Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme
The year I spent as part of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme was extremely worthwhile. It gave me a fascinating insight into the lives led by our brave armed forces personnel and the challenges they face.
The scheme took me to north Norway with th Marines artic training, to the Russian border in Estonia, to Cyprus and to Gibralter! I actually met a fair few Ipswich residents along the way who are serving our country overseas.
This is an incredibly good scheme which is incredibly helpful for MPs such as myself who don’t come from a military background. Certainly when we have Defence Questions and Statements I will far more able to make contributions now and next week I will be launching a new Parliamentary Group to help more neurodiverse people to enter the armed forces.
I was pleased to be able to attend a “graduation dinner” a few weeks ago to commemorate my completion of the scheme.
Car parking charges in Ipswich are too high
Car parking charges at car parks managed by the Labour led Ipswich Borough Council are too high. I’m not surprised that the responses to my Town centre survey show that over 75% agree with this view. Only approximately 10% disagree.
When it comes to getting people into our Town centre there’re perhaps bigger factors. Such as fear of crime and anti-social behaviour. However I do think more effort should be done by the Labour led Council to ensure that car park charges are set competitively and in a way that allows us to better attract people to our Town centre and to take away disincentives. There’re plenty of examples across the region of different councils taking this approach and giving the Town centre or City centre they’re responsible for a much-needed boost.
There’re different approaches that could be taken. An across the board cut in the per hour rate or other approaches such as having the first hour free.
I appreciate that Council budgets are under strain but I don’t think that council finances should be propped up by a reliance on overly high car parking charges. This is a very counter productive and self defeating approach.
I have written to the leadership of the Borough Council making clear my views and sharing the responses to my Town centre survey on this important question. I wrote about it this week in my weekly column.
ORWELL BRIDGE UPDATE
Important meeting this morning with National Highways to discuss the recent chaos caused by the closure of the Orwell Bridge. I need to understand more about how this was all allowed to unfold in the way that it did and also to understand more about what steps are being taken to ensure this never happens again.
I was told that this was the first time there has ever been a partial closure of the bridge linked to inspection/maintenance. All other closures historically have been to do with weather and car accidents. I was also told this is the first time the specialist vehicle (platform crane vehicle) carrying out the inspection had suffered a “catastrophic failure”. There are only four of these vehicles in the country.
I understand that breakdowns happen from time to time but the most concerning thing has been the lack of resilience that led to the eastward bound section of the bridge being closed for well over 12 hours. The contractor National Highways use for these vehicles is called “WEMO-tech”. It’s clear to me that there response to the breakdown of the vechicle was unacceptable.
The failure happens at approx 12am (midnight) on 1 December. However it wasn’t until 9am that there was an engineer on the scene. We then had to wait until 6pm for an engineer for adequate specialist knowledge to arrive at the scene. He was then able to fix the issue and at 7 30pm the bridge was fully open. All in all therefore the eastward section of the bridge was closed for 17 and a half hours. Clearly totally unacceptable. However unusual it was for there to be a total breakdown of the vehicle in question and however specialist it was, this response time is beyond a joke.
I also asked why one lane was allowed to be open. They said it would have been safe for regular vehicles but not lorries. National Highways made a decision in conjunction with Suffolk Police that it wouldn’t be possible to separate lorries from regular vehicles. National Highways have said to me that they’re confident there will never be another partial closure of the bridge linked to maintenance again. From now on they’ve said WEMO-tech will have to ensure specialist engineers are actually on site when the inspections on the bridge take place. Meaning the response time if there are any issues will be vastly improved.
Myself and Suffolk Coastal MP Therese Coffey also raised concerns about the diversion route used when there’re closures. I expressed my view that vehicles shouldn’t be diverted down Heath Road and Bixley Road.
A useful meeting. Pleased I know more about what happened on the day but it doesn’t provide a defence for what happened. I still feel a lot of the huge disruption caused could have been minimised far more than it was. However some signs lessons have been learnt and there will be more resilience in future.
Quote from Tom Hunt MP:
“It was a worthwhile meeting. I certainly feel like I know a lot more now about what happened that day and reasons why things unfolded in the way they did.
“I understand that accidents and breakdowns happen from time to time but that doesn’t mean the response to what happened was in anyway acceptable. Overall there was a time lag of over 17 hours between the specialist vehicle breaking down and the issue being resolved. I find it totally unacceptable that it took so long for an engineer with specialist knowledge to be on the scene.
“I was told by National Highways that this is the first time there has ever been a partial closure of the bridge caused by an inspection/maintenance issue. They also told me that from now on there will be a specialist engineer on-site whenever an inspection of the bridge is taking place to avoid a repeat of the chaos that happened on 1 December.
“Ultimately what happened causes great disruption to thousands of my constituents and so many businesses. There wasn’t enough resilience and it’s clear to me that certain steps could have been taken to minimise the disruption that was caused.
“However. I was pleased to hear that there is a clear plan from National Highways to ensure there is no repeat.”
STATEMENT ON RWANDA BILL
No one wants to stop the boats more than I do. You’d struggle to find many MPs who have raised it in Parliament as much as I have.
However, I’m also keen to ensure that we have a Bill that works. The reality is I’ve voted for two previous Bills that have not had the impact I would have liked. Yes, small boat crossings are down by a third and the Novotel has now been cleared but we’re still seeing approximately 30,000 people illegally enter our country every year and by and large stay here. This is placing significant pressure on public services, costing a fortune and raising significant issues around community cohesion. It needs to be stopped and I want to see incredibly robust action from the Government to do so.
In principle I agreed with the Bill but had and continue to have concerns about some of its shortcomings. This is why I took the action along with a number of other colleagues of abstaining during the second reading vote. We need a Bill that truly places the sovereignty of our elected Parliament at its heart and ensures that our Parliament reigns supreme. The wishes of our elected Parliament should not be stymied by foreign courts and international law and I’m concerned that as it stands, the Bill (without amendment) is vulnerable to legal challenge. This Bill represents a significant step forward but we’re not quite where we need to do be in ensuring this Bill is fully watertight.
I met with the Prime Minister earlier this week and got assurances that the Bill will be toughened up and that he will meet with myself and colleagues to ensure that the Bill is as robust as it needs to be and doesn’t have any chinks in its armoury. I took the Prime Minister’s assurances in good faith which is why I didn’t vote against the Rwanda Bill at second reading. It’s precisely because I want the Rwanda scheme to work that I have taken the stance I’ve taken. Without a significant deterrent I fail to see how we can break the back of the people smuggling gangs and end the small boat crossings scandal.
I very much hope that early next year I will feel able to fully support the Bill during its third reading. However, I will not lie to my constituents and say this is a great Bill that will achieve all of its aims when I continue to harbour the concerns that I have. It’s never easy to rebel but ultimately, it’s my responsibility to stand up for my constituents and I know how much of an issue this is for the majority of them and I’m determined we get it right.
Net Migration
I didn’t mix my words earlier. The latest ONS figures for net legal migration have been shocking. A big and growing chasm is opening up between where the majority of the public are at when it comes to migration and the current reality. It’s become an affront to our democracy and we now require robust and urgent action.
Update on Ipswich Hospital
Northgate School Statement
I have been left concerned by some of the material that is being promoted in our schools over the past few months. I believe strongly that all teaching relating to sex education and gender identity should be age appropriate. It should also have parental consent and not promote controversial, contested, and often radical gender theories as fact.
A number of parents have raised concerns with me over the past year or so but often lacking any real evidence making it hard for me to pursue. The Government is currently in the process of developing clear statutory guidance for schools on these issues. It is critical that this is published as soon as possible to make it abundantly clear to schools what is acceptable and what is not acceptable.
A few weeks ago, it was brought to my attention on social media that an example of radical gender theory called the “Genderbread person” was being promoted at Northgate High School. A document promoting this concept with the School’s logo and contact details at the bottom was shared on social media. The social media account that shared this document and a related video promoting the school’s “LGBTQ+ LANGUAGE TOOLKIT” had a big following, so unsurprisingly a number of media outlets picked up on the issue including the Daily Express. I expressed my concern on social media about what I saw.
I then received an email from the Headteacher at the school expressing frustration that I commented upon the issue without knowing “the full picture” and meeting with her to discuss my concerns. Very shortly after this, the Headteacher emailed parents implying that I had refused to meet with her and that I didn’t have “the full picture”. It also mentioned that the Daily Express were aware of the issue.
In a separate statement to the media, she claimed that the “Genderbread person” concept was only ever communicated to teachers. According to the BBC, “The school said the resource has only ever formed part of a staff tool kit on language, which has not been used since October 2022 and has never been used as a teaching resource.” Both the BBC and the Ipswich Star published this statement without question and didn’t come to me for a response.
My initial thoughts in response to this statement from the Headteacher was confusion. What would be the point in communicating all of these controversial theories to the teachers if the expectation wasn’t for the teaching staff to then communicate these ideas to the pupils?
However, there was then a very significant development. I was contacted by a parent of two children at the school. That day his daughter had gone on the school intranet and gained access to all of the material under discussion. Far from being taken down, discontinued or only being accessible to teaching staff, the “Genderbread person” and other associated material was fully accessible and available to pupils. I was sent a video of the pupil in question logging on and accessing the material on the intranet.
In many respects, this makes me even more concerned than if it was being used and promoted in the classroom. At least then a responsible adult would be present to hopefully provide some balance. As it is, a radical gender theory is there on the intranet, accessible to pupils, and from what I can see, promoted as fact, not even just a contested theory.
I’m concerned that there is such a discrepancy between what the Headteacher claims and the apparent reality of the situation. I understand that the Daily Express emailed the Headteacher about this discrepancy but didn’t receive a response. I look forward to getting a full explanation when I meet with her over the coming weeks. How can she credibly claim that the “Genderbread person” was never used as a “teaching resource” when all pupils appear to be able to get easy access to it?
Interestingly the Labour candidate for Ipswich decided to wade into the debate criticising me for raising concerns about controversial gender ideology being promoted in the school before knowing the full facts and gaining “the full picture”. Largely on the back of the inaccurate and unbalanced story in the Ipswich Star I imagine. If ever there was a case to keep your powder dry this was it.
I do not believe that controversial debates around gender identity should be promoted in primary schools at all and I don’t think that controversial concepts like the “Genderbread person” have any place in schools whatsoever. If a pupil is struggling with their own gender identity, then of course I want them to be supported. However, I think there are potentially dangerous and damaging consequences for our young people when radical and controversial gender theories such as the “Genderbread person” are promoted in schools. I also think it’s right that parents have full oversight of what their children are being taught in schools when it comes to these sorts of issues, many seem to be totally in the dark. Something I can’t understand from this experience, is that I clearly haven’t been able to secure a proper response from the school in question, about what is actually promoted to children within the school.
The “Genderbread person” model in question states: “Gender is one of those things everyone thinks they understand but most people don’t. Gender isn’t binary. It’s not either/ or. In many cases it’s both/ and. A bit of this, a dash of that.” This essentially states that gender identity is something purely in your head and that biology has no role to play at all. It also states that gender isn’t “binary”, meaning that you can be a mixture. These are pretty out there ideas that I personally disagree with. However, the idea that they aren’t just promoted, but promoted as fact with no counter balance I find deeply disturbing.
The concept also promotes regressive gender stereotypes which I also think have no place in our schools. For example, under “Gender identity” it has a “Woman-ness” category and a “Man-ness” category and with each associated “roles”, “jobs” and “hobbies”. I thought we were trying to break down the view that there are roles and jobs for men and roles and jobs for women? The bizarre way in which this concept is promoted leaves me thinking that you’d be told you are 5% male for liking football but 10% women for wanting to be a nurse? I’d be fascinated for the creator of the “Genderbread person” to outline to me what roles and hobbies are associated with “man-ness” and “woman-ness”.
My concern is that this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to some of the theories being promoted in our schools, which is why last week I wrote to the Education Secretary and the Equalities Minister requesting that the statutory guidance for schools be urgently published to ensure this sort of stuff is nipped in the bud.
I’m sorry it has come to this. On the whole, Northgate is a good school, and it saddens me that it has attracted national media attention for the wrong reasons. I want stability for the school and the pupils at it, but I will always act if I believe potentially harmful content is being promoted to young people in Ipswich that is not age appropriate. In this case, I felt like I had no alternative but to speak out.
I will be meeting the Headteacher soon to discuss my concerns and a way forward. I am also making myself available to meet with all parents that have concerns.
Meeting with Associated British Ports
Local Skills Champions’ Reception
On Tuesday evening I brought Matthew Applegate, founder of Creative Computing Club, to Number 10 as my guest for the Local Skills Champions’ Reception hosted by the Rt Hon Gillian Keegan MP, Secretary of State for Education. I chose Matthew as my Local Skills Champion as Creative Computing Club do great work in helping young people in Ipswich and across Suffolk engage in technology-based activities, having a positive impact on their educational and social opportunities.
Matthew supports many children who are neurodiverse through his Club. He helps them gain confidence and qualifications in areas that interest them, giving them the skills they need to enter high paid tech-based jobs. Those who are neurodiverse often think in unconventional ways, this is an advantage when it comes to tech. Matthew teaches them how to utilise their strength and the organisation has and continues to have excellent outcomes.
I have linked up many young people in Ipswich to Matthew and the Club. Many of their lives have been turned around and they have developed and strengthened their social skills, which they previously struggled with.
I would like to thank Matthew for taking the time to come to London. The work Creative Computing Club do is outstanding, and it is clear how committed they are to ensuring young people succeed in their chosen path. I know Matthew will continue the work he is so passionate about, helping children in Suffolk thrive.