Public Services

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments. He is absolutely right. It was right that the National Crime Agency was set up, and it is absolutely right now that we have that increasing capacity in relation to cyber-crime. One issue though is how to attract people with those skills to work in the National Crime Agency and in our police forces. Having a more flexible approach to the way people can be employed in support of our police, and within our police, is a key way of doing that. I was pleased also to have introduced the direct entry at superintendent level, which has brought some other skills into the police. It is looking at such innovative approaches that will help in these matters.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the right hon. Lady accept that some of this is cultural? It is still quite often the case that, when online harassment is reported to the police, the police will tell people to come off the platform on which they are being harassed. That is not about resource; that is a cultural issue within the police and it is about how the real world and the online world come together. We also need more regulations for platforms. It is not right that these platforms are allowed to, essentially, self-police and to decide for themselves what they believe is appropriate.

[Mrs May]

As cyber-crime has developed, it has been necessary for the police to develop their approach, and that is absolutely right. Another thing that I was pleased to do as Home Secretary was to set up the College of Policing, which helps to provide the “what works best” advice to police forces in areas such as cyber-crime, which is, increasingly, the area that we have to look at, in addition to other areas of crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

We doubt whether many of the Bills in the Queen’s Speech will make it. There was an article in The Times yesterday—I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman saw it—that did not give any of the Bills a five out of five for their chances of passing. We will wait and see if any of them make it, never mind whether they have our support.

The spousal visa system leaves many people unable to see their children or their family. It is heartbreaking having to deal with that week in, week out and having children coming in saying, “When can I get to see my daddy?” If Home Office Ministers want to come to my surgery and sit in on those meetings, I would absolutely welcome it, because they should see what is happening at first hand.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) will talk more about post-study work visas. We would welcome their return, because we believe that it is important to say to people who want to come and study in Scotland, “You are welcome. You will get to come here, to contribute to our society and to carry on your lives in Scotland after you have concluded your studies.” The UK Government seem to say, “Come, we will take your money for your international student visa and then you can go—we’re done with you.” That is just unacceptable; it is not welcoming in the slightest.

[Jim McMahon]

I agree entirely with the points the hon. Lady is making. Something that was absent from the Queen’s Speech was progressing the work on modern day slavery. I give credit to the former Prime Minister for the leadership she has shown on this issue, but it is clear that we need to do more on progressing the security and support given to victims of modern day slavery.

[Alison Thewliss]

I very much agree with that. A lot more needs to be done to ensure that people who have been victims do not end up being blamed for having been trafficked into the country or for being party to that. Those people should get some leniency and help from the Home Office, rather than it trying to remove them at the first instance.

On post-study work visas, the Government need to consider the fact that the Scottish education system has four-year degrees as standard and that many other degrees, such as engineering, architecture and medicine, are longer than three years. It should not be the case that people get three years into a degree and have to reapply, with no certainty that they will finish it. Those courses will be deeply unattractive to people if they do not know whether they can finish them. Perhaps each type of course should carry a visa with it, rather than there being an arbitrary three-year cut-off.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

Absolutely. The Queen’s Speech and the spending provisions that the Government have made allow for more police officers to be on the beat to tackle crime, to reassure potential victims of crime and to solve as well as to anticipate the incidents that cause so much misery.

The denial that I described is as plain as this: there are many people, including, I am sad to say, some people in this House, who simply will not face the fact that many of the people who commit crimes are cruel, vicious, heartless thugs and villains who deserve to be caught, deserve to be convicted and deserve to be locked up for as long as possible. That is what our constituents would say, and the fact that we do not say it frequently enough creates a gulf, at least in their perception, between what the people affected by these things, who live on the frontline, know and what people in this place think.

[Jim McMahon]

rose—

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman might be about to reassure me that he takes as hard a line on crime and disorder as I do.

[Jim McMahon]

I can certainly reassure the right hon. Gentleman that I have never been called a snowflake. He must accept that if he was to look back at the 1800s and at the type of crimes being committed then he would see just how many were done by people stealing to survive—stealing clothes to wear and food to eat. Accepting how much of today’s crime is driven by poverty and absolute desperation is not being a snowflake; it is understanding the underlying social causes that lead people to commit crime.

[Sir John Hayes]

Crime is caused by many things, but the idea that crime is an illness to be treated rather than a malevolent choice made by certain individuals has been the pervasive view of those dealing with crime—criminologists and so on—throughout the period I have described, and that view is out of tune and out of touch with what most people in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and mine know and feel.

Of course there are many causes of crime. Earlier, I heard the shadow Minister describe her working-class credentials. No one in this Chamber could trump my working-class credentials, and on the council estate where I was brought up most people were law-abiding. It was ordered. I do not remember much vandalism, and there was certainly not much crime. People lived in relative safety. If we went back to that place now, I suspect none of that would be true. There would be a high level of drug addiction, a high level of family breakdown, a lot of lawlessness and all the symbols of disorder. That is just the stark reality, and it has to be addressed. This Government are trying to do so in the measures they have introduced in this Queen’s Speech, and those measures deserve support because they strike a chord with the sentiments of the people we represent.

I was delighted to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who is always a thoughtful contributor to our considerations. He exemplified what was once taken as read: that the duty of people in this House is to make a persuasive argument, to attempt to offer a thesis and then to advance their case. I have to say that the shadow Minister stood in sad and stark contrast to that principle. It is not enough simply to string together a series of exhortations with a beginning and an end. That is not what proper consideration of measures in the Queens’s Speech or elsewhere should be about, and it does nothing for the quality or life of this Parliament.

The immigration Bill is also welcome, although I share some of the doubts expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead. A points-based system is good in theory, but regulation and enforcement was certainly a challenge and we will need to look at that very closely. What is absolutely clear, rather as with crime, is that the liberal establishment in this country is out of touch with the views of most of our constituents. Most people in this country, in every poll taken on the subject, think that we have had too much immigration for too long and that it needs to be controlled. It is not contentious to say that; it is not controversial. It simply reflects what most people feel and know. Having said that, all advanced countries enjoy immigration because it is necessary sometimes to bring in people because of their skills and for other reasons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Dame Louise Ellman), who makes a very passionate case for the public services in her constituency. I hope to do the same. Public services go to the heart of this debate and to the heart of my speech. Like the hon. Lady, I will focus very much on my constituency, which is the Isle of Wight.

It has long been argued that the Island needs an island deal that recognises the additional cost of providing public services on an island. Throughout the UK, in order to support islands and isolated communities, the Government have generally provided either a bridge, as in the case of the Isle of Skye, or increased levels of funding, as in the case of the Scottish islands needs allowance. The Isle of Wight has to all intents and purposes been treated as part of the mainland United Kingdom, because we have never had additional support despite the additional costs. In various conversations I have had with the Prime Minister, he has been generous enough to agree the need for an island settlement. He has done so on visits to the Island in June this year, on record in the House on 25 September and in private conversations with me. I therefore hope that this is a discussion on content and not principle, but I am very happy to make either argument to the Secretary of State. I am delighted to see him on the Treasury Bench today.

[Jim McMahon]

Is not part of the problem the deal-making nature of such conversations, with areas pitched against each other? Does the hon. Gentleman support the Local Government Association’s recommendation for an independent body to assess local government need in every area to make sure that everyone gets their fair share?

[Mr Seely]

I know of no such case, but what I do know is that the Island is the only significant population on an island in the UK that has neither a fixed link nor increased funding. I am not necessarily playing my constituency off against other isolated communities, but there are specific additional costs that I would like to mention which I do not think have been met structurally by Governments for the past 50 years.

I intend to show to the Secretary of State an evidence-based case outlining what the additional costs are. By way of background, there is a wealth of evidence internationally, relating to the Isle of Wight and other islands in the UK, that shows the extra cost of providing public services on islands to the same extent as the mainland. Multiple surveys have found structural and economic challenges of severance by sea, which is the technical term, including extra costs from forced self-sufficiency and diseconomies of scale—smaller markets, fewer competitors in those markets. There are six, potentially seven, areas that I would briefly like to raise with the Minister and to put on the record now.

First, on local government services, the University of Portsmouth in 2015 estimated that the additional cost of providing good public services to the same standard as the mainland on the Isle of Wight was £6.4 million. Adjusted for inflation, that is now £7.1 million. Three specific factors were taken into account: the additional cost of doing business—for example, it costs 30% extra to build a building on the Isle of Wight because of the importation of materials via ferry; dislocation, with smaller markets and fewer entrants to those markets; and what is known as reduced spillover. A duel carriageway in Southampton does not help us and, vice versa, a duel carriageway in Cowes does not help the folks in Southampton because of severance by sea. We are asking that an agreed formula be devised—I make this speech with the full support of the Isle of Wight Council; we are working on this together—as part of a potential island deal that recognises these additional challenges, which amount to approximately 3% of the funding we receive.

Secondly, on healthcare, we have half the population needed for a district general hospital, yet we need to provide a district general hospital on the Isle of Wight because of the Solent. You cannot give birth on a helicopter; you cannot give birth on a ferry. We need to provide a decent level of care at a district general hospital on the Island, but we lack the throughput, the tariffs per head under NHS funding, to fund that. Our NHS trust believes the cost of 24/7 acute care is £8.9 million, the cost of ambulance services is £1.9 million, and the cost of patient travel to the mainland, of which there were over 40,000 journeys last year, is approximately £560,000. That is a total of nearly £11 million.

Thirdly, on local agriculture infrastructure, the Island is 80% rural and our rural economy is very important to our overall economic prosperity. However, we are again hampered by our dependence on the mainland. For example, under EU regulations—maybe gilded too much by UK officials—an Island abattoir became uneconomic. Livestock raised on the Island is shipped to the mainland for slaughter even if it is then imported back to the Island. That is less humane than local slaughter. It also adds costs and fuel miles. Considering we are trying to become carbon neutral, it is an unnecessary waste of resource.

A few key pieces of infrastructure would help us enormously—we have an Isle of Wight grain collective, so the Island is keen to explore the idea of forming collectives to solve these problems, but we could also do with some grant funding in recognition. These pieces of infrastructure are an abattoir, tanker and extra milk storage facilities, grain storage and milling facilities and a box erector for vegetables.

Fourthly, on housing, there is the need for an “exceptional circumstance” to be granted. In my opinion, the housing targets given to us meet the Government’s definition of unsustainable. They are bad for the Island and I believe that the methodology is flawed. The targets are nothing more than a projection based on historical trends that do not consider our future desire, first, to produce housing for Islanders and, secondly, as part of a national agenda, to shape a more sustainable and green future.

Developments on the Island, sadly, are too rarely designed for local people, but are instead designed for mainland—very often, retiree—demand. This forces our youngsters off the Island. We also do not have the infrastructure to support those additional homes, because we are an island. Our hospitals are full, public services are under pressure despite the extra funding, which I am grateful for, electricity and sewerage are at capacity and a third of our water comes from the mainland. The Green Book calculations do not serve the Island well. We intend to present an Island plan to Government that will have a significantly reduced figure, which our landscape and population can cope with, but which supports local demand. That is extremely important, and I would welcome Government support and understanding from the relevant Secretary of State and Ministries, so that we can make sure we get this through and help to create a sustainable, balanced demographic and a sustainable economy, and start paying into the Treasury.

Fifthly, on public services, I would like a unique public authority on the Isle of Wight that combines the work of our local authority, NHS trust and clinical commissioning group. Because of the nature of the Island—it is quite small-scale; social scientists tend to love us because we are an island, so we are easily measurable —this could be, along with areas such as Manchester, a role model of how to achieve much greater levels of integration throughout the country. However, we need a small pot of money and a sense of understanding of how this could work to make a success of it.

Lastly, on transport, we have the most expensive ferries in the world. They have very high profit margins, which Islanders, who earn 80% of the national average, have to pay for. My preference would be for Government support to look at different models of ownership and public service obligations.

Before I come to my summation I want to say that there may be additional costs from special educational needs provision. However, I did not want to hold up the letter to the Prime Minister, so they may come additionally.

Hopefully, I have outlined an evidence-based case looking at the additional costs of public services, and I look forward to following this up with Ministers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I want to start by placing on record my respect and appreciation for Her Majesty the Queen. She has conducted herself with professionalism and as always has given the country stability. So imagine somebody with that ethos being abused in such a way by this British Prime Minister. He misled her into proroguing Parliament by sending the Leader of the House up to Scotland to mislead and direct her and then used her for what was essentially a party political broadcast, knowing full well that after turfing out over 20 Tory MPs, he did not have the majority to get the business through anyway.

The Government will say, “It’s not about politics; it’s about policy, so why not get behind these important ideas?” They are so important that their Benches are empty. Where are the Conservative MPs? I can see two on the Back Benches, but I am guessing they are from the Whips Office or Parliamentary Private Secretaries. [Interruption.] They are PPSs. This is so important—it is their radical programme for Government—and not a single Back Bencher is here to support it. There are reasons for that: first, because of the chaos outside, as the Prime Minister ducks and dives his way around the country; and secondly, because they know, as we do, that this is pie in the sky. There is no way that it is going to happen.

The Queen does not, of course, give her personal views on Prime Ministers, but I wonder what she would make of her 14th Prime Minister, and how he might compare with the first, Winston Churchill. They are polar opposites, in terms of status and the way the country is being led in very difficult circumstances.

The Queen’s Speech could have been an opportunity to set out the state of the nation and the issues that are affecting it. Let me begin with local government. It is not possible to build decent public services if the very foundations on which they were based are, in many cases, broken beyond repair. We cannot escape the fact that more than 800,000 members of local government staff have been sacked on the watch of this Government and the previous coalition, thrown on to the scrapheap as if they were not important and did not add value. We cannot ignore the fact that 60p in every pound has been taken from council spending, or the fact that adult social care is in crisis, with a million people not receiving the home care that they need and deserve. We have seen neighbourhood services taken to the brink—and the Government wonder why the public are angry. They have a right to be angry when their youth and community centres are closing, knife crime is going through the roof and libraries are shutting.

Let us talk about crime. The Conservatives will say that they are the party of law and order. Well, that is interesting. Let us look at the facts. Twenty thousand police officers have been lost nationally, and in Greater Manchester 2,000 have been taken off the streets, as have 1,000 support staff who helped them to do their job. Police stations have closed in Chadderton, Royton and Limeside. A town of a quarter of a million people now has not a single custody cell. The magistrates court was demolished last month, and the county court has been closed. So what about law and order? We have a crisis in magistrate recruitment in Greater Manchester. Even if we employ those extra police officers, where are the police stations that they will work from? Where are the vehicles that they will drive? Where are the custody cells in which to lock up the bad guys, and where are the judges to make sure that justice is served? They just do not exist. It is all pie in the sky.

Let us look at schools. If we want Britain to thrive after Brexit, which is what we are told by the Government, surely the foundation for this country is critical, and what more foundation could we have than our young people? But when we see how much money has been taken away from early-years, primary and secondary education, from education for those with special educational needs and from sixth-form and other colleges, we see the truth of this Government. They want the country to be run on the cheap, because they do not value the people who live here. Young people who are growing up in Oldham deserve a better lot than is being offered by this Government. Ministers can laugh and they can scoff, but let them look at the unemployment levels in my town, look at the economy of my town, and look at the high street along which the people are walking. Shutters are down and there are boards on the windows, because this Government have no plan for this country. The high street is so important, and it was not even mentioned in the Queen’s Speech. Housing is so important, and it was not even mentioned in the Queen’s Speech. There is no vision for this country; it is all about electioneering.

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

Why don’t you want an election, then?

[Jim McMahon]

Because I care about the economic foundation of this country. I have seen what a decade of austerity has done to my town. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. It would be better if the hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) intervened. Then, the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) could reply. That would be absolutely fine. Jim McMahon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon]

I will give way.

[Chris Green]

If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about economic governance, why is he is so resistant, and why is his party so resistant, to the idea of a general election? Does he even want to come into Parliament for another debate on Saturday? The impression I get is that the Opposition do not want that either.

[Jim McMahon]

We can say Saturday, we can say Sunday, we can say for the next two years as far as I am concerned. We are here to do a job of work, and we will not be shy. One thing about the working classes is that we know the value of work and the importance of work, and it does not matter to us if we turn up on a Saturday or a Sunday if it means getting the job done. As for the reason why we do not want an election, we do not trust this Prime Minister any more than the Queen could trust this Prime Minister. We cannot afford, in my town, the economic damage of crashing out without a deal, but that is what we are facing today. We have heard promise after promise that a deal will be coming, and where is that deal? At the eleventh hour, there is still no deal, and the Conservatives are still pushing for a general election in this chaos of their own making. It is absolutely scandalous and a failure of government for this country.

[Chris Green]

rose—

[Jim McMahon]

I need to make progress now. The Parliamentary Private Secretary has earned his place; I am sure there is a promotion on the way very soon, and rightly so as he deserves it.

What about rebuilding our economy in a fair way? What about having a co-operative economy where those who create the wealth get to keep the value of what they have created, rather than it being sent offshore to tax havens and shareholders that have no stake in the community where that money is being generated? There was not a mention of co-operatives or mutuals; not a mention of trying to reset the economic and social contract of this country. There is no vision, there is no Government—and actually I do want a general election, but let’s get this nonsense out of the way first.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)]

I would like to say how much I enjoyed the tone at the start of the speech from the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) when she praised the work of public services. We all feel, on both sides of the House, that it is important they deliver for everyone in our country.

It is an honour for me to close this debate. I thank Members on all sides who have contributed to it. They made many passionate points, raising issues that are important to them and to their constituents. As we all know, the Government are working hard to deliver Brexit and honour the will of the British people when they voted for us to leave the European Union. However, our ambitions do not end there. At the same time, we are pursuing a bold programme of domestic reform that will protect and improve our public services, from strengthening our beloved NHS and making our streets safer, to giving our primary and secondary schools the biggest funding boost for a decade so that our children have the world class education that every single one of us in this House always wants to ensure they receive. The Gracious Speech is a contribution to, and a part of, that approach.

Let me pick up on a number of the issues raised by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) raised relationship, sex and health education. The Government are absolutely committed to it. It has our full backing and we want to be there backing schools. We recently announced a £6 million fund to develop a programme of support for schools. We very much want to ensure that all schools teach about Britain as it is today.

[Jim McMahon]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Gavin Williamson]

I would like to make some progress, if I may, because time is short. I will take interventions later.

The hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) raised the national school meals programme. That is a very important programme, which we are very proud to have introduced. We will very much be supporting it going forward.

I would like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and for Guildford (Anne Milton), but especially my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead. She has always done so much in the area of mental health, ensuring that it was a centrepiece of what the Government do and ensuring that we talk about it, not just in this Chamber, but much more widely in society. They have both played an important role in making sure that it is addressed in schools. We remain committed to doing that.

I highlight the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead, and the hon. Members for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher) on death by dangerous driving. They spoke from the heart. We have all seen the consequences of dangerous driving. It rips families apart and destroys so many lives. I will certainly reflect the comments that were made in this House to the Secretary of State for Justice.

There was much in what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) said that I agreed with on the importance of closing the attainment gap between those from the most disadvantaged families and those from more privileged families. We have been doing that in both primary and secondary schools. That is because we are reforming how we teach and deliver education, and the children from the most disadvantaged families are benefiting.

The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) talked about raising standards. That has been at the heart of everything that this Government do, because we recognise that continuing to raise standards in every single school for every child is how we give them the very best opportunity in life. I will give a bit of advice to the hon. Gentleman: scrapping Ofsted is not a way to raise standards in our schools.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Williamson]

I will make some progress, thank you ever so much.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair), who raised the issue of post-study work visas. Conservative and Unionist MPs from Scotland have been raising that consistently, as have MSPs, and we are very glad to be able to deliver on it.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett) spoke eloquently about his time working in further education and on the importance of technical and vocational education. Both main parties in this country have recognised that for a long time. We will deliver on it and make sure that we deliver the type of change that is needed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) spoke about how important it is that we level up funding, raising it especially for some of the areas that have been persistently underfunded. This has been talked about for 20-plus years and we are delivering on it, thanks in no small part to his campaigning to make sure that it happens. He also spoke about the importance of special educational needs funding. I had the great privilege of visiting the hospital school in his constituency and seeing the important work that is done there.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) highlighted the fact that his constituency was one of the areas that always had some of the lowest funding. We are changing that and delivering more money for every single school in this country.

What can I say about my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes)? There is so much I could say. He spoke with passion about giving youngsters ambitions and dreams and delivering on them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) has done so much to deliver the borderlands deal for not only his constituents, but many constituencies in England and in the Scottish borders. It will deliver prosperity and employment on both sides of the border.

It would be remiss of me not to thank the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd). I particularly liked his bringing some levity into the Chamber with the prospect of a Liberal Democrat Government. It was an opportunity also for Labour and Conservative Members to unite in the thought of what a dreadful idea that would be.

I am also grateful for the clarity that the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) provided in confirming that the Labour party supported a trophy hunting Bill. That is good news, particularly for the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson), who is always trophy hunting the head of the leader of the Labour party. It was disappointing, however, that she could not make it clear that Labour would also support the Windrush Bill, the police protections Bill, the extradition Bill, the Domestic Abuse Bill, the serious violence Bill and the foreign national offenders Bill.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has set out ambitious plans for transforming law and order. Her exciting plan to get 20,000 more police officers on to our streets will deliver for every part of this country. It is also positive that she understands that she needs the money behind her to deliver those extra police officers, and that is what she has secured from the Treasury. She understands, too, that 20,000 more police officers will cost more than £30,000. In addition, we recognise the importance of defending victims and ensuring the legal framework to support the most vulnerable in society, and that is what the measures in the Queen’s Speech will do.

Another service that our whole nation relies upon is our wonderful NHS. We are doing everything we can to protect this great national institution, which for 44 of its 71 years has been under Conservative stewardship. The Government have committed to a £33.9 billion per annum increase in the NHS budget by 2023-24. We want to make sure that this extra money makes a real difference on the frontline by bringing down hospital waiting times, reducing the time it takes to get a GP appointment and saving lives.

[Jim McMahon]

Lots of people in the NHS say that they want to see the funding go to adult social care, because the pressures that build in the system when the funding is not there has an impact on the NHS, so where is the Green Paper and the funding for our hard-working councils so that people can get the care they need?

[Gavin Williamson]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, we outlined extra funding for that in the spending review.

Young or old, we are all increasingly dependent on the internet, and people of all ages across the UK will benefit from one of the greatest eras of infrastructure investment, starting with legislation to help accelerate roll-out of full-fibre broadband right across the country.

As we exit the EU, it is vital for our country’s future that we deliver the world’s best education system. Our reforms over the last nine years, initially done with the Liberal Democrats, have seen standards rise across the country. We are doing better and delivering more for every single child. It is concerning, therefore, that the Labour party seems willing to scrap free schools and academies—schools that deliver the very best. Just last week, I visited Everton Free School in Liverpool, where a football club had decided it wanted to put something back into its community, working with teachers who wanted to deliver something better. It is shocking that the Labour party wants to get rid of that. We want to deliver the very best. In technical education, in vocational education, in every single school, we are driving standards ever higher. We are putting the money behind it. We have delivered the reforms that are required. It is a shame that the Labour party has such a lack of ambition for every single child in the country. We are the party that wants to deliver for every child—to level up, not level down as the Labour party wishes to do.

I very much commend the Gracious Speech to the House.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Deferred Divisions

Ordered,

That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the motion in the name of Secretary Julian Smith relating to the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act.—(Rebecca Harris.)