To try and help those of you who are newer to the sector, we have a session on how we inspect. Understanding more about new provider monitoring visits and about full inspections will help those of you who haven’t already got this experience in your team.

And on both days, we’re running our ever popular ‘Ask the Inspector’ sessions. We really do want to do everything that we can to demystify the process. These sessions give you the chance to ask inspectors whatever you want. Pretty much the only thing they won’t tell you is the date of your next inspection!

Thank you again for listening. I’m happy to take questions and I’m going to be joined on the platform by Paul Joyce, who is our Deputy Director for Further Education and Skills, and he will join me in answering them.

Thank you.
March 15, 2023