Education Secretary Gillian Keegan has apologised for her “choice language” after she was caught complaining about not being thanked for doing a “f***ing good job” over the unsafe concrete crisis.
After an interview with ITV News in Westminster, the cabinet minister criticised others for being “sat on their arses” and claimed the government had gone “over and above” in addressing concerns relating to reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC).
While her mic was still on she said: “Does anyone ever say ‘You know you’ve done a f***ing good job because everyone else has sat on their arses and done nothing.
A Number 10 source said her comments were “wrong” but the prime minister “has full confidence in his education secretary”.
Ms Keegan later apologised and admitted she was “frustrated with the interviewer” who was “making out it was all my fault”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:10
Gillian Keegan: ‘I’d like to apologise for my choice language’
More than a hundred schools in England were told they could not fully open just days before the start of the autumn term because of safety fears over the use of RAAC.
Pupils face being taught in temporary classrooms, on different sites or even forced into pandemic-style remote lessons.
Advertisement
Critics have accused the Tories of a “shambolic” handling of the situation, saying issues with the collapse-risk material have been known about for years.
Asked repeatedly who she meant had been “sat on their arses”, Ms Keegan insisted it was “nobody in particular”.
She said: “It was an off-the-cuff remark, after the news interview had finished. I’d like to apologise for my choice language, that was unnecessary.”
Pressed on who she was frustrated with, Ms Keegan said: “Actually, it was the interviewer, because the interviewer was making out it was all my fault and that’s what I was saying, do you ever go into these interviews where anyone ever says anything but you’ve just done a terrible job?”
She said it is “frustrating” because she and her team have been working hard to deal with the issue of unsafe concrete, and she hasn’t slept due to “worrying about this”.
‘Staggering arrogance’
But Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer said it was a “farce” to see a Tory minister “blame anyone but themselves”.
Asked if she should remain in her post, he said that was a decision for the prime minister to make.
He added: “Rishi Sunak needs to act, but will he have the strength to act? I doubt it.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:27
Starmer: Keegan comments a ‘farce’
Meanwhile Stephen Morgan MP, Labour’s shadow schools minister, said Ms Keegan’s comments were a “staggering admission that Rishi Sunak and the Conservatives have done nothing to address a problem that they have known about for years”.
“The education secretary has displayed staggering arrogance for saying she deserves a pat on the back for the chaos that is gripping our schools on their watch,” he said.
Experts have long-warned the material has now reached the end of its shelf life and is liable to collapse.
Earlier Jonathan Slater, who was secretary at the Department for Education (DfE) from May 2016 to August 2020, claimed the Treasury had failed to fully fund school rebuilding schemes – including during Mr Sunak’s time at the helm.
He said up to 400 schools a year need to be replaced, but the DfE only got funding for 100, despite the government knowing there was a “critical risk to life”.
Mr Sunak dismissed that criticism as “completely and utterly wrong”.
But Labour insisted he “bears huge culpability for his role in this debacle” – saying funding for rebuilding schools has been slashed over the years.
Analysis published by the party found that spending on school rebuilding between 2019 and 2020 was at £765m, but this fell to £560m the following year.
Sir Keir Starmer has said he will defend the decisions made in the budget “all day long” amid anger from farmers over inheritance tax changes.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced last month in her key speech that from April 2026, farms worth more than £1m will face an inheritance tax rate of 20%, rather than the standard 40% applied to other land and property.
The announcement has sparked anger among farmers who argue this will mean higher food prices, lower food production and having to sell off land to pay for the tax.
Sir Keir defended the budget as he gave his first speech as prime minister at the Welsh Labour conference in Llandudno, North Wales, where farmers have been holding a tractor protest outside.
Sir Keir admitted: “We’ve taken some extremely tough decisions on tax.”
He said: “I will defend facing up to the harsh light of fiscal reality. I will defend the tough decisions that were necessary to stabilise our economy.
“And I will defend protecting the payslips of working people, fixing the foundations of our economy, and investing in the future of Britain and the future of Wales. Finally, turning the page on austerity once and for all.”
He also said the budget allocation for Wales was a “record figure” – some £21bn for next year – an extra £1.7bn through the Barnett Formula, as he hailed a “path of change” with Labour governments in Wales and Westminster.
And he confirmed a £160m investment zone in Wrexham and Flintshire will be going live in 2025.
Advertisement
‘PM should have addressed the protesters’
Among the hundreds of farmers demonstrating was Gareth Wyn Jones, who told Sky News it was “disrespectful” that the prime minister did not mention farmers in his speech.
He said “so many people have come here to air their frustrations. He (Starmer) had an opportunity to address the crowd. Even if he was booed he should have been man enough to come out and talk to the people”.
He said farmers planned to deliver Sir Keir a letter which begins with “‘don’t bite the hand that feeds you”.
Mr Wyn Jones told Sky News the government was “destroying” an industry that was already struggling.
“They’re destroying an industry that’s already on its knees and struggling, absolutely struggling, mentally, emotionally and physically. We need government support not more hindrance so we can produce food to feed the nation.”
He said inheritance tax changes will result in farmers increasing the price of food: “The poorer people in society aren’t going to be able to afford good, healthy, nutritious British food, so we have to push this to government for them to understand that enough is enough, the farmers can’t take any more of what they’re throwing at us.”
Mr Wyn Jones disputed the government’s estimation that only 500 farming estates in the UK will be affected by the inheritance tax changes.
“Look, a lot of farmers in this country are in their 70s and 80s, they haven’t handed their farms down because that’s the way it’s always been, they’ve always known there was never going to be inheritance tax.”
On Friday, Sir Keir addressed farmers’ concerns, saying: “I know some farmers are anxious about the inheritance tax rules that we brought in two weeks ago.
“What I would say about that is, once you add the £1m for the farmland to the £1m that is exempt for your spouse, for most couples with a farm wanting to hand on to their children, it’s £3m before anybody pays a penny in inheritance tax.”
Ministers said the move will not affect small farms and is aimed at targeting wealthy landowners who buy up farmland to avoid paying inheritance tax.
But analysis this week said a typical family farm would have to put 159% of annual profits into paying the new inheritance tax every year for a decade and could have to sell 20% of their land.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
The Country and Land Business Association (CLA), which represents owners of rural land, property and businesses in England and Wales, found a typical 200-acre farm owned by one person with an expected profit of £27,300 would face a £435,000 inheritance tax bill.
The plan says families can spread the inheritance tax payments over 10 years, but the CLA found this would require an average farm to allocate 159% of its profits each year for a decade.
To pay that, successors could be forced to sell 20% of their land, the analysis found.