Saqib Bhatti
MP for Meriden and Solihull East · Conservative · United Kingdom
“My constituents in Meriden and Solihull East are greatly concerned about abuse of the European convention on human rights, including article 8. They deem cases like that of the Albanian criminal who was not deported because his son would not eat foreign chicken nuggets to be an insult.”
“I have lots of time for the Minister who will be closing the debate as well, but I have not heard him speak yet, so I will reserve judgment. The hon.”
“It is there to ensure that trade unions and the hand of the state can interfere with private enterprise. We are starting to see the consequences, which will only increase. My right hon.”
“The consequence of the Government’s policies is that youth unemployment is high, at 14.5%—much higher than when they took office in 2024—and among 16 to 17-year-olds it is 30.7%. Those are huge numbers, and I worry about them. I recently held a debate in Westminster Hall on the impact of the Government’s policies on rural pubs.”
“It is basic economics that interference in the labour market will have a consequence: naturally, business owners must make logical decisions and will decide to adjust their employment numbers accordingly; they will do what they can afford, and they must make a profit.”
“I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for his excellent speech. I agree with everything he just said. This is a really important debate, and the motion put forward by His Majesty’s Opposition is so significant for young people.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Saqib Bhatti, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 12.
“As I said, parents and students in Kent deserve answers. They are clearly not getting leadership from the Reform-led council. I ask the Minister to commit to changing course and giving parents the clarity they deserve.”
“Those are not just legal documents; they are lifelines that provide tailored support and set out binding commitments from schools, health services and care providers. Sixty per cent of children with an EHCP in England are in mainstream schools, yet Ministers have failed to clarify whether they will receive full support under the reforms. This is really important and I encourage the Minister to answer that point. Unfortunately, anxieties have been further exacerbated by the delay in the SEND White Paper, which has been pushed to the new year. We know that SEND is not a new problem; we are holding debates and tabling parliamentary questions on the matter. Can the Minister today confirm a specific date for publication of the schools White Paper, and does she have any update on the future of EHCPs and how SEND will be provided for in future?”
“According to official DFE data, there are 54,497 pupils with SEND in Kent—that includes EHCP and non-EHCP special educational needs—and more than 6,600 of them are pupils in the independent sector. That means that 10.8% of SEND pupils in Kent are in independent schools. The Minister knows that I have been very vocal on the Education Secretary’s vindictive decision to impose an education tax on our constituents. Has the Minister considered the consequences of that for SEND pupils who are forced to leave the independent sector if independent schools are forced to close? I hope she has some data on that. The point was made by the hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) that parents should not feel blindsided. As the Government come forward with plans, communication is really important. There is also concern about the scrapping of EHCPs.”
“Is she in a position today to issue a clear timetable on that? If not, I am happy for her to write to me. She knows that I will certainly write to her to chase answers to those questions. Those promises were made to children and their families, and anything short of that would be a betrayal. In Kent and local authority areas across the country, the issue of SEND continues to cause deep stress and anxiety. The demand for SEND provision in Kent has been rising, especially in the post-covid world. Many families are already facing long delays, so parents are understandably anxious about proposed changes that might affect their children. The Minister knows that because her first outing was at a well-attended SEND debate.”
“Will the Government extend the statutory override, which is due to expire in 2026, to give councils certainty? As progress is made in the SEND field, there is real concern about the delivery of special free schools. I will highlight those in Swanley and Whitstable, where families were promised places. It is clear from Kent county council’s response to the recent inquiry by the shadow Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), that the hold-up lies with the Department for Education. If we are to support children with SEND, and the Government say that is a priority, why are they not acting on that? We have a similar instance in Solihull borough that I am told is also being held up at the Department. Can the Minister give a cast-iron guarantee that the Swanley school will open by 2027?”
“I did not have the education portfolio at that time, so my remarks on that will be limited. We can agree that the system is and was under great strain; that is no secret. That is why I have said previously that it requires a cross-party solution. We will have to work together, because the challenges we faced will also be faced by the Reform council and the Labour Government. The hon. Lady will recognise that the circumstances were challenging and that Government money was put forward. I want to ask the Minister, in the same vein that the hon. Lady put that point to me, whether she can provide clarity on what the Government will do to ensure that local authorities remain solvent and are not forced into section 114 notices as they look at SEND reform.”
“My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I am really worried about my constituents who will face higher bills going into winter and beyond. The message is clear, is it not? This Labour Government have the power to get bills down, but they are making a choice not to do so.”
“The hon. Member is making the argument for exploiting our home resources so we do not have to import such resources from elsewhere, but that is exactly the argument when it comes to North sea oil, is it not?”
“I have not had time to go on my hon. Friend’s website, but I hear it is a good read. The fact of the matter is that he puts forward a policy that will cut energy bills—the opposite of what the Government are doing—create jobs in the North sea and ensure economic growth. Is that not the case?”
“We have heard plenty from the Government about their missions, milestones and road maps, yet they only have one mission that we can see, and that is to vandalise our education system and rob schools and parents of the ability to make the choices they think are best for their pupils and children, led by an Education Secretary who prioritises finishing second in the deputy leadership contest for the Labour party, rather than championing children. I know the Minister cannot make an announcement today from the Dispatch Box, but I ask him to at least reconsider this.”
“Ministers seem completely unable to understand why a family might choose to look at different options for their children’s education, rather than the bland uniformity they seek to impose—a fact that became obvious within the first few months of this Government entering office, when they said they would scrap the freedoms that academies have used to turn around failing schools and give children from some of the most deprived areas of the country the best chance of succeeding in life.”
“Instead of expanding parental choice and making opportunities such as the IB available to more families, they are narrowing the options available to parents and making parental choice a premium that only those who can afford it have access to. It is the same as what happened with the Latin excellence programme, which was discontinued by this Government in another one of their terrible decisions.”
“In taxing education, the Government punished parents who have worked hard and saved up to invest in their children. In one breath, the Government promise to spend the money on more teachers, but in another use the VAT on private schools to justify spending elsewhere. Furthermore, in announcing a lower level qualification aimed at white working class pupils, the Government have embraced the bigotry of low expectations. They have told some of our most deprived children that they have no chance at succeeding in school on the same terms as their peers. With every announcement this Government make, it becomes increasingly clear that their policy on education is simply to cut back, dumb down and deny opportunities to the most disadvantaged children in our country.”
“Does the Minister accept—this is purely a point of logic—that by taking this decision, those who can afford to will continue to do the IB, and for those who cannot, namely in our state sector, the cut has made the IB unviable? That is fact. Does the Minister acknowledge the result of the decision? The truth is that this policy decision, which reverses nearly half a century of academic excellence, is the latest in a series of failures by the Education Secretary and her Ministers. In cutting funding for level 7 apprenticeships, the Government deprived public sector employers, such as the NHS, of the means to train their workforce properly, and yet the Education Secretary has made it clear that she makes no apology for denying people the chance to reskill later in their careers.”
“No advance warning was given of this announcement and no debate had before the decision was made. The sad truth is that the decision, like many of the others the Government have made, will hurt the very pupils the Government claim they want to protect. White working-class boys in state schools will in effect be barred from studying the IB because of the Government’s reckless decision. Why should those boys not have access to the highly respected and globally competitive curriculum that their more affluent peers will still be able to access? Can the Minister provide specific evidence to show that the IB was failing white working-class students, or prove that other routes lead to categorically better outcomes?”
“State schools such as Europa in Oxfordshire, which has been mentioned, have called the decision a “kick in the teeth” that will lead to inevitable cutbacks in the curriculum that they can offer to aspiring students. We have to be clear what the decision will mean in practice for those pupils studying IB in state schools. It is not simply a decision to reduce the amount of funding available for state schools to offer the course; in effect, it abolishes the IB in state schools altogether. Dartford grammar school, as has been mentioned, is the largest provider of the IB in the country. It has already warned that it cannot afford to offer IB to its pupils without the funding, and countless other schools have issued similar warnings. I thank Members for mentioning their individual cases.”
“Perhaps the Minister does not believe in the IB? If so, he should say so. In which case, will he confirm what subjects are classed as priorities for economic growth? Moreover, given the IB requires students to study a variety of subjects including mathematics, the sciences and humanities, does he not consider those subjects to be priorities for economic growth? I ask the Government to listen to the concerns of distinguished educational experts, such as Richard Markham, the chief executive officer of the IB Schools and Colleges Association, who started a petition that has already garnered more than 4,000 signatures, calling for this decision to be reversed. Furthermore, the Government would do well to listen to the schools that will suffer as a result of the decision.”
“In cutting funding for IB in state schools, the Government have tried to claim that they are prioritising subjects that lead to good jobs and drive economic growth, but no one at the Department for Education seems to have done their homework, given that students with an IB diploma are more likely to be admitted to a top 20 UK university than A-level students, in matched samples, and have gone on to become world leaders in their chosen fields. Will the Minister confirm the rationale behind the funding cut and explain why the Government have taken this decision? Do they have any assessment of the number of state schools that will be forced to stop offering the IB? As I said, I have a lot of time for the Minister, but he has to know that no one buys this being a money-saving exercise; it must be an ideological one.”
“Given the IB’s first class reputation, surely the Minister recognises the value it provides. The decision is reckless and already having consequences. Tunbridge grammar school, which has been mentioned, is a high-performing state provider that previously delivered the IB to all sixth-formers. It has now announced that it will, regretfully, move to A-levels from next year, because of the funding cuts. That is a huge change, and it will not be the last school no longer to offer the IB. I know the Minister, and I believe him to be a good man. He must know the effect, and he should acknowledge the impact of the decision. As many Members have been at pains to point out, the IB is a globally recognised qualification that allows UK students to compete with their peers in other countries.”
“Members from across the House today. The IB provides opportunity through social mobility and has opened students’ minds via a well-balanced and globally respected curriculum. It is academically rigorous and broadens opportunity and aspiration. Like many, I share the disappointment in this policy decision and feel that it will impact the most disadvantaged students disproportionately. Will the Minister clarify whether there was any consultation in the light of the cut to the large programme uplift, and whether the Department has made any assessment of the number of state school pupils who will be forced to seek different routes post GCSE? In other words, which stakeholders did the DFE speak to? Funding for the IB comes at a cost of a mere £2.5 million: a drop in the ocean of the Department’s huge £100 billion annual budget.”
“According to Public First, that will make it unviable for state schools to deliver IB, effectively creating a two-tier education system for independent and state sector students, contrary to what the Minister said at the Dispatch Box last week. For a long time, pupils, parents, educators and employers have valued the highly respected IB qualification. It provides a broad and balanced curriculum, allowing students to study maths, science, humanities, art and, of course, a language. It offers more breadth than the A-level route and equips young people with the skills they need for life, through extended projects, theory of knowledge and community service. Additionally, as the co-founder of the World of Languages, Languages of the World programme told me, it helps to make language learning much more effective—a point made by a number of hon.”
“IB teaches nearly 2 million pupils in 6,000 schools in nearly 160 countries. It is, by its very nature, global and provides a knowledge-rich curriculum that is deep while at the same time broad. Yet rather than seeking to produce confident and well-rounded citizens who benefit from a schooling system where pupils, parents and educators have plenty of choice, the Government seek to impose a disastrously linear, one-size-fits-all approach on our education system. Without warning, the Government wrote to state schools and colleges on 1 October to notify them that the large programme uplift funding for the international baccalaureate programme will be axed from the 2026-27 academic year.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and to take part in this important debate on funding for the international baccalaureate in state schools. I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) for securing this debate and for his eloquent opening remarks. In fact, we have had a number of eloquent speakers, all the way from Truro to Dartford, as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), who made the case for his constituents who attend the Anglo European school. I have to put it on record, if there were any doubt, that His Majesty’s Opposition are beyond disappointed that funding for the international baccalaureate has been scrapped. It is nothing more than another example of this Government’s educational vandalism.”
“I have to challenge that point. I said that the Minister was a fair man—if I did not, I will say it now—but, if he is being fair, will he acknowledge that the Conservatives started the investment in childcare programme that the Government have continued?”
“The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) talked about millionaires getting a tax cut, but we are talking about young families getting on the ladder. Does my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor agree that while Labour Members engage in the politics of envy, we will always engage in the politics of hope?”
“On helping Ministers with amnesia, does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that there was a pandemic that required a huge amount of intervention, or is he claiming that he would not have supported so many people during that period?”
“They slightly miss out the context of what we are talking about: the economy is stalling, and the jobs tax means that unemployment has gone up. More hard-working people are now unemployed, and more young people are now out of work, as a result of this Labour Government. They can talk down this motion—as I am sure they will, because the Whips have told them to do so—but the reality is that we are putting something on the table that is credible and funded, that will un-gum the housing market, and that will contribute £1.2 billion-worth of economic growth. At a time when the Chancellor is scrambling to fill her own black hole, we are putting credible ideas on the table that the Government should take more seriously.”
“It is very interesting to follow the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin), because I mentioned him in an earlier intervention. He knows that I fundamentally disagree with him. Abolishing stamp duty would be a tax cut for everybody, irrespective of the value of their houses. Fundamentally, we know that the housing market is gummed up, and I have serious questions about whether the Labour Government will be able to meet their housing targets. I am not sure what the housing numbers are currently—maybe he will be able to enlighten me—but this is fundamentally a tax cut that would apply to everybody. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) said earlier, the speeches from Labour Members have been very interesting, but they are slightly siloed.”
“I was looking for a house for my new family, and houses were going quickly because people were trying to beat the cliff edge at the end of the stamp duty window. This proposal is not the same, because this gets rid of such a window, and it means that more and more people will be able to buy houses.”
“The Chief Secretary to Treasury said that they are “ironclad”, and I suspect they are until the next ones. We have a golden rule. In the spirit of rules, the Leader of the Opposition has created a golden rule, which is that for every £1 saved, half will go to cutting our national debt. Surely we can all get behind that. When the interest on our debt is something like £100 billion a year, surely we can get behind that. When the Chancellor is borrowing more month after month to meet everyday spending, as is obviously happening, we should get behind that rule. The last point I want to make is about the cliff-edge argument. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire mentioned, we had the window during covid. I was one of those on the receiving end of not being able to buy a house at that time.”
“] I am happy for the hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) to intervene if he wants. No? I was offering him an opportunity, because I was getting distracted by his chuntering. The reality is that most serious economists, such as Dan Neidle and those at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, have said that stamp duty is a bad tax. In fact, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), who I hear has been instrumental in writing the Budget, has talked about stamp duty being a “bad tax”. We all agree on that, so we have put a funded policy on the table that the Chancellor is going to need. Surely this is something that we should all take seriously, because the Government will need answers. I suspect we will come back to that. A lot has been made of the Chancellor’s fiscal rules.”
“These are all consequences that they backed by walking through the voting Lobbies. There is a Budget coming. Although Labour Back Benchers may be talking in silos, the Government are already briefing the papers about all the taxes that will rise. They talk about “serious Government”, but they are not talking seriously about the cuts that they will have to put on the table, because the Chancellor knows that the moment she does that, it will be her Back Benchers who stab her in the back. That is her fundamental conundrum, because she also has to placate the bond market, where we have highest bond yields. I see Labour Members shaking their heads, but that is the reality of what Back Benchers are dealing with. We are putting good proposals on the table that would mean that young families who want to get on the housing ladder— [ Interruption.”
“We know that the welfare bill is ballooning, and it started ballooning post covid. We intervened during the pandemic, which had to happen. We saved a £2 trillion economy, we saved businesses and we saved jobs. We did all those things—sometimes with the support of those on the Opposition Benches and sometimes without, I am sad to say—to save the economy. Of course, all of that comes with a cost. It is now right that we look forward to make sure that we are putting proposals on the table that help grow the economy and, by the way, help the Chancellor to get out of this mess. I want her to do better, because right now I have constituents who are struggling, who are anxious and who are worried. Her policies, backed by those on the Labour Back Benches, have contributed to higher inflation and a higher cost of living.”
“Let us face it: the Government are not going to meet their housing targets. It is already quite obvious that they are massively behind, and it will not be possible to meet their targets. They are killing off aspiration and confidence in the economy, and house builders will not want to meet the targets—unless, of course, they are met with huge subsidies. The question I have for those on the Government Benches is this: given the current economic situation, how much representation have they made to their Chancellor about introducing growth principles and cutting taxes so that people have more money in their pockets? The answer will be none, because that is not happening. The hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) said that he was not making an argument for not cutting welfare, but he did not put a figure on the table.”
“First of all, it would increase mobility in the housing market. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) stated in an incredibly eloquent speech, it would also mean that the construction industry and all the peripheral jobs would start to mobilise. It would create economic growth—I suspect that the figure of £1.2 billion is probably a bit of an underestimate, and that abolishing stamp duty would actually create more growth. We are talking about creating jobs, making people wealthier and being aspirational for the aspirational, whereas Labour Members are talking down a credible policy that would put money on the table for some of our poorest people. Ultimately, abolishing stamp duty would mean that more and more people are able to get on to the housing ladder.”
“My right hon. Friend makes a good point, and I am sure the Liberal Democrat spokesperson will address it, but that speaks to the economic incoherence of what they have presented. Fundamentally, we believe in property rights. We believe in the ownership of property and the rights that derive from it, which are among the freedoms—the fundamental freedoms—in this country. It was a moment of great pride when I got the keys to my first house, and I am sure it is the same for others. Cutting stamp duty is the right thing to do, and if we win the next election, that is exactly what we will do.”
“The hon. Member uses the word reckless. Has he heard the news that the OBR has said the Chancellor will have to find another £7 billion to £9 billion due to the fall in productivity? Therefore her black hole has just got bigger.”
“The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which has been heavily criticised by Opposition Members, contains a duty on local authorities to maintain registers of children who are not in school, as well as a duty on parents to provide certain information on those registered. Will the Minister update the House on the Bill’s progress and on when we can expect to see the consultation on the register? We cannot allow a culture of school absence to become acceptable, and Members across the Chamber, as well as people outside Parliament, have spoken about a number of ideas for dealing with the problem of persistent absence from school. Wider debate on this issue is obviously necessary. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.”
“What consideration has the Minister given to reviving some of those policies to help bring down absence? Labour said that persistent absence is the first barrier it will seek to break, so can the Minister update us on the progress on that and how it is being measured? The previous Government also made schools share attendance data to help to combat low attendance, including a national framework for parental fines. Statutory guidance from the Department for Education ensured that improving education was everybody’s business, breaking down barriers to accessing education.”
“There were 380,000 fewer pupils who were persistently absent or not attending school in ’22-23 than there were in ’21-22. We were committed to working closely with schools and local authorities to drive up attendance rates, and we had a six-point plan to deal with some of the problems. That included requiring schools to have an attendance policy, appointing attendance champions and expecting local authorities to hold termly meetings with schools to agree individual plans for at-risk children. In addition, we attempted to tighten legislation, through the Schools Bill, to put pressure on local authorities to improve school attendance, requiring all schools to have attendance policies and extending the Secretary of State’s powers to intervene.”
“The previous Government recognised that improving attendance is essential for a variety of reasons, and that, for this to happen, we must ensure that school is somewhere every child wants to be, so they can feel safe and ready to learn in an orderly, calm and supportive environment. The previous Government instigated a major national drive to improve school attendance through attendance hubs. Thanks to the Conservatives, there were 18 new attendance hubs across six regions, bringing the total to 32 and helping nearly 2,000 schools to tackle persistent absence. That included investment of up to £15 million over three years—providing direct, intensive support to more than 10,000 persistent and severely absent pupils and their families.”
“Although some fines for unauthorised absences may seem harsh, it is even harsher to deny families the truth about the effects of taking children out of school and setting their children up for failure later in life. Does the Minister have any evidence on whether fines work to improve absence rates? Getting a grip on the problem of school attendance and returning rates to pre-pandemic levels require a concerted effort across the Government, schools and wider society, and I am proud of the work that the previous Government did to help achieve that important ambition.”
“Wanting to work from home with the children or go on holiday may appear to be far less serious reasons for absence from school than social issues, but any day missed has the same effect on children: to deny them the education that leads to success later in life. There will, of course, always be instances where allowances need to be made for children to be absent from school, particularly when bereavement is involved. I have had to deal with that as a constituency Member of Parliament, but headteachers already have discretion to grant leave in exceptional circumstances such as those. Both schools and the Government must always be clear that some issues cannot be deemed as an acceptable circumstance, and the headteacher should have the discretion to decide that.”
“That is why it must always be a problem when children are not in school when they need to be, no matter how innocent a few days off may seem. It is important that we make clear that persistent absence is not acceptable. We cannot create a world where absence is deemed as the norm, because that will likely lead to young people seeing it as acceptable in the workplace. Not only will it harm a young person’s job prospects; it will lead to lower productivity, which harms our economy. Does the Minister therefore have any data that highlights the link between persistent absence and the nearly 1 million young people who are not in employment or education?”
“Those trends show just how damaging even marginally lower rates of school attendance can be for pupils. It should serve as a stark warning to those who would dismiss being absent from school for a few days as no major problem. It is not just grades that suffer as a result, either; children who start to fall behind in school find it difficult to make up for that lost time and catch up with what other pupils have already learned, only worsening a problem that starts with just a few days of being out of school. With that in mind, can the Minister provide an update on what the Government are doing to reverse the trend of school absences? Attending school irregularly can lead to lower earnings later in life, a higher chance of unemployment and, in the most extreme circumstances, persistent offending in adulthood.”
“The impression that time spent in the classroom does not equip students for their future stands in clear contrast to the wealth of evidence that shows that children who are absent from school experience worse outcomes later in life. As the Department for Education’s research on the link between attendance and attainment has shown, pupils who missed only 10 days of school in year 6, which the petition wants to allow, were 25% less likely to meet the expected standard in reading, writing and maths, compared with those who attended school nearly every day. At GCSE level, that trend is even more dramatic, with pupils who missed only 10 days of school in year 11 being 50% less likely to achieve a grade 5 in Maths and English than those who attended school nearly every day.”
“In England, the overall absence rate fell to an estimated 6.9% in 2024-25, down from 7.1% in 2023-24, although still above the pre-covid rate of 4.7%. Data for persistent absence also shows a downward trend, but remains high at 18.7% in 2024-25, compared with 21.2% in 2022-23. Any child who is persistently absent from school is one child too many, losing out on vital hours in the classroom that they cannot get back. It is in that context that we must address the petition, which seeks to allow parents to take their children out of school. Even more worrying than just those headline statistics is the fact that an increasing number of people now seem to believe that it does not matter if a child is absent from school. That is not all parents, but certainly some.”
“I firmly believe that part of that is about ensuring that headteachers create an environment where all children are keen to get into a classroom to learn. We can, however, be in no doubt that our education system is facing a major challenge in school attendance. Although it is welcome news that the overall absence rate has fallen slightly for the most recent academic year for which there is data, absence rates remain uncomfortably high compared with pre-pandemic levels. All of us in the House have an obligation to help reverse that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley rightly pointed out, we have only to look at the catastrophic effects of school closures during the covid-19 pandemic to see the consequences of persistent absenteeism. The current picture of absenteeism in schools is certainly challenging.”
“I hope that companies such as Jet2 and Center Parcs are listening to this debate and thinking about how they can be more family friendly. School is vital for every child. It equips young people with the knowledge they need to go into the world of work, whatever it may be, and contribute to society. It also plays a pivotal role in teaching young people to socialise, form relationships, take personal responsibility for their actions and behave appropriately. Put simply, school is not just about getting good grades; it is there to prepare us for life. Every single school day missed is a lesson not learned, whether that is an academic lesson or a lesson about life itself. Across the House, we want our constituents to be able to send their children to the very best schools.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell, and to take part in this debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for his opening remarks on this important topic. He spoke eloquently on behalf of the 181,000 signatories of this petition, including the 208 in Meriden and Solihull East. He rightly pointed out that holidays are valuable: they provide not just rest and relaxation but the opportunity to experience new cultures and expand one’s horizons. A number of Members made similar remarks, so holidays are clearly important. Although I do not advocate price controls—I believe in the value of the market—I thought that the remarks of the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) about the family friendly charter were interesting.”