Peter Fortune MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Sept 2025 · Use of Drones in Defence · Hansard source

  More

  It is not my place to talk about what the Israeli Government are doing, but I know that there are international laws of conflict, and everybody should adhere to them. In conclusion—I have started so I shall finish—the Government need to embrace this issue, and fast. We cannot afford to wait and see. Britain must foster companies, train our forces and develop countermeasures to ensure that we master this new form of warfare.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Use of Drones in Defence · Hansard source

  More

  I was hoping to attend the debate yesterday—of course, Biggin Hill in my constituency played a huge part in the RAF’s incredible efforts during the second world war and the battle of Britain—but sadly I was in the main Chamber in a different debate. Through those big conflicts at the beginning of the last century, we saw huge innovation and people learning, as the cliché goes, not to fight the previous conflict. We will always have to adapt and change. I know, especially through the armed forces personnel scheme, which my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) mentioned, that senior people—and, I am sure, Ministers, with their huge experience—are considering all the time how we best get ready for the conflicts that we do not yet know we are about to face. In conclusion, the Government must embrace a review of how we are developing drones, fast—

• 3 Sept 2025 · Use of Drones in Defence · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the use of drones in defence. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank colleagues for enabling me to secure this debate. Contrary to what some people may think, drones are not a new tool. The UK first began testing unmanned aerial vehicles for training during the first world war and later developed them in the 1930s for anti-aircraft gunnery target practice. Much like the noble tank owes its name to Britain, the drone does too: the Hatfield-built Queen Bee radio-controlled aircraft is thought to have inspired the term “drone”. As technology has improved and drones have become more sophisticated, their military use has expanded over the decades to include reconnaissance, surveillance and targeted strikes. From the Queen Bee to bomb disposal vehicles to today’s Reapers, the UK armed forces have long used drones, but while we were an early pioneer, we now risk falling behind. The slow evolution of drones is now fast revolutionising warfare. Their mass use has transformed combat in Ukraine, on the land, in the air and at sea, with cheap kamikaze drones causing immense damage. Staggeringly, up to 80% of Russian and Ukrainian casualties are due to drones. They have transformed combat on the frontline. Drones threaten infantrymen, fortified positions and vehicles up to 9 miles from contact lines. Moving positions and supplies has become a deadly task.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Use of Drones in Defence · Hansard source

  More

  It is right that we continue to support Ukraine. Our support of Ukraine is keeping us safe in the west, and we need to redouble our efforts to make sure the brave soldiers and people of Ukraine are well defended. Drones are now an important part of supply chains and logistics, with Ukraine using ground drones to move ammunition and other supplies to the frontline. Operation Spiderweb saw Ukraine smuggle 117 cheap first-person-view drones to successfully strike a Russian airfield, disabling a third of Russia’s strategic bombers. That is drones worth a couple of hundred dollars inflicting an estimated $7 billion of damage. Sea drones have changed the balance of power in the Black sea. A third of Russia’s fleet was damaged or destroyed by relatively low-cost sea drones packed with explosives ramming ships. While Russia’s navy has adapted to make these attacks harder, sea drones carrying missiles or other drones are still causing immense damage—a $300,000 sea drone can destroy fighter jets worth $50 billion. Drones are transforming warfare and levelling the playing field in asymmetric fights, but the change can be seen beyond Ukraine. Israel weakened Iran’s attacks on its territory by covertly transporting drones in suitcases and trucks to destroy Iranian air defences and missiles. Houthi rebels used drones to target HMS Diamond, requiring the ship to use its expensive missiles to stop a relatively cheap attack. Even drug cartels in Mexico are using cheap drones to launch targeted strikes against security services. Terrorist groups are also adapting commercially available drones for reconnaissance and filming propaganda, and they will undoubtedly be used in future attacks. The pace of change is unbelievably fast, but the direction is clear: drone warfare is the future, and Britian must be the leader in the development, testing and mass deployment of drones. That means three things. First, we must develop an ecosystem of private enterprises that can innovate, test and build drone models—big and small, sophisticated and simple—at a larger scale. Ukraine is armed with many UK-made drones. We have supplied some 70,000 already and have a target of 100,000 by the end of the year, but that pales in comparison with the numbers required for drone warfare. Ukraine aims to produce 4.5 million this year. It would take relatively little money to kick-start a collection of competing companies, capable of innovating to keep up with battlefield changes, to build inexpensive or sophisticated drones. We must also help commercial drone enterprises to thrive. Although they were not initially intended to, those machines can have military purposes and can provide the industrial-scale drone warfare that we require. It is disappointing and frankly unacceptable that, since the general election, the Government have purchased only three drones for the UK armed forces. Secondly, if the UK procures many new drones, we will be able to start training our forces and learning the lessons from Ukraine. Although our brave service personnel use drones for many tasks, they are not as widely utilised as modern warfare demands.

• 2 Sept 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This Bill is supposed to be the Government’s flagship piece of legislation to empower England’s cities, regions and communities, but there is disappointingly little in it about strengthening accountability in existing devolved bodies, especially the Greater London Authority. It is right that power is returned to cities, regions and communities, but those who hold devolved power must also be held accountable for their decisions, actions and delivery. Nowhere in England enjoys more devolved powers than London. That is in part why it is the only area with a directly elected Assembly, devoted to scrutiny. However, as the Mayor of London’s responsibilities, powers and budget have grown, the Assembly has become weaker and weaker in comparison. A notable issue is the two-thirds majority required to amend the mayor’s budget and strategies, but that is impossible to achieve in the London Assembly, which is why no budget or strategy has been amended in 25 years. Unlike other combined authorities, the Assembly cannot call in mayoral decisions and London’s 32 boroughs are excluded from decision making. That means the mayor does not have to seek consensus, negotiate or even listen to opposing views. In a city the size of London, it effectively alienates and disenfranchises millions of people. That political fracture was made clear when Mayor Khan imposed the ultra low emission zone expansion on outer London, despite overwhelming opposition. There is a glaring democratic and accountability deficit in London, which is why so many of my constituents—and, I know, the constituents of other Members—are now questioning the place of the London borough of Bromley in the Greater London Authority. They have never paid more to City Hall, yet people feel that they are ignored on every issue. Mayor Khan has increased council tax by 77% in nine years, meaning that Londoners pay nearly £500 a year on average to fund his policies. Let us not forget the huge sums that Londoners now pay City Hall thanks to his road charges. In the first three months of this year, motorists forked out nearly £220 million thanks to his ULEZ charge, the Blackwall tunnel toll and his hiked congestion charge. What do they receive in return for all that money? ULEZ cameras, too few police officers and green-belt protections being ripped up. Anyone who wants to see devolution in London succeed must support measures to make the Mayor of London more accountable. First, this Bill introduces simple majority voting in combined authorities as the default decision-making process, but it stops short of doing that in the London Assembly. That is a mistake. It should abolish the two-thirds majority requirement to amend budgets and strategies, allowing a simple majority of Assembly members to force changes. That alone would transform London’s politics and force mayors to the table. Secondly, this Government should consult on a new model to give the 32 boroughs a voice and a vote in London, so that Bromley can no longer be ignored. Finally, this Bill should give the London Assembly the power to call in mayoral decisions. My constituents in Bromley and Biggin Hill have had enough of being ignored by the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. If the Government want to maintain the support of Londoners for devolution, the London Mayor must be made accountable.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Bishop Challoner school has been helping to educate Bromley pupils for nearly 75 years, but it will close its doors in July due to Labour’s decision to impose VAT on independent schools. Given the Deputy Prime Minister’s well-publicised views on independent schools, does she welcome this closure or would she like to apologise to the parents, pupils and staff?

• 4 Jun 2025 · Business Rates Relief: High-street Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) for securing the debate. I agree with nearly everything he said, with one notable exception: the constituency with the finest high streets is, of course, Bromley and Biggin Hill. High streets matter. They are the economic heart of our cities, towns and villages, supporting local jobs and serving as a social hub for communities, as my right hon. Friend said. When they are in decline or struggling, communities feel it: not only are there fewer jobs and less cohesion locally, but there is a deep sense of loss. Shuttered shops and empty streets shatter civic pride. While too many communities have seen their local high streets decline, we avoided mass closure during the pandemic, thanks to generous public support. Retail, hospitality and leisure relief, under which firms were initially offered 100% relief on business rates with a cap of up to £110,000, was one such pivotal measure. It was a lifeline for many businesses, and it remained a lifeline through the energy crisis and the subsequent inflation. Although it was intended as a temporary measure, that tax break remains crucial to the recovery of high streets and to local growth. It is not yet time to rapidly reduce it. That is why the Government’s decision to reduce the relief from 75% to 40% is a huge blow. The change effectively doubles the business rates bill for retail, hospitality and leisure firms, and it comes on top of the high energy costs and above-target inflation that are squeezing businesses. In my constituency we are fortunate to have successful high streets, from Bromley town centre, which is home to more than 700 businesses and supports 20,000 jobs, to the smaller parades in Hayes, Biggin Hill, Coney Hall, Bickley and Keston. However, they remain under pressure from rising costs, inflation and high energy prices, and the same challenges are squeezing consumer spending. It is precisely the wrong time to rapidly reduce the business rates relief. For an independent pub in my constituency with a rateable value of £98,000, the changes to the relief and the increase in the standard multiplier will mean an increase of nearly £20,000 in its tax bill. It is especially reckless because this is not the only Government policy with an impact on our high streets. In one swoop, Ministers have also hiked the minimum wage, created swathes of new employment red tape and introduced a substantial increase in national insurance contributions. The Government have mixed an expensive, anti-business cocktail for our high streets that few businesses can afford. It will mean fewer jobs, less investment and closures, at a time when we want to grow our local economies. The Government’s boast at last year’s tax-hiking Budget was “a penny off the pint”. —[ Official Report , 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 820.] But behind that lacklustre announcement, they have not been honest about the collective impact of their policies, which are costing high street businesses an absolute fortune. If the Government are serious about securing investment and growing the economy, they need to rethink their decision to rapidly reduce this critical relief, before they hollow out Britain’s high streets and pull down the shutters for good.

• 7 May 2025 · Havering Borough and Essex Devolution · Hansard source

  More

  I commend my hon. Friend on an excellent speech. Does he agree that boroughs such as mine—Bromley—face many of the frustrations that his constituents in Havering face, and that we are also contributing huge amounts of money to the Mayor of London?

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  What fans tell me is that they want the money to move more freely through the sport. I shall say more about that in a moment. The cronyism is what we are concerned about. With political leadership, the risk of mission creep is greater. More state intervention would threaten English football’s independence, and UEFA warns that without independence, English clubs could not compete in European leagues. The Government know that their Bill could torpedo English football, and I wonder whether that is why Ministers refuse to publish UEFA’s letter about it. The regulator will also cost clubs a small fortune. The levy to pay for the new bureaucracy will cost them nearly £100 million, and the regulatory burden will cost them nearly £35 million more, hurting the smallest clubs, such as Bromley, that do not have the staff to handle yet more red tape. For clubs it means higher taxes, more paperwork, and staff working on state demands, rather than football. For fans it will inevitably mean higher ticket prices, especially in view of the new jobs tax that Labour has instigated, and employment red tape. We should be focusing on getting money to the league clubs, not tying their hands with bureaucracy. That is what the clubs need. Football is about risks and aspirations. Teams win or lose, are promoted or relegated. This is not banking; it is football. While I recognise that smaller clubs need support, a partisan regulator is not the answer. English football’s independence is worth protecting.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  As has been mentioned, only one Football League club is represented by a Conservative MP, and that is the mighty Bromley football club. My efforts to bring about a chant of “You’ve got the only Tory” across opposition stands in league two are ongoing, and I will keep the House informed of how well they proceed. Hayes Lane, the club’s ground since 1938, stands proudly in my constituency. Bromley FC is a football fan’s dream. We have gone from strength to strength in recent years. Earning promotion to the conference south league in 2006, the club was crowned champion eight years later. We climbed the national league, reaching the FA trophy final in 2018 and earning promotion in 2021, but our rise did not stop there. Bromley faced Ryan Reynolds’s Wrexham at Wembley for a second shot at the FA trophy in 2022. It was an amazing day, and one that I remember well. While we may not have had “Deadpool”, we did have Michael Cheek—Cheeky, the Maradona of Bromley—who secured the silverware with the game’s only goal. I love Michael Cheek, and I congratulate him on being named league two player of the year last night; it is well deserved. Last year, a moment 132 years in the making arrived as Bromley was promoted to the English football league for the first time in its history. Why is this story relevant? Bromley’s football dream was realised thanks to sound management, private investment and raw talent, not a state regulator, and I congratulate Robin Stanton-Gleaves, Mark Hammond— Hammo—and Andy “Woody” Woodman on all that they have done for the club. As a Ravens fan, when I look at Labour’s supposedly independent football regulator, I have to ask whether it would help Bromley FC or aspiring clubs like it, and in its current state, the answer is a resounding no. When the Bill was first proposed, it was proposed with the right intentions. It would protect cherished community clubs from bad owners, and would prevent a breakaway European super league. However, Labour’s regulator is morphing into a meddling, costly political deadweight for English football, because the regulator will be neither independent nor impartial. This is cronyism at its worst.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Bromley council has the second highest rate of education, health and care plans in London, and is in desperate need of extra special school provision. The council is looking to bring forward a 200-space special school but has met with a lack of innovation at the Education and Skills Funding Agency. Will the Minister meet me and local officials to discuss how we can break those bureaucratic blockers and deliver this provision?

• 1 Apr 2025 · Royal British Legion · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for securing the debate. I have no doubt that the Royal British Legion is one of the most nationally significant charities in Britain today. That is not solely because of the legion’s poppy appeal, which has raised millions upon millions of pounds to support the armed forces communities since 1921, nor because it leads our nation in remembrance each year, in a moment of national unity, with deeply shared gratitude, sorrow and loss that each generation continues; it is also because of its invaluable and irreplaceable support for British servicemen and women, veterans and their families. Established in the aftermath of the first world war, the legion helped returning soldiers to find housing and work. In the century since, the legion’s services to veterans have been a lifeline, and it has grown to support the entire armed forces community. Though I only served briefly, I know from friends who continued in the armed forces and from veterans in my community that the legion has made an enormous difference in their lives. As we all know, however, the Royal British Legion is more than a national charity; it is also local, and long embedded in communities across the country, including in my Bromley and Biggin Hill constituency. The Hayes Royal British Legion branch was established over 90 years ago and is a cornerstone of the local community. While many membership organisations struggle, it boasts 900 members, who together raise thousands of pounds to support serving and ex-serving members of the British armed forces and their families. I commend the work of their president, Jo Charstone, and all the wonderful volunteers, such as Olly Pereira and Dennis Burroughs. Although the Hayes branch, like others, has grown to include those who have not served, it still provides a crucial social hub for Bromley’s veterans. More than 6,600 veterans live in the London borough of Bromley—more than in any other corner of London—and the Hayes Royal British Legion branch offers Bromley’s veterans a place of camaraderie every month. I look forward to joining the branch next month for the beacon service, which they are organising to commemorate VE Day. It is a moment to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the second world war. In a powerful initiative, the Hayes branch will also ask residents living in a home that once belonged to a fallen hero to display a “Remembrance Tommy” sign in their garden bearing the name of the previous owner who never returned, so that we will always remember them.

• 26 Mar 2025 · Local Government Finances: London · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. Before serving the people of Bromley and Biggin Hill as their Member of Parliament, I served them as a councillor in the borough for 12 years. I was also privileged to be deputy leader of that great borough. I have, therefore, long been familiar with the financial challenges that face local government. As much as the Labour party would like to pin the blame solely on decisions taken in 2010, the story is far longer than that. For Bromley, the story of underfunding started in 1997, under the previous Labour Government. Bromley council’s net budget has reduced by more than a quarter in real terms and nearly two fifths per person. It is true that the previous Conservative Government asked councils to make significant savings to tackle the country’s deficit but, ultimately, without those difficult decisions our nation would not have been able to weather the financial storm caused by the coronavirus. I regret that the previous Conservative Government did not deliver a long-promised fair funding review, but I recognise that that was hard to achieve in the aftermath of the pandemic, the energy crisis and high inflation. It is a problem that successive Governments of all stripes have failed to grasp. The new Labour Government’s actions have made it even more challenging for councils. It is the same old Labour story in London: more money is spent on Labour areas and less on the Conservative suburbs. Bromley council was awarded the second-lowest funding settlement amount per person. If Bromley received the average settlement grant of funding per person for London, the borough would receive an additional £80 million a year. In addition to inadequate settlements, Bromley did not benefit from the recovery grant. With inflation rising fast again under the Labour Government, the funding pressures will worsen, further eroding councils’ financial standing. Nor have councils received adequate funding to cover the cost of Labour’s decision to increase employer’s national insurance contributions. This jobs tax will further push up costs, especially in social care. Bromley is a well-managed borough, and I commend its Conservative leader, Councillor Colin Smith, and his excellent team, but like all London councils Bromley faces enormous pressures that are simply unaffordable. We retain the fourth-lowest level of council tax in outer London because we are a low-cost borough. Bromley council has saved more than £150 million since 2011, but being a low-tax, low-cost borough means there are few remaining savings. It is becoming increasingly impossible for councils to balance the books. Bromley can this year, but only thanks to the authority’s reserves, carefully built and protected over many years of sensible and responsible stewardship, despite opposition calls to reduce them. That is not sustainable in the long term. It is why a quarter of London boroughs have already effectively declared bankruptcy and requested exceptional financial support. Future local government settlements must adequately fund councils to deliver, especially considering the rising national insurance costs. They should reflect the higher costs that all London boroughs face, fixing the area cost adjustments that wrongly say that Bromley is one of the most affordable places in London. There should also be a mechanism to reward low-cost and efficient authorities, instead of asking them to make savings while spendthrift authorities are given more. Finally, the Government should allow councils to change statutory charges to match costs, and reduce ringfencing to allow councils to be more flexible and more concerned with their own priorities.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Department for Business and Trade · Hansard source

  More

  I regularly meet business owners big and small across Bromley and Biggin Hill. The story is the same no matter who I talk to, be it big franchisees, independent care providers or small family-owned start-ups: British businesses do not feel supported by this Labour Government. Instead, they feel hamstrung by Labour’s tax rises and red tape. The Department for Business and Trade’s budget may be over £3.3 billion, but any business will say that things are getting worse, not better, under Labour. I have lost count of the number of local enterprises who have told me that they have stopped recruiting, and are making redundancies, delaying investment and increasing prices, all after Labour’s tax-raising budget. That should not come as a surprise to the Government. Hiking employers’ national insurance contributions by £25 billion will cost jobs. Imposing reams of new employment red tape will deter businesses from hiring. There may only be one Cabinet member who has started their own business, but this is simple stuff. If they make it more expensive and difficult to hire and grow, businesses will not hire or grow. That is what anti-business, anti-growth Government look like. Labour’s policies are causing economic growth to slow down, unemployment to rise fast and inflation to increase again. Bromley and Biggin Hill has nearly 4,800 small businesses. They are the lifeblood of the local economy. If they thrive, our community succeeds. If they fail, our community suffers. But Labour is making their jobs harder, as it is for small businesses across the country. A new survey by the Federation of Small Businesses shows that a third of small employers plan to cut jobs, with nine in 10 worried about Labour’s Employment Rights Bill. Small business confidence has also fallen to a record low because of the pandemic, with confidence among small firms plummeting more in London than in any other English region. This Labour Government are not helping businesses to deliver economic growth; instead, they are taxing them to the very brink.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Courts and Tribunals: Sitting Days · Hansard source

  More

  I speak as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, which worked on the report about how justice delayed is justice denied, and I recommend that Members peruse it. What specific conversations has the Lord Chancellor had with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about speeding up the planning process so that we can get more courtrooms operating?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Family Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  Like many Conservative Members who have started a small business, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It has been fascinating to listen to stories about businesses from across the country during the debate. I was particularly moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) who talked about the pressure facing a local gym. It made me feel better as I am contributing to my local gym by paying the membership fees and not using any of the facilities. Seven months ago, when Labour came to power, the new Government proclaimed that economic growth was their first mission. For all the doom-mongering, Labour inherited an economy that had turned a corner, following the pandemic and the energy crisis. The economy was growing, energy bills were falling, inflation was back on target and employment was high. However, in seven short months, economic growth has stalled, the Bank of England has halved its growth forecasts, the cost of living is rising again, with high inflation and energy bills, and unemployment is increasing, as businesses brace for tax rises. Britain’s economy is stuttering because of this Government’s failing policies: a family business tax to break up thriving enterprises, a jobs tax to make it more expensive for businesses to employ people, a business rate hike to squeeze the already struggling British high street and more employment red tape to tie businesses’ hands. But Labour is not content with cutting jobs and closing businesses—it is giving Ministers the power to shrink the great British pint. While they say they will never do it, who could trust a word this Government say? Not pensioners, not working people and certainly not farmers. On an issue of such vital national importance, can we take that risk? Every employer I speak to in my constituency tells me that they have no choice but to cut jobs, wages and investment. That is true whether the employer is a nursery in Bromley Common, a large franchisee on Bromley High Street or a charity serving our borough. That is what an anti-business Government look like, not a pro-growth Government. The policies are all the more bizarre as the Prime Minister once said: “Wealth creation is our number one priority.” In reality, he does not know how to create wealth, only tax it. The Government are taxing family farmers who will be forced to sell off their land, family businesses that will be forced to sell and high street businesses that will be forced to close, taking jobs so that working people face redundancy. It is not too late for Labour to spare family businesses. Those businesses employ 14 million people and contribute £575 billion to the economy. Labour’s decision to cap and cut the business property relief risks breaking up long-running family businesses. Instead of continuing those businesses, the next generation will be forced to sell. The Government’s policies will not grow the economy, but hollow it out. Britain simply cannot afford Labour’s assault on our nation’s economic future.

• 20 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T4. Following the Grenfell tragedy, the residents of Northpoint in my constituency have had to pay charges of nearly £700,000 for a waking watch, fire wardens and alarms. Given the Government’s manifesto commitment to better protect leaseholders from costs, what steps can the Minister take to help my constituents with the reimbursement of those charges?

• 14 Jan 2025 · Iran · Hansard source

  More

  With the re-election of President Trump in the US, we are likely to see a return to his policy of maximum pressure to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. What is the Secretary of State’s view on that approach? Will the Government support our allies in the United States of America?

• 14 Jan 2025 · Iran · Hansard source

  More

  16. What diplomatic steps he is taking to help counter potential threats to global stability by Iran.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As has been highlighted on the Opposition Benches, English education has been a success story. We have trusted schools to get on with the job, and academies and new free schools enjoy the freedom to run themselves, pay their teachers more and improve their curriculum. Ending central Government and local government micromanagement has put power into the hands of people who know best: school leaders and teachers. And it has worked: English schools have soared up the global rankings under the Conservatives.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Well, the figures speak for themselves. As was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), who has morphed into a Whip at the moment, English schools have soared up the rankings. If we look at the recent PISA league tables, we see that English education is now ranked seventh-best for maths and ninth for reading and science. That is up from 21st, 19th and 11th respectively in 2009. Meanwhile, education in Scotland and Wales under the SNP and Labour, where schools were not granted those freedoms, has stagnated and slumped in various global rankings, so much so that some of them have withdrawn altogether from some of those rankings. I want to focus on one problematic element of the Bill, which was raised by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). The Government’s proposals would strip academies of the power to pay teachers more, award performance, and attract and retain talented people. I understand that at least two schools in my constituency pay teachers more than the national pay scales: Oaklands primary in Biggin Hill and Pickhurst primary in Hayes. Nearby, the Harris primary academy in Shortlands and many more schools in Bromley also choose to pay teachers more. The Bill will strip academies of that power, cutting teachers’ pay and weakening schools. In any other industry, pay reflects performance. When vacancies cannot be filled, pay rises to attract talent. That is why schools should be able to vary from national pay scales. School leaders should be able to pay good teachers more and respond to the local jobs market. Instead, the Government want to wind the clock back and empower Whitehall, not schools. The Government are so eager to be doom-mongers to justify their ideological policies that they risk wrecking a decade of progress. Who will benefit? It is not the teachers or the children, so why are they doing it? I am not even sure that those on the Government Front Bench know, but what we do know is that the Bill will destabilise years of progress and damage the future opportunities of young people across Bromley and Biggin Hill, and right across the nation.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Employer National Insurance Contributions: Charities · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for bringing forward the debate. I want to speak about the impact that the jobs tax will have on my community. One excellent charity working in my constituency of Bromley and Biggin Hill is South East London Mind. It faces a £190,000 increase in its tax bill, which is the equivalent of hiring five mental health advisers who could support 1,000 people a year. However, instead of working hard fundraising or reworking NHS contracts to expand, staff will be working to pay tax, and in all likelihood to do less. That is not a unique case. Another fantastic charity working in Bromley and Biggin Hill is Aurora Nexus, which employs 240 people right across London, supporting people with autism and learning disabilities. It faces a £194,000 tax grab. Every Member present will know of a local charity that Labour’s jobs tax will hit hard. This is a poor policy, and quite frankly an attack on the most vulnerable in our society.

• 21 Nov 2024 · Transport Infrastructure · Hansard source

  More

  An increasing amount of Transport for London’s funding comes from punitive taxes on motorists, including those in my constituency of Bromley and Biggin Hill. There are reports that the Mayor of London was actively planning to charge drivers up to 60p a mile to drive. Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to discourage the mayor from introducing pay-per-mile road user charging across Greater London?

• 17 Oct 2024 · International Investment Summit · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to those who have made their maiden speeches today. I think we all felt the passion and emotion in the beautiful speech by the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell). She has given me an idea: when I am out in Keston this weekend, I might recommend to the residents that we get ourselves a village bear—although I can hear my daughter recommending that we get ourselves a village Harry Styles; that would probably be preferred. The hon. Member for Ossett and Denby Dale (Jade Botterill) spoke passionately about representing the place that she called home. The idea of “Pie Hard” is what I am looking forward to—a Bruce Willis remake in the rolling hills of Yorkshire would be most enjoyable. I congratulate both Members on their maiden speeches. I will continue being nice to the Opposition—

• 17 Oct 2024 · International Investment Summit · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, the Government—I have picked up that habit from my hon. Friend and I do apologise. I am impressed by what has been achieved at the international investment summit. Within weeks of allegedly receiving the worst economic inheritance of any incoming Government since the second world war, Labour has supposedly secured billions of pounds of investment. That is frankly unbelievable, and not because I doubt our country’s ability to attract investment. Britain is a tremendous place to invest, as a wealthy, free, fair and talented nation where people can do business and thrive. That is why Britain’s foreign direct investment stock grew to more than £2 trillion throughout successive Conservative Governments—more than France, Germany and Italy combined. My scepticism is about the idea that the Government, who appointed a Minister for Investment only four days before the summit, secured every penny of the investment. As anyone in business will tell us, the devil is in the details, and a quick inspection will confirm that most of the investment was in progress thanks to the last Conservative Government. Let us look at clean energy, for example. Britain secured much of the investment that the Government claim credit for thanks to a Conservative policy: contracts for difference. Without that market mechanism, under which investors bid for a guaranteed price, we would not have secured as much investment as cheaply for bill payers. It is why we have the world’s four largest offshore wind farms off our coast, why renewables generate 44% of our electricity today compared with 7% in 2010, and why the UK was able to close its last coal-fired power plant this year. That is a Conservative record, as much as Labour might envy it. The Government have done the easy bit in tallying the figures and taking credit for someone else’s work. Admittedly, that is a harder task when No. 10 is in such disarray and the Minister had only two days to prepare for the summit. In fairness, only time will tell if the summit was a success and the relationships built there lead to more investment beyond what was already on its way. But that is the hard bit, because to secure more investment and compete globally, Britain needs to be light on regulation and low in taxes. Although the Prime Minister talked about removing “needless regulation” and being “open for business,” his Government’s actions say otherwise. Despite Labour’s explicit manifesto pledge not to increase national insurance, the Chancellor is drawing up plans to hike the tax for employers. Make no mistake: that would be a tax on jobs, and would make it more expensive for firms to hire, which would impact on businesses big and small, including in my constituency—from Bombardier in Biggin Hill to pubs and cafés in Hayes and the Churchill theatre in Bromley. The tax hike may fall on employers, but working people will pay the price as job opportunities shrink and pay rises are limited. The hands of businesses will be tied further by what the Government themselves brand the biggest increase in employment regulation in a generation. While the Government plan to tax jobs and pass French-style union laws, a Cabinet Minister took a more explicit anti-business approach. The Transport Secretary admitted that she has been boycotting a ferry company for two and a half years, and encouraged others to do the same. While the Prime Minister glad-handed investors— promising less red tape and openness to business, and was careful to mention tax only once—his Government are delivering exactly the opposite. Britain faces a more significant problem: keeping up as technology advances. Leading on artificial intelligence, quantum, engineering biology or semiconductors is vital to our future prosperity and security, but we face considerable challenges in doing so. For example, Britain is home to the largest number of foundational models and generative Al start-ups in Europe, but we lack the compute power that we need to build and run Al models. The previous Conservative Government recognised that problem and planned to build a new supercomputer in Edinburgh 50 times more powerful than our current top-end system, but Labour has now cancelled that £800 million investment. That is yet another example of Labour’s actions not matching its rhetoric. The Government cannot be in favour of growth while cancelling investment. They cannot cut regulations while planning huge increases in red tape for employment. They cannot support jobs while preparing to tax their creation. And they cannot claim to have the worst economic inheritance while copying and championing the work of their Conservative predecessors. If the Government do not get their story straight, investors will almost certainly stay away.