Oral Answers to Questions

Saqib Bhatti Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

Time and again, we Conservative Members asked the Government to hold a national statutory inquiry into the grooming gangs scandal. Time and again, Government Ministers insisted that the five local inquiries would be enough, despite a suspected 50 towns having grooming gangs operating in them, as reported by Charlie Peters from GB News. Now, after the Casey review and the announcement of the national commission, what reassurances can the Minister give victims that the 50 suspected towns will be investigated? If a town or city where a grooming gang is suspected to operate refuses to have an inquiry, can the Minister compel the commission to investigate? In other words, do the Government have any accountability whatever?

[Seema Malhotra]

The shadow Minister may not have listened closely to the statement on Monday, because that was confirmed by the Home Secretary. He may want to know that earlier this year, the Financial Times told us the reality of what went on inside the previous Government after Alexis Jay’s report. The FT said that No. 10 urged Home Office Ministers to

“do more to ‘engage with Alexis’ and draw up a…plan for her recommendations.”

One veteran admitted that

“The report came out at an unfortunate time and was maybe to some extent forgotten or deprioritised.”

“Forgotten or deprioritised”—yet now the Conservatives have the cheek to lecture this Government about the action we are taking to support and protect victims.

Chinese Embassy Development

Saqib Bhatti Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

I understand that the Minister cannot comment on the specifics, but does he at least agree with the principle that if there is a risk that a nation state will act nefariously against the British state’s interests, the British Government should not reward that state?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I have been at pains to make clear, the Government will always protect our national security and keep this country safe. There is a distinct issue from the planning application and the questions about process that have been put to me. On that basis, I cannot comment, as the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, on a decision that has not been made, and on a case that is not with the Department.

Churches and Religious Buildings: Communities

Saqib Bhatti Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for securing the debate. I also thank the Second Church Estates Commissioner for all that she does for churches, and for her eloquent speech and argument. My right hon. Friend highlighted the important role of churches in the community, especially when it comes to leadership. I thank both Members for making the case for Holy Trinity Clapham.

Last week, we celebrated VE Day. During the day’s events, I was struck by the many references to community and spirit, which often related to street parties and dancing, but also frequently to the important community role of parish churches, chapels, cathedrals and minsters, both 80 years ago and today. I attended a moving beacon- lighting service at Elmdon church in my constituency. I was privileged to meet a 96-year-old veteran and ex-para, Frank Spencer, whose charitable endeavours included jumping out of a plane at the age of 92—perhaps an idea for the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), if she wanted to graduate from abseiling down churches.

With the peal of bells echoing throughout the country as part of a nationally co-ordinated effort, it was clear how important churches and religious buildings are to local people. Many people’s real-world experience of places of worship is not of the grandeur of St Peter’s or St Paul’s, but often of an ancient, parochial building or hall used as a meeting place or hired venue for birthdays, or as a soft play centre, as has been mentioned. It may be a space that offers some quiet time at Christmas or Easter for reflection and a sense of something deeper. Other communities open the doors of the local synagogue, mosque or temple, which fulfil a similar function and sit just as prominently and importantly in local life.

Just a few weeks ago, I visited the Balsall common Parkinson’s café at the Balsall common methodist church, where I met a 30-strong community group committed to helping people with Parkinson’s. Crucially, the church offered the venue free of charge, providing the group with an invaluable space to support local people in navigating the complexities of life with Parkinson’s.

Over this last cold winter, which saw the Government’s cut to the winter fuel payment, an army of churches and other places of worship, including 485 Church of England churches, played a vital role in providing safe and warm spaces for those in the cold. Communities also make countless donations of food and clothes every year via places of worship—a point eloquently made by the hon. Member for Battersea. I thank all our places of worship, especially our churches, for all that they do.

For many churches, however, the future of their support schemes looks far bleaker than they perhaps expected. Many will be celebrating the election of the 267th supreme pontiff—I send my warmest congratulations to Pope Leo XIV—and others might be getting ready to welcome a new Archbishop of Canterbury; I am less brave than my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), so I will not be commenting on church affairs. However, hundreds of these churches will also be looking to the future. They will probably be less thankful to the Government for their cut to the much-valued listed places of worship grant scheme. The scheme has been a lifeline for many churches and other places of worship seeking essential and fundamental repairs by helping to cover the VAT incurred on repair costs, within certain limits. I will focus on churches, because Historic England’s heritage at risk register found that of the 969 places of worship at risk in 2024, 959 were churches. Indeed, between 2023 and 2024, 55 places of worship were added to the list.

Nationally, the established Church of England—the mother Church of global Anglican communion—has a backlog of repairs to churches estimated at more than £1 billion, with an annual repair bill of about £150 million. Hon. Members might think that, confronted with those worrying statistics, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport would be working tirelessly to ease the burden on places of worship, but unfortunately they would be wrong. The Government’s response to the repairs crisis has been one of delay, confusion and cuts. After leaving those community assets in the dark by continuously delaying the announcement on the scheme’s future, the Government finally came to this place to confirm the fears of many: there will be cuts to the scheme and to the lifeline of many of our historic churches and places of worship.

As I have previously said in this Chamber, many of my Meriden and Solihull East constituents have told me about their concerns about their beloved places of worship. One told me that the cut

“would be a disaster for listed places of worship”,

and that the ability to reclaim VAT

“makes an enormous difference, particularly at a time when the cost of building work has increased substantially.”

Many Members have made that argument in this debate.

Sir Philip Rutnam, chairman of the National Churches Trust, said, after the funding was slashed, that the scheme

“simply does not provide enough certainty or support for”

churches,

“who need more time to plan and deliver repairs…We strongly believe that the scheme should be made permanent—it’s vital to help these buildings stay open, serving local people, and it’s the poorest and most isolated who will suffer most if these buildings are forced to close.”

He highlighted that local people—indeed, communities—will suffer if places of worship are forced to shut their doors for good due to the miserly actions of a Government way out of their economic depth.

Furthermore, this all comes despite the fact that the scheme offers tremendous value for money. As the National Churches Trust has shown, every £1 invested in a church generates £16 of social good.

I call on the Government to end the dithering and ensure that this is the final time they leave our community assets in the dark. The Minister must confirm whether the Government plan to continue the scheme beyond the one-year extension, which does next to nothing for the confidence of those responsible for the affected buildings and communities. They must protect our national heritage with pride, not leave it crumbling in the dark shadow of bureaucratic delays. I gently say to the Minister: the Opposition often ask the Government to stand for something, so why not stand for our churches?

Rural Housing Targets

Saqib Bhatti Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing this debate. In many ways I was hanging on his every word, because I genuinely felt that he was also speaking to the concerns of my constituents on a whole number of issues.

Let me start in the way that my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members started: we all want housing and recognise the need for it. Meriden and Solihull East is a constituency of two halves, with a very urban north and a very rural south, so many of the issues we discuss in the House affect me in both respects.

Everyone who has spoken has referred to young families and young people, and my right hon. Friend spoke about affordable housing. I agree with him, and one of the conversations I have been having with my local council is about starter homes. As we have heard, young people want to grow their families in a place they are connected to, and that is clearly vital.

I say to the Minister that, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, the formula impacts rural areas in a much more detrimental way. I would like him to achieve his targets, but I do not think that the formula will allow that to happen. I have form on this, because I raised a similar issue when the last Government tried to do this. I thought the formula was disproportionately affecting my constituency, as opposed to Birmingham, which is next to us, and areas such as Walsall, where I was born and brought up.

I remember having a conversation at No. 10 on a number of occasions, and I was very pleased that the formula was looked at again. The current formula requires Solihull, which currently builds about 866 homes per year, to increase that to 1,317. However, the current plan in Birmingham has about 7,174 homes a year, and the revised plan would take it down to 4,974. That is a huge disparity, and I am sure the Minister would agree. I believe that he is a reasonable person and that he would agree that there are people in Birmingham who will require housing, so that reduction in numbers makes no sense whatever—it is quite a significant plummet.

I campaign on protecting my green belt. I feel uniquely affected, as do my constituents, for two reasons. First, we have the Meriden gap, which is a vital throughway, through which wildlife migrate every year. It is known as the west midlands’ lungs, but is actually the lungs for the whole United Kingdom. As the new national planning policy framework comes forward, will the Government take into account areas of vital importance, such as the Meriden gap? My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire mentioned national parks, and I do not want to see the burden on the council increased because other parts of the green belt have to be affected. Through no fault of its own, it has areas of real importance to nature.

The second reason I wanted to raise is that my constituency is specifically affected by High Speed 2. We have a station just by the National Exhibition Centre and Birmingham airport. Balsall Common has had to take a huge load; it has been ripped open many times over, and is also taking on additional housing—there is a significant amount already, with thousands of homes. Hampton in Arden, a beautiful part of my constituency, is now starting to see the effects of HS2. This is critical national infrastructure, and the sacrifice my constituents are making in terms of their green belt should surely be taken into account. Currently, I do not see anything in relation to that. By the way, I posed the same challenge to the previous Government, and I stand by it.

I am conscious of the time, but I just wanted to pose those questions to the Minister. I am more than happy for him to visit my constituency, and I will happily show him around, in the spirit cross-party working, so that he can deliver some good news to my constituents.

Responsibilities of Housing Developers

Saqib Bhatti Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point. The reality is that section 106 money should be spent within a closely defined community area to mitigate any negative impacts resulting from the development. Unfortunately, we are not seeing that in my constituency.

Bradford council, which is Labour-controlled, has the power to hold developers to account so that they ringfence money for the specific communities in which it should be spent. My worry is that the local authority is not spending that money in Silsden or Keighley; it is taking it back to Bradford city and spending it within the city heartlands, rather than allowing my constituents to benefit from it. That is a real challenge.

I would like a specific response from the Minister on how we can make sure that we hold the developers, and indeed the local authorities that have these powers, to account in order to ensure that section 106 money and community ownership money are spent in the communities where they should be spent.

My next point is about on-site conditions when a development takes place. Unfortunately, in my constituency I have far too often seen new developments—I will give the examples of Harron Homes in Silsden and Accent Properties in Long Lee just outside Keighley—where the quality of the build has been so poor that I, as the local MP, have had to chase the developer on snagging-related issues. Indeed, there have even been challenges with highways or drainage. A Long Lee resident contacted me to say that their property, which bordered on the development, had been negatively impacted by the work of Accent Homes, because the developers had not taken proper access provisions or proper boundary-related issues into account. That resulted in huge holes appearing in the gardens of neighbouring properties. Those properties had nothing to do with the development taking place, but they were still negatively impacted.

This should not be happening. Conditions of build should be properly assessed, and the developers should be held to account by the local authority through the enforcement powers available to it. Again, I fear that Bradford council is not being robust enough, when it has awarded planning consent for a build to take place, in going on to hold the developers to account throughout the build process. I have repeatedly raised that issue since becoming the Member of Parliament for Keighley and Ilkley.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

This is a timely debate, because I have just written to Solihull council about the Arden Triangle in my constituency and the lack of sufficient detail around the masterplan that is being put forward and considered tomorrow. Does my hon. Friend agree with me about this? One of the points I raised was that developers need to give consideration to infrastructure such as GP surgeries, but also to the road network, so that it can deal with the increase in housing.

[Robbie Moore]

Absolutely; my hon. Friend makes an excellent intervention. All too often, we see little pockets of development taking place on the outskirts of relatively small towns, without due consideration of the wider challenges with traffic congestion on highways, schools, doctors’ surgeries and indeed the retail offering. Crikey, how many huge developments do we now see taking place where no thought is given even to having a local corner shop within easy access of the residents? Masterplanning and properly considering the impact of these developments on communities such as mine are vital.

That brings me to the next issue, which is that when a development has gone through the planning consent process and been built, and residents start moving in and to reside in the development, there is a challenge around how the site is maintained. I will use the example of the Miller Homes development in Eastburn, which is just next to Silsden and Steeton in my constituency. Miller Homes had completed the development, and then all residents were expected to pay a levy charge to a maintenance company, for the maintenance company to then use that money to instruct a contractor that would carry out any maintenance of the grassed areas or hedging within the development. What we were finding was that a resident had no control, necessarily, over how much levy they were paying that maintenance company, but neither did they have any control over the quality of the work being undertaken or over how regularly grass was being cut or hedges were being maintained. The system was not working.

I have had many meetings with residents on the issue. I have written to Miller Homes; I have also written to the management company dealing with the matter, because I feel that the situation is geared up for it to be able to make too much profit, and the quality of the service delivered for residents in Eastburn is so much less sufficient. In effect, those who have contacted me are trapped: they are paying for a service that they are not receiving and they cannot escape the situation without moving entirely. That cannot be fair. Better regulation of maintenance levy money for carrying out works on the ground and having a proper quality of work being carried out need to be looked at.

As I have said many times in this place, local people are not opposed to new housing, but they want guarantees that services and infrastructure will be upgraded to accommodate the new influx of people. We should be encouraging our housing sector to see the benefits of extra engagement and extra investment in order to open up public support so that more developments are able to take place further down the line. We must also convene developments and developers that work collaboratively with communities, so we can ensure that local communities are getting what they want. Based on the ambitious targets that the new Labour Government have released for increasing the number of houses and on their willingness, effectively, not to take into account local consideration and local consultation, I fear that there will be a dramatically negative impact on many small communities.

I will give a further example. In the village of Addingham in my constituency, people went through a very long process of negotiating their neighbourhood plan. They came to the conclusion that over the next 15 years Addingham would be able to accept about 75 new homes being constructed. Bradford council, which is Labour-controlled, comes along and effectively says, “No, no: we are going to ignore what you have spent the last God knows how many years developing, and say that another 181 new houses in Addingham would be far more appropriate.” That goes against all the work that the local community had done and against any need assessment that had been properly established for that community to grow. I urge the Government to ensure that they always take into account local need and local assessments, as well as the negative impacts on local communities.

Planning Committees: Reform

Saqib Bhatti Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think I am owed a visit to Ebbsfleet at some point, so I will happily take that up with my hon. Friend outside the Chamber. I am glad that he mentions strategic planning committees—one of the changes that we have put forward in the working paper and would like views on. We think that they should cover, in theory, large-scale allocated regeneration or industrial sites, including urban extensions or opportunity areas—large sites in local communities that could benefit from a more streamlined process. A smaller group of elected councillors with the expertise and knowledge about a specific site could make decisions about it, rather than all such proposals being taken to wider planning committees.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

Is it not the case that the Government have realised that the mandatory top-down targets they came up with are now unachievable, and that, in their panic, they have come up with a policy that will undermine local democratic voices and take people away from, not closer to, the democratic process?

Employment Rights Bill

Saqib Bhatti Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The Bill is pro-worker and pro-business; that is the context in which the Bill has come to fruition. We have been consulting wide and long on the measures, and we believe they strike the right balance to get our economy working across the board, so that people can contribute and feel that their contribution is valued as part of the UK economy.

The Bill also delivers a once-in-a-generation upgrade of the rights of our proud seafarers. Never again will any company be able to get away scot-free with exploiting a loophole to sack employees without notice. No longer will our seas be the byword for a race to the bottom on standards.

The next step in our package to transform the rights of working people is on unfair dismissal. At present, employees must wait two years for basic protections against unfair dismissal, so it is not surprising that they can be loath to change jobs and restart the clock. That is not right. It deprives people of promotion opportunities and pay rises, and it limits businesses’ ability to recruit. Under the Bill, employees will not have to wait years for protection from unfair dismissal. Instead, they will receive it from day one. Those measures alone will benefit close to 9 million people.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

The Deputy Prime Minister talks about seafarers not being abused, but did she apologise to DP World last week?

[Angela Rayner]

I do not know what the hon. Member is getting at. Maybe he is getting at the former Conservative Transport Secretary, who referred to them as pirates of the high seas or weasels—I do not know. I have just said clearly to all businesses in the UK that I want to work with them to ensure that we value their employees. Many of them are onboard: they recognise that it is good for business, good for growth and good for their employees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There speaks somebody who has actually run a business and understands the impact on a small employer. That is why we say there should be a carve-out, certainly for small and micro businesses.

We have to ask ourselves this: if the Government are not listening to businesses who “pull the whole cart”, who are they listening to? I think we all know the answer to that. A consultation is not five minutes inside No. 10 and a photo opportunity. Proper consultation is working with business, listening, taking your time and not rushing things—the exact opposite of what the Government have done. We know why that is. The Deputy Prime Minister made a misguided promise to Labour’s trade union paymasters that legislation would be introduced within 100 days. Despite 100 days of gloom and doom, talking the economy down and wrecking business confidence, they managed it—just.

The Government are not even listening to their own legal experts. Only last week the Attorney General said:

“excessive reliance on delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses, or skeleton legislation, upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive.”

Because the Bill is such a rushed job, it takes swathes of delegated powers, including Henry VIII powers, meaning the final policy will be decided later at the Secretary of State’s whim—not now by Parliament. Legislating that way is causing real concerns for businesses today. The Deputy Prime Minister and her colleagues preach stability, yet in the same breath they are causing instability, uncertainty and falling confidence at a cost of jobs and investment today. There are already 58,000 fewer payroll jobs than when Labour took office. Confidence levels at the Institute of Directors on future investment intentions have dropped from plus 30 in June to minus six today. The Government are planning 30 consultations on the measures in the Bill. They should have taken place before the Bill was introduced, so the legislation could be precise about what it will do.

[Saqib Bhatti]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for giving way. He talks about trade unions. I have just seen a news update on the Unite union’s Birmingham hotel and conference centre being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office. The total cost was £112 million, but it has now been valued at £29 million. Who will hold the trade unions to account in the Bill?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend makes a strong point. That certainly needs looking at very carefully.

As the Government’s attempt at business consultation has clearly failed, and as no one on their Front Bench has any business experience, I will draw the right hon. Lady a picture of what the Bill actually means for businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

Many small business in Meriden and Solihull East are rightly concerned about the Bill for a number of reasons. Since the election, I have spoken a number of times demanding that the Government be more ambitious for growth, for our entrepreneurs and for our small businesses. Indeed, it is the moral duty of every Government to unleash the full potential of our businesses and, where possible, to create an environment to embolden entrepreneurs and encourage economic growth.

Instead, the Bill will kill off any ambition and any focus on growth. If we want to focus on inclusive growth, we must nurture our start-ups, scale-ups and small businesses, and let them be nimble in how they operate, rather than shackling them. That is how economic magic will start to happen. The businesses to which I have spoken are worried about the insufficient consultation. The Government’s impact assessment, which we received late, shows that small businesses are likely to be hit hardest. The costs, according to the Government’s own analysis, will be in the low billions—up to £5 billion. For a Government who keep talking about the alleged black hole, those low billions seem rather reckless. It proves that this is nothing more than an ideological Bill that does not ensure growth.

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, with just nine days until Halloween, the impact assessment we have seen today is an early horror show?

[Saqib Bhatti]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. A lot of people are in a holding pattern for business decisions on investment and employment.

All the Bill will do is leave our businesses at the mercy of the trade unions and take us back to the 1970s. It will merely align us with the growth-gobbling guidelines set by bureaucrats in Brussels and hold our businesses back. It is not just me who thinks this; I am going by the Government’s impact assessment. The CBI claims that employers expect Britain to become the worst place to invest and do business over the next five years—a damning indictment of the Government.

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Saqib Bhatti]

I will not.

What businesses want is less government, less regulation and more freedom. When making employment decisions, they require certainty and flexibility so that they can hire more people, but the Bill threatens to undermine the agility of businesses in ensuring that their workers maximise productivity. It does not encourage businesses to take risk, hire a budding new employee and reap the rewards; in fact, it does the complete opposite. The Federation of Small Businesses calls this legislation “clumsy and chaotic” and suggests that it will “increase economic inactivity.”

Let us be clear: the Bill is not really about employment rights or better conditions. Its focus is on repealing the 10-year ballot requirement on political funds, removing the opt-in default for trade union political funds, removing the need for proper consent to form a trade union, and so on. It is not the Employment Rights Bill; it is the trade union appeasement Bill. The Government are not prepared to stand up to the unions. We have seen them cave in to train drivers and give sweetheart deals without any savings for the taxpayer.

[Ms Billington]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Saqib Bhatti]

I will not.

We have seen the unions hold the Government to ransom at the expense of hard-working taxpayers. That is why the Bill is bad for small and medium-sized businesses—those arguments have been made already. Our SMEs cannot afford dozens of French-style regulations that bolster the power of the trade unions and threaten to increase the cost of employment by over £1,000. I am speaking to raise the concerns of many small and medium-sized businesses in Meriden and Solihull East about this legislation. It is rushed—businesses have not been properly consulted—and it gives more power to the trade unions. It will fail to maximise productivity and will severely weaken the case for businesses to hire new employees. It is a flawed Bill serving a flawed ideology.